'Telling the truth' doesn't always always mean don't lie

[Hoping]

Now these are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt; each man and his household came with Jacob:Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah;Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin;Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (for Joseph was in Egypt already ).And Joseph died, all his brothers, and all that generation.But the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them.Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we;come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.”Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses.But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel.So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor.And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage— in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah;and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.”But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive.So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty.And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.So Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive.” - Exodus 1:1-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus1:1-22&version=NKJV

The Hebrew midwives lied to pharaoh to protect the lives of the innocent children, and God rewarded them for that.

Please remember, that happened before there was a Law against it.
A Law now written on our hearts. (Rom 2:15)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Please remember, that happened before there was a Law against it.
A Law now written n our hearts.

You think that just because the law isn't written down that it doesn't exist?

 

[Hoping]

You think that just because the law isn't written down that it doesn't exist?

It didn't exist when the mid-wives told their lies.
It is written..."Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15)
And..."(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13)
And..."Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)

 

[glorydaz]

The commandments of God just don't matter to MADs.

You can't stand it that we have liberty.

We can jay walk to help someone in need.
It's truly amazing.

And you don't seem to have a clue about the indwelling Spirit....as if He was just a decoration of no avail to the grace believer.

 

[glorydaz]

A Law now written on our hearts. (Rom 2:15)

NOW? That is speaking of our conscience. All men were created with one.

 

[marke]

Telling the truth doesn’t necessarily always equal telling the accurate. When Samson rightly lied to Delilah he was telling the truth, but when he told Delilah the accurate, there he erred, and grievously. He should have continued to lie. But when you hear 'lie,' you hear, 'not telling the accurate,' but 'not telling the accurate' isn’t always the same as 'not telling the truth.' Sometimes the truth is kept hidden, but we still tell the truth. We lie through our teeth when someone asks us an inappropriate and invasive question (like 'What is the secret of your strength?'). We’re not, 'not telling the truth,' we’re just 'not telling the accurate.'

What’s the proverb about keeping a thing hidden?

Sometimes, “ It is the glory of God to conceal a thing” Proverbs 25:2. Sometimes, “ A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.” Proverbs 11:3.

To tell the truth is not always to tell the accurate. Don’t be fooled into this false ethics. It’s not biblical ethics and morals. The Bible teaches us to tell the accurate only when it is not the glory of God to do otherwise. It tells us that a talebearer (in other words, a liar) ‘revealeth’ secrets; that is, sometimes, liars tell the accurate. And it is he or she or neither he nor she that is of a faithful spirit, who sometimes ‘concealeth’ the matter.

I agree with the commonly accepted definition of lying, even if there might be corolarries.

lying​

adjective


ly·ing | \ ˈlī-iŋ \

Definition of lying​

(Entry 1 of 2)
: marked by or containing untrue statements : FALSEa lying account of the accident

 

[JudgeRightly]

It didn't exist when the mid-wives told their lies.

Law existed prior to God giving Moses the two slabs of stone.

Even Cain knew that what he did was wrong, despite there being no written law against murder. And in fact, God even prohibited the enforcement of law temporarily, between Cain and Noah, to show how wicked man can be without it.

It is written..."Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15)
And..."(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13)
And..."Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)

Cherry picking verses isn't going to help you here, Hoping, because I agree with all of those.

Moral laws are absolute. Meaning that violating them is ALWAYS wrong, at all times, at all places, for all reasons.

Yet it wasn't wrong for the midwives to lie to pharaoh. There is no law saying "thou shall not lie." There's a law that says "do not bear false witness." Lying to pharaoh was to protect life.

 

[Hoping]

You can't stand it that we have liberty.

Do you commit sin?

We can jay walk to help someone in need.
It's truly amazing.

I don't believe God will never force us to commit sin in order to help someone.

And you don't seem to have a clue about the indwelling Spirit....as if He was just a decoration of no avail to the grace believer.

I know the Spirit will not reside in a polluted "temple".

 

[Hoping]

NOW? That is speaking of our conscience. All men were created with one.

Yes indeed, but until the Law of Moses, there was no punishment for, or atonement for, lies.

 

[Idolater]

... There is no law saying "thou shall not lie." There's a law that says "do not bear false witness."

That's right. Correctamundo. And if we discern the principle of this commandment, we see that it's about severity or gravity of the harm done.

To commit perjury against an innocent man in a capital trial, as an example, is severe harm, and this is literally what the commandment forbids.

Lying to pharaoh was to protect life.

Harm done? Literally harm is avoided with such a lie.

And yet, as the OP indicates, we cannot equate such a lie with 'not telling the truth', because God IS truth, and the Israelite midwives certainly 'told the truth' in protecting innocent life with their lie.

 

[Hoping]

Law existed prior to God giving Moses the two slabs of stone.

Not God's Law.

Even Cain knew that what he did was wrong, despite there being no written law against murder. And in fact, God even prohibited the enforcement of law temporarily, between Cain and Noah, to show how wicked man can be without it.
Cherry picking verses isn't going to help you here, Hoping, because I agree with all of those.

God's word means more to me than your opinion does.
It is written..."Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom 4:15)
And..."(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom 5:13)
And..."Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)
No Law...no transgression.
No Law...no imputation of sin.
No Law...no knowledge of sin.

Moral laws are absolute. Meaning that violating them is ALWAYS wrong, at all times, at all places, for all reasons.
Yet it wasn't wrong for the midwives to lie to pharaoh. There is no law saying "thou shall not lie." There's a law that says "do not bear false witness." Lying to pharaoh was to protect life.

Wasn't it a "moral law" to turn in the Jews in Germany during WW2?
The leaders of nations set the "moral law" of their land.
Isn't it a "moral law" in the USA that you can kill the unborn, buy porn, and pick up some marijuana on the way home to your same sex housemate?
Morals change with the dictates of, here anyway, a constitution.
Who knows what Rahab thought, but God used it for the good of His children.

 

[7djengo7]

Fred from work tells Larry, "Hey, are you going to be home this evening? I wanted to drop by and show you the pictures I took on my recent vacation in Alaska!" That's about the last thing Larry wants to spend his evening doing, but, for whatever reason, he is averse to just being prompt and sincere so as to say, "Sorry, Fred. I'm not interested. Thanks anyway." He feels awkward about going that route, and desires to avoid any friction he imagines could arise were he to speak so frankly. And so, instead, he says, "Sorry, Fred, but I am not going to be at home this evening," though he has no intention of being anywhere but at home this evening. Fred says to Larry, "OK buddy. That's all right. Maybe sometime next week." I take it that most anyone would be willing to say that Larry has spoken to Fred dishonestly, here.

Evening comes, and Larry sits down to eat pizza and watch a movie in solitude. Ten minutes into the relaxing day's end he had intended on enjoying, the phone rings, and he is called away from pizza, movie, and home on some emergency favor request which keeps him out all evening, till one o' clock in the morning. Larry, in his act of speaking dishonestly to Fred, earlier in the day, actually spoke truth to Fred; the truth being that, as he had earlier said, he was not going to be home this evening.

Commonly, by the noun, 'lie,' people perhaps more often than not are referring to a proposition they consider to be false. But, if to speak dishonestly is one and the same with lying, and if one can speak dishonestly while yet therein speaking truth, it seems problematic to use the noun, 'lie,' in that way (at least, to use it exclusively so). For, the one who is lying is a liar, and usually people will call that which the liar says when he is lying, a "lie," and so, if that which the liar says when he is lying happens to be truth, then, were people consistent, it seems they would call that truth that the liar is saying, a "lie," just as they call the falsehood that another liar says, a "lie".

So, I have a bit of difficulty with thinking it proper to use the noun, 'lie,' to refer to that which the liar speaks. Rather, it seems more reasonable to me to think its proper referent to be the act of lying: a lie is an act of lying.

But, the question has puzzled me from time to time: what exactly is lying? Especially if one can be lying in speaking truth, and speaking a false proposition is not essential to lying. I've in the past entertained the idea that to lie is for one to utter something he, himself, does not believe, hoping to entice his mark(s)—those to whom he is lying—to believe what he/she has uttered. But I've scrapped that idea, and unless it's asked for, I'll spare the reader an excursus into the thinking that led me to scrap it.

 

[Hoping]

Fred from work tells Larry, "Hey, are you going to be home this evening? I wanted to drop by and show you the pictures I took on my recent vacation in Alaska!" That's about the last thing Larry wants to spend his evening doing, but, for whatever reason, he is averse to just being prompt and sincere so as to say, "Sorry, Fred. I'm not interested. Thanks anyway." He feels awkward about going that route, and desires to avoid any friction he imagines could arise were he to speak so frankly. And so, instead, he says, "Sorry, Fred, but I am not going to be at home this evening," though he has no intention of being anywhere but at home this evening. Fred says to Larry, "OK buddy. That's all right. Maybe sometime next week." I take it that most anyone would be willing to say that Larry has spoken to Fred dishonestly, here.

Evening comes, and Larry sits down to eat pizza and watch a movie in solitude. Ten minutes into the relaxing day's end he had intended on enjoying, the phone rings, and he is called away from pizza, movie, and home on some emergency favor request which keeps him out all evening, till one o' clock in the morning. Larry, in his act of speaking dishonestly to Fred, earlier in the day, actually spoke truth to Fred; the truth being that, as he had earlier said, he was not going to be home this evening.

Commonly, by the noun, 'lie,' people perhaps more often than not are referring to a proposition they consider to be false. But, if to speak dishonestly is one and the same with lying, and if one can speak dishonestly while yet therein speaking truth, it seems problematic to use the noun, 'lie,' in that way (at least, to use it exclusively so). For, the one who is lying is a liar, and usually people will call that which the liar says when he is lying, a "lie," and so, if that which the liar says when he is lying happens to be truth, then, were people consistent, it seems they would call that truth that the liar is saying, a "lie," just as they call the falsehood that another liar says, a "lie".

So, I have a bit of difficulty with thinking it proper to use the noun, 'lie,' to refer to that which the liar speaks. Rather, it seems more reasonable to me to think its proper referent to be the act of lying: a lie is an act of lying.

But, the question has puzzled me from time to time: what exactly is lying? Especially if one can be lying in speaking truth, and speaking a false proposition is not essential to lying. I've in the past entertained the idea that to lie is for one to utter something he, himself, does not believe, hoping to entice his mark(s)—those to whom he is lying—to believe what he/she has uttered. But I've scrapped that idea, and unless it's asked for, I'll spare the reader an excursus into the thinking that led me to scrap it.

A lie is the product of lying.
I am sure glad the reborn have a divine nature now, so lying is not a problem.

 

[Idolater]

... I'll spare the reader an excursus into the thinking that led me to scrap it.

No, please: By all means, continue. This is the thread for it.