What qualifies as a ‘lie’ from a biblical perspective?

[ChaosBorders]

Currently I am taking a course in Lying and Deception and find the subject quite fascinating. I’m thinking of starting a series of posts on lying and deception as it relates to the Bible. I think the first should be:

What qualifies as a ‘lie’ from a biblical perspective?

Today’s definition of a ‘lie’ is extremely broad, a decent (but not totally comprehensive) list of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

By some of today’s definitions, God (and certainly many prophets), tell them regularly (despite God often being depicted as unable to lie). If it is taken as true that the biblical view of God cannot lie (a subject of a later debate) then which of the modern definitions seem to qualify as lies and which would be considered honest?

If Cnorman would contribute any knowledge he may have on what constituted a ‘lie’ in those times (in the original language) and what modern Judaism, if different than then, usually considers a lie that would be awesome.

[whirlwind]

Hello chaosborders,

This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but, the only type of lie that in and of itself is wrong would be bearing false witness against your neighbor. In all other cases, lying has to be viewed as merely a tool, and the purpose behind the lie is either good or bad.

Are you certain? How do you interpret Revelations 21:8?

But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part `shall be' in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.

Remember that this is the theology sub-forum, so scripture is considered authoritative here.

Liars...pseudes, as in....

Revelation 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil, and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

And....

Acts 6:13-14 And set up false witnesses, which said, "This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us."

[ChaosBorders]

And if that evidence is insufficient, but you knew they were guilty of it? Our justice system is set up purposefully such that guilty people are far more likely to walk away than innocent people are to take a fall, but the result is that some professional criminals (such as mafia members) get out of going to jail on a pretty regular basis.

This looks like a very slippery slope. I agree that our justice system is flawed, but I don’t know any way to make it better.

If we don’t have the evidence to convict someone of a crime then how can we really be sure that the person is guilty? Does someone deserve to go to jail because the evidence convinces me that he is guilty even if it doesn’t convince a jury of his peers?

It is possible to have evidence that is inadmissible, but most of the time that means that we had to break laws to get the evidence. How many laws are we willing to break to catch the bad guys? If I have a hunch that someone is guilty does that mean I get to break into their home to get the proof? Can I beat someone up until they confess? If I have proof that someone is guilty of murder then can I just shoot the guy right there?

The legal system does let guilty people get away with crimes, but it also protects innocent people and it protects our own souls. If we start down the path of dishonesty and immoral behavior to convict the bad guys – if the ends justify the means – then there will be no turning back. We will keep following that path until there is no way to tell the difference between ourselves and the people we are trying to catch.

So, in the end, I still say that it is always wrong to bear false testimony against your neighbor.

Precisely my point. Where does one draw the line? If you can lie to people you may perceive as your enemies in order to try and protect someone, then it starts bringing into question of exactly where is the line? Or is it that the act itself can be differentiated from the intent and the consequences? Perhaps lying in and of itself is always wrong, but the intent and consequences may outweigh the wrongness of the action such that it is worth doing anyways? But if this is the case, bearing false witness, in and of itself, is no more wrong than telling Germans you don't know where the Jews are (or conversely, that is no less).

[bjs]

Precisely my point. Where does one draw the line? If you can lie to people you may perceive as your enemies in order to try and protect someone, then it starts bringing into question of exactly where is the line? Or is it that the act itself can be differentiated from the intent and the consequences? Perhaps lying in and of itself is always wrong, but the intent and consequences may outweigh the wrongness of the action such that it is worth doing anyways? But if this is the case, bearing false witness, in and of itself, is no more wrong than telling Germans you don't know where the Jews are (or conversely, that is no less).

Well argued. I will have to rethink my position. I don’t know where I come down on this issue, but you make an excellent point.

[ChaosBorders]

Precisely my point. Where does one draw the line? If you can lie to people you may perceive as your enemies in order to try and protect someone, then it starts bringing into question of exactly where is the line? Or is it that the act itself can be differentiated from the intent and the consequences? Perhaps lying in and of itself is always wrong, but the intent and consequences may outweigh the wrongness of the action such that it is worth doing anyways? But if this is the case, bearing false witness, in and of itself, is no more wrong than telling Germans you don't know where the Jews are (or conversely, that is no less).

Well argued. I will have to rethink my position. I don’t know where I come down on this issue, but you make an excellent point.

Thank you. I look forward to your revised opinion on the matter when you decide where you come down (should God grant you a firm decision on the issue).