Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[The Tanager]

Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things.

I see two things here: proving that a God exists and proving that God has every feature that the Bible attributes to Him. Are you saying the only way to prove both of those things is to prove the Bible true in all things?

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

Why would proving that something is logically coherent (i.e., there is no contradiction) prove that such a thing is actually the case? Tolkien’s Middle Earth is logically coherent, but that doesn’t mean it is actual reality. The existence of unicorns are logically coherent, but that doesn’t mean it is actual reality.

[RBD]

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy.

Difflugia wrote:
Word-puzzle inerrancy, I presume? "It doesn't say he died right then, so the rope broke, then he fell on rocks..." It's always fun to see what damage inerrantists are willing to do to authorial intention in the pursuit of inerrancy. It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: we can know either what the Bible means or that it's inerrant, but not both at the same time.

RBD wrote:
When a theorem is offfered, it is open to challenges. Statements of unbelief about the theorem are useless.

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

Difflugia wrote:
That's awfully bold. I'm pretty sure that the Bible's perfection neither stands nor falls with our ability to convince you of anything.

RBD wrote:
The boldness is in the Bible.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The only convincing I need to prove a contradiction in the Bible, is that there are no reasonable alternatives to the challenge made. If A = B, but B not = A, then it is a proven contradiction without any reasonable explanation for it.


Difflugia wrote:
[*]Exodus 6:2-3 contradicts Genesis 24:6-7, 26:25, and 27:20, among many others ("Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob didn't know me as Yahweh").

RBD wrote:
Ex 6: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

There is no contradiction. Before Ex 6 the LORD never gave Himself the name Jehovah to be known by. The patriarchs called Him by the title LORD, that were not exclusive to themselves. The title of LORD had been known by men since Adam in the garden.

Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.


It was not until Moses, that the LORD made it known that Jehovah was His name, and not just a title. From that time, calling Him LORD by name was made exclusive to His chosen people among the nations. He would not hear nor favor anyone else calling upon the LORD, except they call Him by name the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Exo 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

In the NT, He only hears and honors them calling Him by name Lord Jesus.

Rom 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Difflugia wrote:
[*]Genesis 21:31 contradicts Genesis 26:33 ("And that is why it's called Beersheba").

RBD wrote:
Gen 21:29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves? And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them. Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Gen 26:26Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath one of his friends, and Phichol the chief captain of his army.
Gen 26:32And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water. And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.

Gen 26 shows why the well dug by Isaac's servants was Isaac's well, called Sheba. Why the city raised afterward in that place, is no made known, but it certainly wasn't by any name Isaac gave his well.

No doubt, the city was named in honor to Abraham calling the well he personally dug in that same place, Beesheba. In like manner, out of respect for his father, Isaac refrained from naming his own servants' well by the same name, that Abraham gave for the well he personally dug. However, he could call it Sheba, since both wells came into play when making a covenant with the same king and his chief captain.

Difflugia wrote:
[*]Matthew 27:7 contradicts Acts 1:18 (the priests bought "the Potter's Field" to bury strangers vs. Judas buying a piece of property for himself).

RBD wrote:
This is a false reading of the Bible account.

Mat 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Judas did not purchase the field for himself., as though he bought it in person. If the reading were not false, then there would be a contradiction between the priests buying the field for themselves with their money, and Judas buying it for himself with his money. Which was not possible, since it was not the priests' money, but Judas' alone.

The priests rejected the money from Judas, nor gave it to the temple treasury; therefore, the money remained Judas'. Using it to buy the field made Judas the purchasing owner, with or without his knowledge.

When the property is bought by someone with the money of another, then the other person is the purchasing owner. When a bank pays funds of client to buy a property, the client is the purchaser, not the bank.

The Bible record reveals that Judas himself did not personally by the field, but rather that the priests did so with his own money. Judas then used his own property bought by the priests to hang himself, which was his right of ownership.

Difflugia wrote:
[*]Matthew 27:6-7 contradicts Acts 1:19 ("And that is why it's called the Field of Blood").[/list]

RBD wrote:
Why it was called the field of blood was for two diffferent but acceptable reasons, which does not contradict anything. It simply confirms it as an apropriate name for the potter's field.

Who called it the field of blood is not given, but the Jerusalemites knew why. And, even if two different people gave it the same name independently and was accepted by all, then it only further confirms how apropriate the name was.

Thanks for the challenges Difflugia, if you have more for me, I'd like to see them. But remember, all that is needed to show there is no proven contradiction in something, is if there is any possible and reasonable explanation otherwise. Also, since my baosting is in the Bible, and not in myself, then the argument is not between you and me, but between you and the Author of the Bible.

[Difflugia]

When a theorem is offfered, it is open to challenges. Statements of unbelief about the theorem are useless.

I'll keep that in mind.

The boldness is in the Bible.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

First, neither of these asserts or implies inerrancy. Second, this is the Christianity and Apologetics subforum, where the Bible is only evidence of what the Bible says, not of its own truth.

The only convincing I need to prove a contradiction in the Bible, is that there are no reasonable alternatives to the challenge made.

I'd bet they don't even need to be reasonable.

There is no contradiction. Before Ex 6 the LORD never gave Himself the name Jehovah to be known by. The patriarchs called Him by the title LORD, that were not exclusive to themselves. The title of LORD had been known by men since Adam in the garden.

It was not until Moses, that the LORD made it known that Jehovah was His name, and not just a title.

There was a recent conversation about the difference between a title and a name in Hebrew. The Tetragrammation (rendered Yahweh, Jehovah, or the LORD) never has a definite article, ergo it's a proper name.

Why the city raised afterward in that place, is no made known, but it certainly wasn't by any name Isaac gave his well.

It absolutely was. Genesis 26:33 says, "And he called it Shibah, therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day."

This is a false reading of the Bible account.

You haven't actually shown this. And like I've always said, "Statements of unbelief about the theorem are useless."

Judas did not purchase the field for himself., as though he bought it in person.

He absolutely did. Middle voice in ancient Greek meant that the subject was also an object (in this case, indirect object) of the verb.



So, in the phrase οὗτος ἐκτήσατο χωρίον, οὗτος ("this [masculine] person") is both the subject and indirect object. χωρίον ("a property") is in the accusative, therefore is the direct object. ἐκτήσατο is aorist, indicative, third person, middle voice. It means:

"This person acquired a property for this person."

No priests were involved.

If the reading were not false, then there would be a contradiction between the priests buying the field for themselves with their money, and Judas buying it for himself with his money.

That's absolutely right.

Which was not possible, since it was not the priests' money, but Judas' alone.

It doesn't matter whose money it was, what matters is who did the acquiring. In Acts, it was unambiguously Judas.

Why it was called the field of blood was for two diffferent but acceptable reasons, which does not contradict anything.

Matthew 26:6 says there was only one reason.

But remember, all that is needed to show there is no proven contradiction in something, is if there is any possible and reasonable explanation otherwise.

Usually, as in this case so far, all apologists need is an excuse.

Also, since my baosting is in the Bible, and not in myself, then the argument is not between you and me, but between you and the Author of the Bible.

The Bible doesn't claim inerrancy for itself. The argument is between me and the personal theology that you've attempted to map onto the Bible.

[Bible_Student]

The Bible doesn't claim inerrancy for itself.

Jesus does claim the Bible is inerrant:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them:
“Is it not written in your Law ...?
35 ... the scripture cannot be nullified".

John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

For a person who considers the Bible as a book inspired by the holy spirit of God, the expressions "the scripture" and "your word" in the mouth of Jesus are unambiguous. We know what he meant.

[1213]

In Acts, yes. In Matthew, the priests bought a field to bury foreigners in with the same money.

Yes, and because it was money of Judas, the field also was Judas' field, he acquired the field by his money and therefore it was his.

In this case it is possible there were two fields that were called "Field of Blood".

Somehow bought with the same money, apparently?

I don't think there is a Biblical reason to say two fields were bought, even if there were two fields that were called "Field of Blood".

It is also possible that it is the same blood field and there are two reasons to call it with that name.

It's not possible.

Yes it is.

[Difflugia]

Yes, and because it was money of Judas, the field also was Judas' field, he acquired the field by his money and therefore it was his.

I don't think there is a Biblical reason to say two fields were bought, even if there were two fields that were called "Field of Blood".

It's not possible.

Yes it is.

At this point, I think I've sufficiently supported the idea that these are all contradicted by the Greek of Acts 1:18-19. You, however, have simply asserted your positions with no evidence beyond your assertion. To put it bluntly, you're just wrong.

If you can find a use of present or aorist middle voice κτάομαι in any extant Greek literature that refers to someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf, then I'll accept that there's something more worth discussing.

To give you a head start, here are the results of a search: All forms of κτάομαι in literature indexed by Perseus Hopper.

[Difflugia]

The Bible doesn't claim inerrancy for itself.

Jesus does claim the Bible is inerrant:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them:
“Is it not written in your Law ...?
35 ... the scripture cannot be nullified".

John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

For a person who considers the Bible as a book inspired by the holy spirit of God, the expressions "the scripture" and "your word" in the mouth of Jesus are unambiguous. We know what he meant.

That's a fine theological position to take, but there are a number of theological of assumptions necessary to read either of those verses as claiming the kind of verbal inerrancy that we're arguing over, not least of which are, perhaps ironically, what exactly are meant by "the scripture" and "your word." A further irony is that in order to preserve inerrancy, an inerrantist Christian is currently arguing that Acts 1:18-19 doesn't actually mean what it says.

[Difflugia]

I was just browsing through the search results to see the different uses of κτάομαι and found one that I think makes my point extremely well.

In Demosthenes, Against Nicostratus, we find this passage:

ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐμῇ ἀποδημίᾳ ἀποδιδράσκουσιν αὐτὸν οἰκέται τρεῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ παρὰ τούτου, οἱ μὲν δύο ὧν ἐγὼ ἔδωκα αὐτῷ, ὁ δὲ εἷς ὧν αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο.

The English translation renders it thus:

During my absence three household slaves of Nicostratus ran away from him from his farm, two of those whom I had given him, and one of a number whom he had purchased for himself.

The bolded bit is the translation of the single word ἐκτήσατο, which is exactly the conjugation used in Acts 1:18. The text is contrasting a slave that the owner acquired for himself from ones that were given by someone else. Furthermore, the contrast is performed with such economy of words that the author must have been sure of how Greek readers would understand it! Below, I've repeated the final clause in Greek and separated the meaning of each word with brackets:

ὁ δὲ εἷς ὧν αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο
[the one] [moreover] [in] [several] [he] [acquired for himself]

The author knew that ἐκτήσατο was enough in itself to contrast the slave that the subject bought for himself from the ones that were given to him by the author. If we apply that to the texts of Matthew and Acts, readers of Greek would likewise be expected to contrast the purchase of the priests in Matthew from the acquisition in Acts that Judas performed for himself.

[RBD]

As for the OP:

"Proving the Bible" doesn't even make sense. We all know the Bible exists, no need to 'prove it'.

Arguments fail at the start, when arguing about something not being argued.

Where you will fail is proving everything inside its covers is true.

Rom 3:3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Given the myriad of contradictions,

Which have only been accused, never proven. The reason being, that the Bible is read with the same prejudice as we see above, where the words of the Book are not argued, but instead a falsified version of it to find fault.

it's not even possible without absolutely torturing the original author's meanings as already pointed out.

And the reason for perverting the Bible is to change the Author's message into something more to the liking of the reader.

The Bible is the most abused book in the history of the world. What other book of science, history, philosophy, etc... is read by people who change the Author's words, in order to make him say something else? Other than the Bible, people read other books objectively in order to first accurately learn what the author is saying, before agreeing or disagreeing.

If you want to prove your God exists, then simply skip the Bible (which is just a bunch of written words from various authors) and point out some actual evidence we can all verify.

And added to the Bible being the physical evidence of the true God and Creator, is the fact that so many people seek to prove it false. That's because the Creator has created all men and women in His image with conscience for the truth. Therefore, when His own reads are read, then they go to the heart, and the conscience must either proclaim His truth or fight against it.

Heb 4:12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

I have never met anyone that has ever read any of the Bible, that was neutral about the God of the Bible. Afterall, it begins with Him creating the heaven and the earth.

What these debates often seem like are that the Bible itself is the 'God'.

The book itself is not God, though it is often treated as an idol of God sitting on a living room table and bedstand. The Jews made the error of believing they were the people of God only by possessing the written oracles, but not doing what the Author commands.

If there is an actual 'God', I imagine it is likely quite insulted at much of what is in the Bible.

So the true God is insulted by the Book whose every word about Him glorifies Him as God?

That God says purposed rejection of His words not only kills the spirit of man, but also destroys the simple intelligence given by Him to all men and women coming into the world:

Jhn 1:2The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men...That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Jhn 1:5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Rom 1:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

2 Cor 1:13 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

[RBD]

1) If God didn't tell them one of His names is Jehovah, is it not possible that others told it to them, or that they got it by some other way?

I believe the best explanation is the simple one, that Abraham used the common title for LORD, when speaking to and of Him. Until Moses and the law, the LORD did not make it His own Personal name to be called by His own people.

In any case, a contradiction is unproven so long as any reasonbale explanation is made.

In the case of how Judas got the field, to acquire would be more accurate translation, because he acquired the field by the money he got. It was bought with his money and he acquired the field by it, therefore it can be said he bought it, even if there was a broker making the deal. It is also possible that the "this one" means some other person than Judas, for example the broker.

This is a good example of how translation can be a supplement to proving the truth, though not necessary. The purchaser is the one whose money is used by himself or others to buy something. The Pharisees refused to own it after paying off Judas to betray Jesus.