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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #110]

One states that the words of Rom 11 are not the same as in Is 59, which is true. That would be a self-explanatory contradiction, if Rom 11 were seeking to quote Is 59. It's not.

Do you know that it's not, or do you merely assume that it's not?

5 words out of about 30 is self-concluding. And the 5 words are no misquoted.

The similarity between Rom. 11:26 and Is. 59:20 strongly suggests that it is.

Similarity strongly suggests that it is being referred to. The 5 words quoted confirm it.

And there's still the matter of how the author of Hebrews 10:5 came up with the idea for that verse [certainly not from Ps. 40:6].

How the Author reveals His truth is a matter of study, not of contradiction, unless His revealed words of truth contradict others.

Since it's not from Ps 40 alone, any surface reader can conclude how and where His revelation in Heb 10 comes. Such as, He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7), and so would be born with a babe's body. He would be crucified on a cross (Ps 22), which also required a man's body. And of course, He is already preached Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4), long before Heb 10 is written. And so, like all people born into the world, He had a body prepared by God in a mother's womb.

Heb 10 is not so much new revelation, but rather a matter of fact statement already well known. It's so commonly understood by readers of Heb 10, that it's usually read without any controversy. Unless of course someone is looking for one.

The challenge is to prove error in the Bible

Here's something I've submitted elsewhere. Not an error in the Bible per se, but an inconsistency between Christian scripture and the [Jewish] Bible:

If there is a contradiction anywhere in the Bible, then it is an error of the Bible. Unless of course someone is an anti-NT Jew or Gentile convert, that says the Greek NT has no part with the Hebrew Tanakh. If you are one, then say so. In any case, there is no contradiction quoted between the OT and NT Scriptures of the God of the Bible.

Whether anyone wants to then believe in that God, whether for the whole Book or only part, is one's free choice. But without such contradiction, then no one can say it's impossible to believe the whole Book, or to believe the Hebrew OT and Greek NT can't be the same Book.

Such behavior is inconsistent with one who could reasonably be expected to be the Jewish Messiah.[/i]
viewtopic.php?t=6580&start=60

I'd say that the contradictions here are fairly self-explanatory.

So would any anti-NT Jew and Gentile convert to the Jews' religion. Afterall, they only expected then, and still only want now for their Messiah to come with power and glory to destroy their physical enemies. They also still agree with their forefathers, that Jesus was a good teacher sent from God, but got lifted up in Himself and blasphemed the one true God, by calling Himself the Son equal with the Father.

1Co 12:3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

By your continued support of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah of the God of Israel, are you one of them, or just another Gentile disbeliever, that seeks fault anywhere in the Bible, whether the in the Hebrew or Greek or both?

I'll be glad to return and address your efforts to teach the law of Moses, and how Jesus 'disannulled' it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #131]

Since it's not from Ps 40 alone, any surface reader can conclude how and where His revelation in Heb 10 comes. Such as, He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7), and so would be born with a babe's body. He would be crucified on a cross (Ps 22), which also required a man's body. And of course, He is already preached Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4), long before Heb 10 is written. And so, like all people born into the world, He had a body prepared by God in a mother's womb.

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"

Let's look at Hebrews 1:5....

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

.....and apply the same rhetorical logic to Heb. 10:5. At what point when Jesus entered the world is it recorded that he said anything about a body being prepared for him? (Remember----it isn't just about the body being prepared; he supposedly said that a body had been prepared. Where/when did he say it?)

He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7)

We could get into a whole big thing about that.

I'll be glad to return and address your efforts to teach the law of Moses, and how Jesus 'disannulled' it.

Any time.

Meanwhile, take a look at this (I first jump in with post #69):
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6580&hilit=making&start=60

[RBD]

1. The book of the law states that all the law therein is what the God of Israel himself gave to Moses to command the people (Dt.1:3)

2. Christian scripture supports #1 (2 Timothy 3:16)

True. Not only in the law, but also with all the words written in the Bible.

3. Moses allows divorce in the law (Dt. 24:1)

4. Moses commands that nothing the law allows is to be prohibited (Dt. 4:2)

True, in that no ordinance nor commandment of man should be added to the law, which would restrict liberty allowed in the law, such as divorce.

5. Moses commands that everything in the law is to be followed in order to please God (Dt. 11:13, 13:18)

This is only true for keeping law and commandments of God. This is not true for liberty allowed in the law: Divorce is not a commandment to be obeyed, and certainly does not please God. Divorce is suffered by God for cause. of uncleanness.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

6.Jesus declares that he has not come to nullify the law (Mt. 5:17)

7. Jesus declares that anyone who breaks any command of the law will be least in heaven (Mt. 5:19)

True

8. Jesus nullifies the law in #3, violating the law in #4 (Mk. 10:9)

False. Jesus never gave commandment forbidding divorce, but only restored it's sufferage to God's original intent, for the cause of fornication.

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

He also restored the Sabbath to God's written intent not to work. His allowance of divorce was being abused for any cause they wished, and His Sabbath was being abused by men's prohibitive rules. They accused Jesus of profaning the Sabbath, not for profaning divorce.

9. Jesus denies the validity of Moses's command in #5 (Mk.10:5)

False, since divorce is not a commandment that pleases God. Nor was it abridged by Jesus. In fact, He adds the cause of desertion to adultery for divorce in His NT law.

10. Jesus declares that everything in the law is in keeping with the two greatest commandments, undermining his own position in #9 (Mt. 22:40)

Divorce is not pleasing nor loving God, but is suffered as the possible last means of loving one's neighbor, that had been a spouse.

Such behavior is inconsistent with one who could reasonably be expected to be the Jewish Messiah.[/i]

Such behavior of restoring the rule of God as written, is exactly what the Messiah came in person people to do, for which cause that adulterous and self-righteous generation of rulers had Him crucified by a false accusation of blasphemy.

I'd say that the contradictions here are fairly self-explanatory.

I'd say the apostle is right in discouraging people from trying to teach law, who don't know the difference between commanded obedience vs liberty allowed:

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #133]

Divorce is not a commandment to be obeyed

This isn't about divorce being commanded; it's about divorce being permitted.

Divorce is suffered by God for cause. of uncleanness.

And that's where Jesus gets it wrong. Moses says that God permits a divorce for uncleanness, while Jesus says that Moses permits that same divorce "for the hardness of your [men's] hearts", but that God doesn't permit it.

Jesus never gave commandment forbidding divorce, but only restored it's sufferage to God's original intent, for the cause of fornication.

Then why does he say in Matthew 19:8, "For the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives", instead of saying, "For fornication Moses suffered you to put away your wives"?

And why does he not even sanction that in Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18?


Jesus denies the validity of Moses's command in #5 (Mk.10:5)

False, since divorce is not a commandment that pleases God.

It isn't about divorce being a commandment. It's about divorce being an allowance.

Nor was it abridged by Jesus. In fact, He adds the cause of desertion to adultery for divorce in His NT law.

Then Jesus's statement in Matthew 19:9 is incorrect.

Divorce is not pleasing nor loving God, but is suffered as the possible last means of loving one's neighbor, that had been a spouse.

And Jesus restricts that means----along with remarriage----to a greater extent than Moses does, in violation of the law.


I've pointed out the places where Moses declares all of the law to have been delivered by God and was to be kept to please God. Jesus concedes that Moses allowed divorce, but says that he did so "for the hardness of your hearts". Therefore, if Jesus believed what Moses wrote (John 5:47), then when he says, "for the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives", what he's actually saying is, "for the hardness of your hearts God suffered you to put away your wives". But that would make Jehovah double-minded, for it would contradict his own declarations about his own law in Deuteronomy 11:13 and 13:18.

[RBD]

By that argument, if you look for and find one grammatical contradiction in the KJV, then you must no longer read it for the ‘Scripture of God’.

True. No longer read that translation for Scriptures of God. But the words penned by prophets and apostles remain unerring. And since there is no translation that is a perfect rendering of the original words, then we can choose the least erring one. I choose the KJV, because it has no doctrinal nor prophetic error in it.

How can anyone know that the original words are ‘unerring’ when you admit that no perfect translation of them exists?

How can the original words be suspect, if the translation is bad?

All it takes is to mistranslate ‘human’ for ‘man’ or ‘citizen’ (in a hypothetical example) for the intended meaning to easily be lost, even though there’s no grammatical error or self-contradiction. Such changed meaning may well result in ‘doctrinal error’ but you would have no way of knowing that.

If you want to argue translations and doctrine, I'd be glad to, but it has nothing to do with errors between the words themselves.

Also, the doctrine of the Bible is not dependent on one verse alone:

Deu 19:15 At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

The Bible is written so unerringly, that if any verse is changed, then more and more verses will also have to be changed. At some point the changes prove personal intent, because they become grammatically impossible.

And choosing the ‘least erring’ translation is, I’m sure you can see, a matter of opinion. A quick Google search suggests there are over 900 English translations alone. Nothing stops you or anyone else having a ‘favourite’ of course.

True. Modern liberty of choice is a great thing.

Just because Ps 22 perhpas should read 'digged into' rather than pierced', does not nullify it as a good translation of the Bible for insturction (sic) in righteousness, and revealing the true principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ for redemption and purifying of the soul.

That’s verse 16, right?
”For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

This same psalm has a sub-title mentioning ‘Aijeleth Shahar’, but “This enigmatic expression has intrigued scholars and theologians, leading to various interpretations” (quoting from this link below):

https://biblehub.com/topical/naves/a/ai ... shahar.htm

Once again, doctrinal disputes based upon original languages, is not about errors of the words themselves.

And the doctrine of Christ is not dependent upon 'Aijeleth Shahar'. And in your link, the 'doe dawn' isn't even applied to Ps 22, but only it's tune.

"For the choirmaster. To the tune of 'The Doe of the Dawn.' A Psalm of David." .

Are people free to decide what the psalm means to them personally, or is there one prescribed interpretation?

People are always free to believe what they want, including about the Bible. But the one true interpretation is revealed by all the Bible taken together.

If there is no error in the one Book that challenges all comers, then any other book can either agree or disagree with the Bible, but that does not prove one or the other wrong in itself.

<bolding mine>

So you agree that comparing an apocryphal work (that used to be in the Bible, or is only in some versions) that conflicts with the KJV (for example) can’t be proved wrong?

There is no argument against the Apocrypha, but only that it's not Scripture of the Bible. Therefore, it plays no part in trying to prove contradiction within the Bible.

]Also, those books written as God speaking, nor claim infallibility.

Sorry, this is confusingly written. I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

You're right. Over the years, I've been trying use less words, which can be confusing. The point is that those other books do not claim to be God Himself speaking unerringly.

The only other book I know of, that does make that claim is the Koran. And Mohammed is proven false by first claiming his God is that of the Bible, and then accuses that God of lying, when He calls Jesus Christ His onlybegotten and beloved Son.

There are no 'versions' of the Bible, but only translations. And no one needs to go through all of them to determine which is most acceptable to oneself.

The same argument about objective analysis and making no assumptions applies equally to ‘translations’ as it does to ‘versions’. Your ‘most acceptable’ appears to be based on opinion, not objective analysis.

I don't know why anyone would think I'm only speaking from assumption, and not from study. You're obviously well-studied, even if we don't agree.

It's not wrong to search for symbolism in the historical record of the Bible, so long as the historical fact is not done away with. And if anyone chooses to not believe it is fact, then that is their own choice.

<bolding mine>

Presupposes historical fact in the first place, so not a logically sound argument.

The logic of the argment is about the error of making allegory or sumbolism out of what is written as fact. It's not about whether anyone accepts them as historical fact. For me, it's entirely illogical to argue about what someone believes or not.

Every supposed grammatical contradiction quoted, always has a possible explanation to the contrary. Whether anyone accepts the explanation or not, is neither here nor there.

Likewise, if anyone denies that the Bible contains multiple contradictory statements, that’s neither here nor there. See how easily the opposing view to yours can be insulated from criticism just the same?

Not so. You're confusing the difference between making a studied argument, and accepting it as possible. The standard of contradiction is that no explanation is possible. If A is B, and B is not A, then no reasonable person can explain it is noncontradictory.

RBD wrote:
As literary critiques, they get an F for superficial reading and unintelligent conclusions.
You might consider refraining from such comments in a debate forum like this in future. By all means point out where specific conclusions are incorrect, but as written, this comes across as condescending and doesn’t invite further engagement.

It's an observation, not an accusation. I've learned not to do it myself. But, if you consider it offensive, then I'll not do it for your sake.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #115]

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Many more words are quoted here for Ps 40, than was for Is 59. And once again a fullment of prophecy is given, not a whole quote solely of what is said. And we see an all important addition to the subject matter of Ps 40, so as to fullfill the prophecy by Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

When it comes to a body being prepared for the speaker, there's no prophecy to fulfill.

Not for any created person on earth today. But certainly necessary for God coming in the flesh.

And we can say the creation of man in God's image was first prophesied by the Word with God:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It makes no sense to demand 6 words out of 19 must be a whole quote, that is insensibly mangled. The proof that it is not a grammatical contrdictioin is that trying to make it a whole quote, turns both passages into a mangled mess. And messing with the text like that, only makes sense when someone is trying to make a magled mess out of it, so as to claim it is in error. (Extremely so.)

Your "6 words out of 19" argument is a red herring; the point is that those 6 words are out of order in the misquote. The misquote is set in the same context as the quote, so it has to be read in that context.

So now it's about the order of the words, not about any contradiction between them. The words quoted are not misquoted. The accurately quoted words only point to the old prophecy. It's not inaccurately restating the prophecy, because it's not restating it at all.

Once again, the argument here is about interpretation, not about any misquoted words.

If the quote went on to say that there would be a reversal of coming to Zion to coming from Zion at a later time, that might be different. However, no such reversal is indicated in the quote.

If the quote were reversing an old prophecy, then it would be contradicting it, by saying the Redeemer would not be coming that way afterall. I.e: The Redeemer would not come to Zion (as previously prophesied), but now only out of Sion.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #114]

Authors of a book are free to interpret tehir own words. Readers are invited to judge grammatically and analytically, if the interpretation contradicts himself.

"no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20)

Isn't that supposed to take all the guesswork out of it?

Yes. Well put. It's also supposed to stop people from preaching their own opinions as gospel of truth. Especially our own rules as law of God.

Mat 15:9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

there is no grammatical contradiction

You place great emphasis on grammar, so here's a discussion which has been going on elsewhere:

viewtopic.php?t=42229

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

There's not contradiction here. In fact, Gal 3 is ensuring no contradiction is made, but confirming it is one of promise by Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds...

Nor is there an argument made against there being more than one seed of Abraham, but that there is only one promised seed and son of Abraham by whom Christ would come, Isaac. Seeds is for sons of Abraham, and the Author is confirming the promise, that Christ would only come by Isaac, and not by Ishmael, whom Mohammed preaches.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Once again, a limited objective necessitates a superficial reading for a false report. As well as a silly accusation that Paul of Tarsus didn't know Hebrew.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #89]

What is remarkable is how many ways people can convince themselves, that the Author is saying something He never says, by torturing His words, and inserting their own instead.

You mean like Paul does in Romans 11:26?

What Paul says in Romans 11:26, is what the Author says.The same for anything said from Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21.

Have you anything to say about what I've posted since this?

When I got to them. I try to answer things in order. I consider it a courtesy to respond to anyone caring to post to me. Along with the fact that it's an enjoyable exercise if seriously challenged.

As Edison might say, We can learn much about what is true, by first learning how something is not true.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

there is no grammatical contradiction

You place great emphasis on grammar,

That's because that is what a contradiction is. A is B, and B is not A, or Adam lived to be 930 years old, and 931 years old, or the flood did cover the whole earth in Genesis, and did not cover the whole earth in 2 Peter.

It's not about interpretations in one place, that could contradict the Bible elsewhere, if it were accurate. At that point, any self-explanatory grammatical contradiction is set aside. And, if any other possible interpretation does not contradict the Bible elsewhere, then there is no proven literary disagreement within the Book.

so here's a discussion which has been going on
viewtopic.php?t=42229

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

There's not contradiction here. In fact, Gal 3 is ensuring no contradiction is made, but confirming it is one of promise by Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds...

Nor is there an argument made against there being more than one seed of Abraham, but that there is only one promised seed and son of Abraham by whom Christ would come, Isaac. Seeds is for sons of Abraham, and the Author is confirming the promise, that Christ would only come by Isaac, and not by Ishmael, whom Mohammed preaches.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Once again, a limited objective necessitates a superficial reading for a false report. As well as a silly accusation that Paul of Tarsus didn't know Hebrew.