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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #179]

Which is the case by all reasons for divorce being made lawful. Which is what the adulterous Jews did in Jesus' day, as well as some nations on earth today.

Calling the Jews adulterous doesn't make much of an argument.

Since the Pharisees asked in one place about adultery(?) for any cause, then that is their context of any such questions about divorce.

Since one gospel writer has them ask about divorce for any cause and another gospel writer doesn't, and since the two writers have Jesus give different answers, it's evident that the gospel writers were taking divergent positions on the issue.

As pointed out before, no self-respecting Jew, especially a Pharisee of the law, would ever ask if divorce were lawfully permitted at all.

That's what you claim, but the author of Mark has the Pharisees doing exactly that.

Jesus' answer would still be rightly the same, that of the law allowing for divorce in the cases of unclean sex.

As I suggested earlier, "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 might have other than a sexual connotation, and it turns out that this is indeed the case. The word "erva" (עֶרְוַת), the word in Deut. 24:1, is the same word which appears in Deut. 23:14 referring to a soldier's use of an army camp latrine, which clearly has no sexual connection. Thus, the "uncleanness" of a divorced wife in Deut. 24 need not be sexual in nature.

[marke]

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

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.

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.

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.

Anway...

• 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").
  
  Marke: Butchering interpretations of scriptures is common among poor Bible students.
  
  Exodus 6
  3 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.
  Genesis 26
  25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac's servants digged a well.
  
  Isaac knew the Lord and called on the Lord but he did not know everything about the Lord. There is no contradiction there.
• Genesis 21:31 contradicts Genesis 26:33 ("And that is why it's called Beersheba").
  
  Marke:
  Genesis 21
  31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
  Genesis 26
  33 And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.
  
  AI Overview
  Learn more
  The Hebrew word that is translated as "Sheba" and "Beersheba" is "sheva" (שבע), which can mean either "seven" or "oath" depending on the context; "Beersheba" literally translates to "well of the oath" as "be'er" means "well" in Hebrew.
• 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).
• Matthew 27:6-7 contradicts Acts 1:19 ("And that is why it's called the Field of Blood").

Marke: I see no contradiction here.
Matthew 27
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Acts 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.
19 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.

[Difflugia]

Marke: I see no contradiction here.

Let me help you by adding a little emphasis.

Matthew 27
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Compare that with this:

Acts 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.

Who bought the field?

[marke]

Marke: I see no contradiction here.

Let me help you by adding a little emphasis.

Matthew 27
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Compare that with this:

Acts 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.

Who bought the field?

Marke:

It seems the wicked Pharisees determined they had nothing to do with the blood money so they took the money Judas threw back at them and bought the field in Judas' name, thinking that would clear them of any bloodguiltiness in the wicked murder of Jesus.

[RBD]

The law is only for cause of uncleanness, not for any cause.

Jesus states that the law permitting divorce was given "for the hardness of your hearts". Since the law does not allow for hard-heartedness (Dt. 6:5, 10:16, 11:13, 13:18),divorcing for uncleanness (Dt. 24:1) would not be hard-hearted according to the law.

This is a laudable attempt to make a legal argument, but it falls short, because it's only half true. The hardness of heart is not on the part of the one writing the bill of divorcement, but on the part of the one found unclean in marriage.

Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

You've done well to apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, so that uncleanness is rightly defined as transgression of the law, which is fornication. Lawful divorce is not for any cause within the law.

Only because of the hardness of the sexually disobedient to God and the spouse, does the law allow for divorce from the unclean.

So when Jesus says that the law was given for their hard-heartedness, he must be saying that the law allowed them to divorce their wives for causes other than uncleanness.

Wrong conclusion by wrong argument. Divorce is allowed only from the unclean, who have the hardened hearts, not the innocent spouse.

And, as with all such wrong conclusions, they end by contradicting the law as written: The law only allows for uncleanness, not for causes other than 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.

We never read anywhere in the law a bill of divorcement for causes other than uncleanness.

Once again, anyone can argue for divorce for any cause they wish, but why try to make the law say so? The only thing worse than an adulterer, are the evil ones that self-righteously justify themselves as by law.

But Moses gave the law allowing such divorces, which means that by the standard of the law they were not hard-hearted.

What's wrong here, is repeating the same old error of mixing commandment of law that all must obey, with a suffered permit in the law, that is not necessary to do. As though getting a divorce is a commandment, that must be obeyed in order not to transgress the law.

You're still trotting out that strawman. It isn't about divorce being commanded; it's about divorce being permitted.[/quote]

Which is why divorce is not about obeying commandments pleasing to God. As though Jesus forbid keeping the law by divorce.

Which is the response you ignore, when you first tried to argue getting divorced is like keeping commandments in order to please God.

Jesus does not abridge the lawful permit for divorce, by keeping it to uncleanness. He rebukes the adulterous manner of divorce for any cause other than uncleanness.

He renews the original intent for cause of uncleanness, which He defines as sexual in nature alone.

"Uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 is עֶרְוָה (erva): Strong’s Definitions
עֶרְוָה ʻervâh, er-vaw'; from H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):—nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness) The uncleanness in question isn't specified,

It is when you rightly apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, and so specify uncleanness as disobedience to the law: Fornication.

The uncleanness in question isn't specified, but it isn't fornication

If you can't say what it is, then you can't say what it is not. If something isn't specific, then it's unspecific, and so nothing can be specifically denied.

----זָנָה (zana)----and so may be a broader term for something shameful or displeasing.

Which certainly includes unlawful fornication.

The law doesn't command hearts not to harden, which is the weakness of the law.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law only exposes hardened hearts by transgression. Lawful permit can suffer hardened hearts, without executing judgment for transgression.

Again----Deut. 6:5, 10:16, 11:13, 13:18. The law clearly does command hearts not to harden [especially in 6:5, the "greatest commandment"], regardless of what Paul writes to the Romans.

Paul never writes to the Romans nor anyone else, that hard heartedness is not against the frist great commandment. In Hebrews 3 he confirms that disobedience to the commandment is by hardness of heart:

Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice. Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

Heb 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

Confirming once again that the uncleanness in the law for divorce, is hard-hearted sinning against God, which is not for any cause other than uncleannes, and is certainly for fornication.

Permission within the law ought not negate commandment of the law. Suffering a bill of divorcement for cause, does not contradict the law against adultery. Divorce for any cause is not lawful, and is transgression of the law against adulery.

They wouldn't need a divorce for adultery, since the penalty for adultery was death (Deut. 22:22).

Well done. I've waited to see if you make the right point. If they were executing the law as written, then divorce would be by death due to fornication, not by any bill of divorcement.

We see that not executing the law is not always mercy, but is because the people as a whole are unclean, and unwilling to condemn one another.

Ecc 8:11Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.


Them that do not keep the law, also do not execute the law.

[Difflugia]

It seems the wicked Pharisees determined they had nothing to do with the blood money so they took the money Judas threw back at them and bought the field in Judas' name, thinking that would clear them of any bloodguiltiness in the wicked murder of Jesus.

That's a possibility of Matthew's text, but not of Acts. In Acts, Judas is the one that did the actual buying.

[RBD]

I'm not suure what the point is, but since we're not making assumptions, who says he used a rope to hang himself?

And thus the word games. The word ἀπάγχω means to strangle someone. In the middle voice, it means suicide by hanging. It implies a rope in exactly the same way any sheriff's threat in a Western does. Now, I know you'd like to pretend that grammar is meaningless, but that's not practical if you genuinely want to know what an author is trying to tell you.

And I'm also sure sarcasm is lost on the uber-practical.

In any case, the record in Acts 1 doesn't say that he died at all:

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.

Yes. He clearly survived the noisy explosion of his guts.

Right. Sarcastically speaking.

This is exactly what I meant by word puzzle apologetics. In order to read what you want out of it, you have to pretend that the author of Acts is writing in a way that is completely counterintuitive. 1:18-19 is a narrative sequence that tells a short, but complete story. Your harmonization, however, would have us believe that the author is telling a completely different story that also requires knowledge of details that aren't included anywhere in the narrative. No marginally competent author writes that way.

I've responded enough times to this argument. No error is shown in it, so it remains sufficient. The middle does not allow for any translation nor interpretation, that Judas bought the fiield for himself, by himself alone.

For himself is correctly middle passive as written. By himself is adverbial and not written.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

While the multitude of stars are not by one star, the mulititude of natural children of Abraham are by two sons, but the promised mulititude and land is only by the one son Isaac.

Then to whatever extent it might be a promise about one seed, the one seed is Isaac and not the Messiah.

Your intellectual honesty is duly noted and honored.

Your unbelief however is your own.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

Nowhere in the Bible does He ever cast any doubt about the words He's written by the hands of men, but rather continually confirms them as right and true altogether.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.
(Acts 9:7)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
(Acts.22:9)

You know, I thought this would be one of the first ones offered.

Acts 9 is the Author accurately recording what He says happened. Acts 22 is the Author accurately recording what Paul says happened.

Paul certainly knew what happened with himself both in seeing and hearing, but how could he have known what happened with the others? Except they told him afterward. They certainly couldn't lie about what they saw:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless.

But they certainly could lie to Paul about what they did or didn't hear. The only way for Paul to know what they heard, is by them telling him. Paul was wrong about their record, because he believed their lie.

1Co 13:4 Charity... thinketh no evil;...Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

But the Author certainly knew better, since He was there too:

Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

According the love and mercy of the LORD, Jesus would have all men to repent and be saved. He wasn't there just for Saul of Tarsus, but also for his companions, who did see the light standing speachless, and did hear His voice, standing against Him with hardened hearts. And lying lips.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

Nowhere in the Bible does He ever cast any doubt about the words He's written by the hands of men, but rather continually confirms them as right and true altogether.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.
(Acts 9:7)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
(Acts.22:9)

You know, I thought this would be one of the first ones offered. And it's probably the only example in the Bible that is a grammatical contradiction, that cannot be denied, nor needs any intepretive explanations to make it stick. However...

It's not a grammatical contradiction the Author makes between His own words, because it's the contradiction of recorded narrative vs recorded event: Acts 9 is the Author accurately recording what He says happened. Acts 22 is the Author accurately recording what Paul says happened.

Paul certainly knew what happened with himself , both in seeing and hearing. But how could Paul possibly know all that happened with the others? Afterall, he was face down in the dirt, so to speak. So, they had to tell him, which makes sense on the remaining road to Damascus.

And, they certainly couldn't lie about what they saw:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless.

But they certainly could lie to Paul about what they did or didn't hear. They stood speechless without responding to anything they may have heard. The only way for Paul to know what they heard or not, is by them telling him. And so, Paul was wrong about their record, because he believed their lie about what the Author says really happened:

1Co 13:4 Charity... thinketh no evil;...Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

And the Author certainly was the one to knew better, since He was there too,l and knows all things, even the secrets between their ears:

Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

According to the love and mercy of the LORD, Jesus would have all men to repent and be saved. He wasn't there just for Saul of Tarsus, but also for his companions, who did see the light standing speachless, and did hear His voice, but standing against Him with hardened hearts. And lying lips.

Someone accurately recording what they know happened, is not the same as someone accurately recording what others say happened. Afterall, if the writer Luke, who must have heard Paul's account many times, writes something contrary to one point, then he's not writing only what Paul says happened, but what the Author knows really happened:

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

And the truth.