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]

No, your story says he bought it for himself, while the narrative says Judas himself bought it. The middle voice only identifies who, not why.

What you're describing is active voice, not middle.

Exactly. We do something ourselves, not having others do it.

"Acted upon himself or for his own benefit", is an unnecessary extension and abnormal definition of the simple middle voice, such as He himself bought the land, or He himself drove the car... .

And if it's further extended to imply for what cause he bought it, or he drove it by himself alone, without the text specifically saying so, then it's an obvious abuse for a false narrative.

Trying to impute a cause by abusing the middle voice, is only for making a contradiction appear where there is none. And since it's only a beginner's error, then any attempted show of linguistics is either a pretense, or willful abuse.

You're funny. I keep inviting you to find another text that uses κτάομαι in the way you want it to be used here, but you instead accuse me of being dishonest.

Not necessary since the one given is properly translated, as he purchased a field, or he himself purchased it...

It's incumbent upon the proposer, that the simple voice alone is ever translated with such a cause, or numbers involved. It's not possible to translate from the middle voice, that he purchased the field for himself alone, or by himself alone...

The field of blood Judas himself bought with the priests', who handled his bloody money, is the same field he hung himself in.

How could it be, when he left to hang himself before the priests had even decided what to do with the money?

Already responded to this enough.

(And he didn't hang for himself therein, as some beginners could err and try to say from the middle voice...)

You're funny.

Thank you. I also thought it's a cute ad absurdum.

It's possible, but only in the sense that anything's possible.

And so now you have shown the difference between a contradiction, and only a possible contradiction.

The challenge is to show a contradiction, not a possible contradiction.

And now we're back to equivocating on what "possible" means.

No. A literary possibility according to grammatical rules, is an acceptable possibility from the text. A contradiction allows for no such possibility.

At that point, whether someone accepts or rejects the literary possibility as true, is irrelevant to there being one.

If it's "possible" that language can take on literally any meaning whatsoever, then there is no such thing as a contradiction and inerrancy is meaningless.

[/quote]

That's only possible by ignoring established literary rules of grammar. If any such rule is violated, or ignored, then the argument is meaningless.

The simple reading is that Judas himself bought the field with the blood money handled by the priests. They were all at the transaction together with one consent, to purchase it to bury strangers therein. And Judas made himself the first.

Judas threw the money down and left to hang himself. The priests picked up the money, decided among themselves to buy a field with it, then did so.

True. This narrative is moved forward quickly to get the gist of it, without taking the time to fill in any other details, that can and are given elsewhere.

By Acts 1 saying Judas himself bought the field, we must conclude they did so together.

Which contradicts Matthew, where all details of the priests buying the field happened after Judas left to hang himself.

While he went, did he also go to get a rope, or did he hang himself from a limb by his neck alone? (That would take a really strong neck.)

Narrative time gaps conform to literary rules of grammar. Whether anyone wants to accept them as possible or not, is irrelevant to their possible use.

Context is not only in the immediate text, but in the whole book together. (The Bible is famous for revealing more and more detail for one event from all over the Book, especially with prophecy. It's called separating the narrative account.)

And apologists are famous for illegitimately connecting otherwise disconnected narrative accounts, hence "out of context" having become cliché.

Separation of the narrative accounts to give a full account, is acceptable literary style, no matter how much someone may think it's become cliche'd.

The middle voice of κτάομαι requires at least agency and perhaps more.

Exactly. Oneself first, and also maybe others with oneself.

Which is satisfied in Acts, but not Matthew, hence the contradiction.

Which is satisfied with Acts and Matthew taken together.

Separation of the narrative accounts to give a full account...yada yada yada.

So, I'm still curious. Do you treat the doctrine of inerrancy a propositional claim or a dogmatic one?

Like any theorem, it's propositional unless proven otherwise. But also like any theorem, it can be intelligently acted upon at present.

Are you trying to be difficult to understand?

Precise as in a class or court room. I.e. Something is inerrant, until proven otherwise.

And also, inerrancy does not prove it's true, only that it can certainly be true. Without proof of error, no one can be certain it's not true.

Whether it's those who blindly believe something is true without confronting possible errors, or those blindly disbelieving it is true without acknowledging possible alternatives, neither are certain of anything, other than in their own minds alone.

[RBD]

In Dt. 23:14, the soldier leaving his uncleanness in camp is improper. In Dt. 24:1, the wife's uncleanness is improper. The consequences are different because their social stations are different.

Sex may have to do with being an unclean soldier in camp. It has nothing to do with being an unclean spouse in divorce.

This soldier camp thing started with nothing to do with divorce, and now ends here in meaningless sociology.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #255]

Jesus makes the difference between making a vow, and swearing an oath.

Moses says that they're to be treated in exactly the same way. He doesn't make the distinction between them that you're making.

Try a word by word comparison, and you'll see the difference between making a vow to keep, and swearing by a vow that does nothing to help keep it.

You can then see why tis better to love by one deed, than with many words.

As they jilted lady says, Promises, promises...

Jesus never told His people not to make a vow, but only not to swear by them.

Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all"

Taking an oath by yea, or nay, is not swearing with an oath of many words from heaven above, hell beneath, and on my dear mother's grave...

Jas 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

The different words alone tell the difference between taking an oath, and swearing a liturgy. And I'll no longer try to instruct you on why Missouri is the Show Me state.

[RBD]

Commanding to keep an oath, does not include swearing to keep it.

Commanding to keep an oath assumes that an oath has been sworn. In fact, only swearing an oath makes the command necessary.

In fact not.

Num 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Nothing needs be said to make an oath within oneself, especially with LORD.

And swearing what will be done, is not swearing by heaven and earth to do it.

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

"take your oaths in his name."
---Moses

"do not swear an oath at all"
---Jesus

Falsely quoting Jesus' words ends your fabricated argument of contradicting Moses.

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Force people to talk long enough to defend their accusation in detail, and the cat gets let out of the bag. And it's usually as easy and obvious to see, as reading the words for ourselves.

Act 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jesus never commanded anyone not to ever swear an oath, nor not to ever get divorced.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #263]

like Mohammed lying about the God of Abraham

How can you say with certainty that Mohammed was lying about the God of Abraham when he says that the God of Abraham has no son in a book and you believe that the God of Abraham does have a son because it's written in a book?

It's a matter of certain grammar, not of faith.

Mohammed not believing the God of Abraham is just simple unbelief shared by many in the world. The lie is Mohammed saying he speaks for the God of Abraham, and then says He does not beget a Son.

He makes the God of Abraham a liar, when He says He does beget a Son. He also shows that Allah, who does not beget a Son, is not the God of Abraham.

[RBD]

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.

Then it would be irrational to believe in the Bible God, as the Bible claims millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved by the ancient Egyptians for 100's of years. And we now know this likely did not happen. Game-set-match. Do-not-pass-go. Do not collect $200.00. All things are not true. Hence, research other 'creator' storylines. There are many....

Likely is also unlikely as not. And for hundreds of years people do not believe it is likely.

Rom 10:16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report…For 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,

The only play you have here is.... Well, we have just not found the evidence for the claim of an "Exodus' yet, but it's there!

You're arguing with someone else, not me.

Thus far, you have 2 choices:

1) Argue that we will find evidence someday.
2) Argue we should never expect to find any evidence.

I see no third option, in your current case/position.

The third option ought to be the only one. Respond to what I write, not to what someone is supposed to have said. I don't argue for what others may say, but only for what I write.

[POI]

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.

Then it would be irrational to believe in the Bible God, as the Bible claims millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved by the ancient Egyptians for 100's of years. And we now know this likely did not happen. Game-set-match. Do-not-pass-go. Do not collect $200.00. All things are not true. Hence, research other 'creator' storylines. There are many....

Likely is also unlikely as not. And for hundreds of years people do not believe it is likely.

Rom 10:16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report…For 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,

The only play you have here is.... Well, we have just not found the evidence for the claim of an "Exodus' yet, but it's there!

You're arguing with someone else, not me.

Thus far, you have 2 choices:

1) Argue that we will find evidence someday.
2) Argue we should never expect to find any evidence.

I see no third option, in your current case/position.

The third option ought to be the only one. Respond to what I write, not to what someone is supposed to have said. I don't argue for what others may say, but only for what I write.

I'm basing my response upon <your> response(s). Again, are you:

1) Arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or...
2) Arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?

[RBD]

All I need to do is to point out any claim which is demonstrated false.

True. Any claim of error that cannot be corrected by the text, proves the text is false.

We now know the Egyptians did not enslave millions of Israelites for 100's of years.

I have done so, in the other thread. Hence, this topic is closed, in that you can move along and maybe search for the claims to another god or gods instead.

You can believe that all you wish. I don't argue about faith or unbelief, but only about the evidence proving one thing or another.

It's not about convincing anyone to believe anything, but only about inerrancy providing legitimate faith. Without evidence against Bible inerrancy, then the only blind faith is believing it can't possibly be true.

Yet again, it depends on the claim. The other thread has exhausted this particular exchange.

Here too.

[RBD]

"Uncleanness" in Dt. 23:14 and "uncleanness" in Dt. 24:1 are the same word (עֶרְוַת). The uncleanness in 24:1 isn't specified as sexual, as it would be if the word there were "fornication" (וַיֶּזֶן). Thus, uncleanness doesn't have to be sexual even in marriage.

So said the adulterous Jews of Jesus' day, who divorced for every cause, including the 'uncleanness' of being touched by a Gentile in the market.

So, are you an anti-NT born Jew, or convert to the Jews religion? I've asked you many times. You at least know about every argument they give for finding fault with Jesus, in order to reject Him as the Christ, the Son of the Blessed.

I'm a least a little surprised that you haven't argued His healing on the Sabbath, also defiled the Sabbath.

[POI]

All I need to do is to point out any claim which is demonstrated false.

True. Any claim of error that cannot be corrected by the text, proves the text is false.

We now know the Egyptians did not enslave millions of Israelites for 100's of years.

I have done so, in the other thread. Hence, this topic is closed, in that you can move along and maybe search for the claims to another god or gods instead.

You can believe that all you wish. I don't argue about faith or unbelief, but only about the evidence proving one thing or another.

It's not about convincing anyone to believe anything, but only about inerrancy providing legitimate faith. Without evidence against Bible inerrancy, then the only blind faith is believing it can't possibly be true.

Yet again, it depends on the claim. The other thread has exhausted this particular exchange.

Here too.

Nothing you provided detours my two legit questions tailored just for you:

Are you either:

1) Arguing that we will find evidence someday? Or...
2) Arguing that we should never expect to find any evidence?