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 #300]

When Jesus tells his followers to let their Yea mean yea and their Nay mean nay-----right after explicitly telling them to "swear not at all", how can he be telling them that saying "yea" or "nay" is swearing?

Because he explicitly says to swear not at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, etc...but only by yea and nay. He confirms the LORD's definition of oath swearing by one's word, not by many words of heaven and earth. Let your yea or nay be your word of oath.

You're trying to make a semantic connection where there isn't one. Yea and Nay are never referred to as words of oath, and never referred to as swearing.

Deuteronomy 6:13 doesn't say, "You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve him, and shall swear by your word";

It says,

"You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve him, and shall swear by his name."

Jesus defines false swearing as swearing by other words, than our own word of yes or no. Forswearing begins with more words to swear by, than our own yes or no alone...

Swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited by Moses, the giver of Judaic law.

Any other form of oath swearing than yea or nay, only leads to forsworn condemnation of not performing it.

Moses clearly hasn't been told that by Jehovah in Numbers 30:1-2 or Deut. 6:13.

The only way for Jesus to contradict Himself, when He admonishes us not to swear by any other oath, than by our own yes or no, is if He ever does swear an oath by other than His own yes or no.

It isn't just about what he does; it's also about what he tells others to do.

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."
(Matthew 5:19)

By saying, "Do not swear at all, Jesus sets aside the command in Deut. 4:2 to add nothing to the law.


The US judicial and political systems actually have their roots in Roman law, not in biblical law.

Right. That's why all swearing in and oath of office by yes or no, is upon the book of Roman law, and not the Bible...

Do government officials have to swear with a hand on the Bible for their oath of office?

No. The Constitution protects religious freedom and says that there cannot be a religious test to hold public office.
https://www.freedomforum.org/swear-bibl ... of-office/

In any case, the American judicial and political system is based upon the teaching of Jesus, that swearing an oath ought be by yea or nay, not by other high-sounding words with low expectations...

Then why are American oaths of office so lengthy?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #300]

When Jesus tells his followers to let their Yea mean yea and their Nay mean nay-----right after explicitly telling them to "swear not at all", how can he be telling them that saying "yea" or "nay" is swearing?

Because he explicitly says to swear not at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, etc...but only by yea and nay. He confirms the LORD's definition of oath swearing by one's word, not by many words of heaven and earth. Let your yea or nay be your word of oath.

You're trying to make a semantic connection where there isn't one. Yea and Nay are never referred to as words of oath, and never referred to as swearing.

No Scripture speaks of 'words' of oath, other than to condemn them.

Hos 10:4 They have spoken words, swearing falsely in making a covenant: thus judgment springeth up as hemlock in the furrows of the field.

Jer 23:10 For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right.

Looks like those seeking divorce for more cause than adultery, also seek swearing with more words than yea or nay. (Well, it is afterall a marriage vow.)

Num 32 refers to one's word as one's oath, and Matthew 5 says that word sworn by, is yea or nay.

Deuteronomy 6:13 doesn't say, "You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve him, and shall swear by your word"
It says,

"You shall fear the Lord your God, and serve him, and shall swear by his name."

'By His name' is not a recital of words, but the authority by which things are said and done:

Deu 18:5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.

Mic 4:5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.

Act 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus...Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Only the superficially religious trust in recited words, rather than in the authority of their words and deeds. The same for those who superficially argue for swearing words of an oath, rather than by the authority of one's word being yea or nay.

Jesus defines false swearing as swearing by other words, than our own word of yes or no. Forswearing begins with more words to swear by, than our own yes or no alone...

Swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited by Moses, the giver of Judaic law.

Since you agree yes and no are words to swear by, then you agree Jesus could not have prohibited swearing of oaths, by confining oaths sworn to yes or no. (Just as with limiting divorce to sexual uncleanness, so He confines swearing of oaths to yes or no. He neither forbids any swearing of oaths nor divorces at all.)

The only way for Jesus to contradict Himself, when He admonishes us not to swear by any other oath, than by our own yes or no, is if He ever does swear an oath by other than His own yes or no.

It isn't just about what he does; it's also about what he tells others to do.

Of course. Jesus never tells anyone to do anything, that He does not do Himself. He always swears an oath by yes or no, and tells His trustworthy followers to do the same.

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

It's only the untrustworthy followers of forswearers, that promote oaths sworn in more words than just one: Yes or no. They say that their word of yes or no, is only an intent to do something, and so their word should never be taken as a promise to actually do it.

Talk about charlatan politicians, useless workers, and untrustworthy deal makers. The Bible calls them covenantbreakers, whose word alone cannot be trusted. The less refined just call them worthless liars, whose word is not worth spit.

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...."
(Matthew 5:19)

By saying, "Do not swear at all, Jesus sets aside the command in Deut. 4:2 to add nothing to the law.

It would actually take away from the law of swearing oaths.

In any case, by saying do not swear at all, without adding neither by heaven, earth, nor Jerusalem, fault-finders set aside context to make lies out of His words.

Matthew 5 is taken out of context in two ways: First by setting aside His words spoken after saying to swear not at all, and also by setting aside the verse in Num 32, that He was instructing from. His instruction was not referring to Deut 6 about swearing oaths alone, but was from Num 32 about forswearing oaths by not performing them.

The instruction from Num 32 is either swear not by any other oath, than that of yea or nay, that leads to forswearing, or swear no oath at all, that cannot be forsworn.

Jesus did not refer to Deut 6, because He was not rebutting swearing any oaths at all. If He had referred to Deut 6, and then prohibited swearing any oaths at all, He would certainly have disannulled the law of swearing oaths. But, as in the false accusation of Jesus forbidding any divorce for any cause, that is just another false accusation of fault finders, that set aside context, and dishonestly isolate His words to appear to be disannulling the law He gave to Moses.

Mar 12:13And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

The US judicial and political systems actually have their roots in Roman law, not in biblical law.

Right. That's why all swearing in and oath of office by yes or no, is upon the book of Roman law, and not the Bible...

Do government officials have to swear with a hand on the Bible for their oath of office?

I am speaking of the traditional founding of America, that pertains to swearing in, and oaths of office, that were taken upon the Bible.

However, it's still the American manner of swearing in and taking oaths of office, to be by a simple yes or no. Which means in American courts and political office, as well as citizenship and military service, a yes or no is a sworn oath.

Which now you also agree that a yes or no is swearing an oath. Which rebuts you're original argument of yea and nay not qualifying as swearing an oath. It was nothing but a grammatical throw away, in order to accuse Jesus of forbidding the swearing of oaths entirely, by confining our swearing of oaths to a simple yes or no.

In any case, the American judicial and political system is based upon the teaching of Jesus, that swearing an oath ought be by yea or nay, not by other high-sounding words with low expectations...

Then why are American oaths of office so lengthy?

The oaths may be short or lengthy, but the swearing to the oath is kept simple: Yea or nay. Which is as Jesus instructs in Matthew 5 for swearing oaths, which also confirms the LORD's word in Num 32, that giving our word alone is sufficient to swear an oath in His name. And anything more than that cometh of evil, as just high-sounding words with low expectations of being performed:

Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Ecc 5:7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

The fear of the Lord in the swearing of oaths is by our word of yea or nay, but the seducing of the foolish is by many deceitful words of promise.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #302]

Num 32 refers to one's word as one's oath, and Matthew 5 says that word sworn by, is yea or nay.

Numbers 30:2 says nothing about limiting your words to yea or nay. Neither does Deut. 6:13.

By His name' is not a recital of words, but the authority by which things are said and done:

"By his name" is invoking the authority----"I swear by his name that I will do this thing."


Swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited by Moses, the giver of Judaic law.

Since you agree yes and no are words to swear by

Strawman. I do not agree that yea and nay are words to swear by. I was pointing out that swearing requires more words than yea or nay.

Just as with limiting divorce to sexual uncleanness

Moses doesn't. We've been through that.

Jesus never tells anyone to do anything, that He does not do Himself. He always swears an oath by yes or no, and tells His trustworthy followers to do the same.

While Moses tells them to fear and serve Jehovah and to swear by his name.

It's only the untrustworthy followers of forswearers, that promote oaths sworn in more words than just one: Yes or no.

So Moses was an untrustworthy follower of forswearers?

It would actually take away from the law of swearing oaths.

It adds to the law a prohibition on swearing oaths.

In any case, by saying do not swear at all, without adding neither by heaven, earth, nor Jerusalem, fault-finders set aside context to make lies out of His words.

Here's where you're playing with semantics. You're trying to make Jesus say,
"Do not swear by
1. heaven
2. earth
3. Jerusalem, or
4. your own head."

That's not what he's saying. The context is that he tells them not to swear at all, which means not swearing by anything. That's why he tells them to say only yes or no----that isn't swearing by anything.

His instruction was not referring to Deut 6 about swearing oaths alone, but was from Num 32 about forswearing oaths by not performing them.

Right. In Numbers, Moses is commanding them to perform whatever they swear, not to say only yes or no.

The instruction from Num 32 is either swear not by any other oath, than that of yea or nay, that leads to forswearing, or swear no oath at all, that cannot be forsworn.

Numbers 30:1-2 says nothing about either making no oath or about saying only yea or nay.

If He had referred to Deut 6, and then prohibited swearing any oaths at all, He would certainly have disannulled the law of swearing oaths.

That's exactly the situation. He does refer to Deut. 6 indirectly, because Deut. 6 involves swearing. Jesus commands them to say only yes or no. Swearing by Jehovah's name goes beyond saying only yes or no.

I am speaking of the traditional founding of America, that pertains to swearing in, and oaths of office, that were taken upon the Bible.

The "traditional founding" of America is irrelevant since the Constitution is the basis of the laws.

However, it's still the American manner of swearing in and taking oaths of office, to be by a simple yes or no. Which means in American courts and political office, as well as citizenship and military service, a yes or no is a sworn oath.

First, that type of oath is administered. The Bible refers to an oath you take for yourself.

Second, an example of said oaths is written like this:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It's loosely referred to as an "oath" but it can also be an affirmation.

Notice also that there is no mention of God in the text, because it isn't intended as a religious definition of an oath.


Think of it this way----

Person 1 says, "I swear by heaven that I will do this."

Person 2 says, "I swear by earth that I will do this."

Person 3 says, "I swear by Jerusalem that I will do this."

Person 4 says, "I swear by my head that I will do this."

Jesus condems them all, because they have not limited their word to "yes" or "no".

Person 5, following the law of Moses in Deut. 6:13, says, "I swear by the Lord's name that I will do this."

Person 5 has done the same thing for which Jesus condemns Persons 1-4. Can he condemn Person 5 for the same reason?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #302]

Num 32 refers to one's word as one's oath, and Matthew 5 says that word sworn by, is yea or nay.

Numbers 30:2 says nothing about limiting your words to yea or nay. Neither does Deut. 6:13.

Num 30 is about our word, not words. Arguing our word is not our word, but must be more than yes or no, is the sophistry of great swearers, that do not any of the great words they say...

Jde 1:16 Their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;

Like phony politicians and corrupt deal makers.

By His name' is not a recital of words, but the authority by which things are said and done:

"By his name" is invoking the authority----"I swear by his name that I will do this thing."

Which can done by our word, yes or no.

Num 30 proves our word is a sworn oath. Arguing that our word is not a sworn oath, is admission of untrustworthiness, that no amount of words can cover.

Swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited by Moses, the giver of Judaic law.

Since you agree yes and no are words to swear by

Strawman. I do not agree that yea and nay are words to swear by.

Then change your argument. As stated, it says swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited, which makes swearing by yes and no the standard words of swearing an oath.

I was pointing out that swearing requires more words than yea or nay.

Untrustworthy people can argue that their word is not their sworn oath, because more words are needed to be binding, but they cannot by the Bible. The Bible is the principle standard for one's word being our bond.

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.

In order to make Jesus Christ disannul the law of oaths, by simply swearing yes or no, we see the effort to disannul our word as our bond, as well as try to make the LORD approve it.

However, it's still the American manner of swearing in and taking oaths of office, to be by a simple yes or no. Which means in American courts and political office, as well as citizenship and military service, a yes or no is a sworn oath.

First, that type of oath is administered. The Bible refers to an oath you take for yourself.

False. Giving one's word can be either in response to a requested oath, or of an oath offered.

Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Num 10:32 And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what goodness the LORD shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.


The LORD's own example is to swear by His own simple yea, to perform His oath. The same being for the trustworthy and honorable who do the same.

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 LORD therefore commands His own people to do likewise as He, and let our yes or no be our oath sworn to.

Person 1 says, "I swear by heaven that I will do this."

Person 2 says, "I swear by earth that I will do this."

Person 3 says, "I swear by Jerusalem that I will do this."

Person 4 says, "I swear by my head that I will do this."

Jesus condemns them all, because they have not limited their word to "yes" or "no".

Exactly. A simple yes or no is good enough for the LORD , and ought be good enough for any person making an oath. Only those that do not believe their own word is enough to swear an oath by, will go on to add more words than necessary, as though by more words alone, that makes them more trustworthy.

1Jo 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

Person 5, following the law of Moses in Deut. 6:13, says, "I swear by the Lord's name that I will do this."

Person 5 has done the same thing for which Jesus condemns Persons 1-4. Can he condemn Person 5 for the same reason?

False again. Jesus never included by the LORD's name in forswearing oneself. Your errors with the words of the text prove your errors in their instruction.

And that instruction also had to do with the forswearing Jews, who were playing word games with the letter of the law of LORD, and forsaking the spirit of swearing oaths by His name.

They reasoned by letters alone, that so long as they did not swear 'by the LORD's name', but rather by some lesser name and person, then their oaths would not be binding as unto the LORD. Swearing by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's head did not have the power to bind ones oath with the LORD Himself.

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.

Only by swearing an oath in the Lord's name Himself, was their soul then bound to perform it as unto the LORD; therefore, swearing by something lesser only made their words an intention to do something, but not a promise...

Jesus corrects this legalized lie by saying all oaths are made unto the LORD, since all things are the LORD's, whether heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or one's own head.

Jesus Christ once again establishes the law of the LORD against the untrustworthy deceivers, who say one's word is not their oath, and swearing by something other than the LORD's name, likewise is not an oath to bind one's soul to.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #304]

Num 30 is about our word, not words. Arguing our word is not our word, but must be more than yes or no, is the sophistry of great swearers, that do not any of the great words they say...

An oath is more than yes or no. Jesus obviously believed that, or else he wouldn't have had a problem with Numbers 30:2.


"By his name" is invoking the authority----"I swear by his name that I will do this thing."

Which can done by our word, yes or no.

Jesus gives examples of how he thought people should not swear: "neither by heaven....nor by earth...nor by Jerusalem....nor by your own head".

How to you swear by heaven by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by earth by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by Jerusalem by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by your own head by saying only yes or no?

Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

Num 30 proves our word is a sworn oath.

Then why does Jesus take issue with it, reaming off a whole prohibited list of invocations which Num. 30:2 doesn't prohibit?


I do not agree that yea and nay are words to swear by.

Then change your argument. As stated, it says swearing by more words than yes and no is not prohibited, which makes swearing by yes and no the standard words of swearing an oath.

You're playing with semantics again. "Swearing by more words than yes or no" means swearing, by using more words than yes or no.

Untrustworthy people can argue that their word is not their sworn oath, because more words are needed to be binding

Untrustworthy people can violate anything they say, which is what Num. 30:2 addresses.

but they cannot by the Bible. The Bible is the principle standard for one's word being our bond.

Premise 1. Jesus tells his followers, "swear not at all".

Premise 2. Jesus tells his followers to say only "yes" for yes and "no" for no.

Conclusion: When Jesus tells his followers to say only "yes" for yes and "no" for no, he is not telling them to swear at all.

In order to make Jesus Christ disannul the law of oaths, by simply swearing yes or no, we see the effort to disannul our word as our bond, as well as try to make the LORD approve it.

"The LORD" approves of swearing:

You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him and shall swear by His name.
(Deut. 6:13)

Jesus does not:

But let your communication be Yea, yea: Nay, nay. For whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.
(Matthew 5:37)


Person 5, following the law of Moses in Deut. 6:13, says, "I swear by the Lord's name that I will do this."

Person 5 has done the same thing for which Jesus condemns Persons 1-4. Can he condemn Person 5 for the same reason?

False again. Jesus never included by the LORD's name in forswearing oneself.

Forswearing is simply breaking an oath. That's what Num. 30:2 says----that you must keep whatever oath you make.

Only by swearing an oath in the Lord's name Himself, was their soul then bound to perform it as unto the LORD; therefore, swearing by something lesser only made their words an intention to do something, but not a promise...

Then one's "word" was not a binding oath, since it was a lesser thing to Jehovah's name.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #304]

Num 30 is about our word, not words. Arguing our word is not our word, but must be more than yes or no, is the sophistry of great swearers, that do not any of the great words they say...

An oath is more than yes or no. Jesus obviously believed that, or else he wouldn't have had a problem with Numbers 30:2.

He didn't have a problem with Num 30, but only with people avoiding oaths accountable to the Lord, by alternative oaths to heaven, earth, Jeruslaem, etc...

"By his name" is invoking the authority----"I swear by his name that I will do this thing."

Which can done by our word, yes or no.

Jesus gives examples of how he thought people should not swear: "neither by heaven....nor by earth...nor by Jerusalem....nor by your own head".

How to you swear by heaven by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by earth by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by Jerusalem by saying only yes or no?

How do you swear by your own head by saying only yes or no?

Exactly. By a simple yes or no, both God and man hear and hold us accountable. It effectively cuts of a list of deceptive alternatives to heaven and earth, that cannot hear nor hold anything accountable.

Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

Not with the true God who hears all things we say, and holds us accountable for all our words.

Matth 12:37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned…for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Only the double-minded and frauds demand extra words to 'seal' an oath.

Num 30 proves our word is a sworn oath.

Then why does Jesus take issue with it, reaming off a whole prohibited list of invocations which Num. 30:2 doesn't prohibit?

He didn't, but only took issue with a list of alternative invocations to no profit.

but they cannot by the Bible. The Bible is the principle standard for one's word being our bond.

Premise 1. Jesus tells his followers, "swear not at all".

Untrustworthy people cut context short. They probably also get impressed with a whole list of invocations swearing they aren't...

Conclusion: When Jesus tells his followers to say only "yes" for yes and "no" for no, he is not telling them to swear at all.

He is telling us not to swear by a list of invocations.

Only by swearing an oath in the Lord's name Himself, was their soul then bound to perform it as unto the LORD; therefore, swearing by something lesser only made their words an intention to do something, but not a promise...

Then one's "word" was not a binding oath, since it was a lesser thing to Jehovah's name.

And so an idol is made of Jehovah's name, as though a simple yes or no isn't enough to be heard by Him.

1Ki 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

Perhaps the same kind of idolatry over Jehovah's name, prevented some Jews from simply searing by the Lord's name. By their false superstition forbidding to speak His name, they avoided a law that was offensive to them, and instead swore by a list of kosher alternatives, such as heaven, earth, the city, and the head....

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #306]

He didn't have a problem with Num 30, but only with people avoiding oaths accountable to the Lord, by alternative oaths to heaven, earth, Jeruslaem, etc...

He obviously did have a problem with it, since he brought it up as an example and then said, "But I tell you...."

By a simple yes or no, both God and man hear and hold us accountable. It effectively cuts of a list of deceptive alternatives to heaven and earth, that cannot hear nor hold anything accountable.

But Jesus cuts off more than that. He cuts off even swearing by Jehovah's name, which Mosaic law allows.


Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

Not with the true God who hears all things we say, and holds us accountable for all our words.

Matth 12:37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned…for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Matthew 12:37 has nothing to do with oath-taking.

Only the double-minded and frauds demand extra words to 'seal' an oath.

But Mosaic law allows the extra words it takes to swear by Jehovah's name.

"Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD (שָׁבַע יְהֹוָה), if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now."
(2 Samuel 19:7)


Then why does Jesus take issue with it, reaming off a whole prohibited list of invocations which Num. 30:2 doesn't prohibit?

He didn't, but only took issue with a list of alternative invocations to no profit.

He took issue with everything beyond Yes and No, when Mosaic law allows swearing by Jehovah's name.


When Jesus tells his followers to say only "yes" for yes and "no" for no, he is not telling them to swear at all.

He is telling us not to swear by a list of invocations.

He literally says, "Swear not at all, but say Yes for Yes and No for no."

You can't take the end parts off and quote only what's in the middle.

Only by swearing an oath in the Lord's name Himself, was their soul then bound to perform it as unto the LORD; therefore, swearing by something lesser only made their words an intention to do something, but not a promise...

Then one's "word" was not a binding oath, since it was a lesser thing to Jehovah's name.

And so an idol is made of Jehovah's name, as though a simple yes or no isn't enough to be heard by Him.

If an idol is made of Jehovah's name in that way, then it must be Moses who makes it so. Moses is the one who allows swearing by Jehovah's name and doesn't limit one's word to Yes or No.

Perhaps the same kind of idolatry over Jehovah's name, prevented some Jews from simply searing by the Lord's name.

Was that what prompted Jesus to tell them not to swear even by Jehovah's name, but to say only Yes or No?


"Do not swear at all, but let your Yes mean yes and your No mean no."

How would that read in Hebrew, and where does such a command appear in the Torah?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #306]

By a simple yes or no, both God and man hear and hold us accountable. It effectively cuts of a list of deceptive alternatives to heaven and earth, that cannot hear nor hold anything accountable.

But Jesus cuts off more than that. He cuts off even swearing by Jehovah's name, which Mosaic law allows.

He doesn't forbid swearing by the name of the Lord, but only by other things like heaven, earth...

Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

The Bible isn't bound by other definitions of swearing.

Not with the true God who hears all things we say, and holds us accountable for all our words.

Matth 12:37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned…for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Matthew 12:37 has nothing to do with oath-taking.

Only if the oath is silent without speaking. otherwise all words we speak are accountable to the Lord, especially swearing of oaths.

And even if sworn in silence, God still hears the words of our heart accountable to Himself.

Heb 4:12 For 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.

Only the double-minded and frauds demand extra words to 'seal' an oath.

But Mosaic law allows the extra words it takes to swear by Jehovah's name.

"Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD (שָׁבַע יְהֹוָה), if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now."
(2 Samuel 19:7)

The Bible record of approved swearing by the Lord is not forbid by Jesus. There is no record in the Bible of swearing by heaven, earth, etc... that is approved. The only place it appears is when Jesus and James rebuke it as a manner of forswearing.

Then why does Jesus take issue with it, reaming off a whole prohibited list of invocations which Num. 30:2 doesn't prohibit?

Num 30 is the law for swearing. Matthew and James are the rebuke to swearing another way than the law.

He didn't, but only took issue with a list of alternative invocations to no profit.

He took issue with everything beyond Yes and No, when Mosaic law allows swearing by Jehovah's name.

He took issue with swearing at all by heaven, earth...

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

The context of His admonition is forswearing, which is swearing by other things than the Lord's name.

When Jesus tells his followers to say only "yes" for yes and "no" for no, he is not telling them to swear at all.

He is telling us not to swear by a list of invocations.

He literally says, "Swear not at all, but say Yes for Yes and No for no."

You can't take the end parts off and quote only what's in the middle.

You can take the first part out of context, and quote only on what's at the beginning, but it's a lie about what's written.

Only by swearing an oath in the Lord's name Himself, was their soul then bound to perform it as unto the LORD; therefore, swearing by something lesser only made their words an intention to do something, but not a promise...

Then one's "word" was not a binding oath, since it was a lesser thing to Jehovah's name.

Not with the Bible:

Gen 21:23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me,...And Abraham said, I will swear.

Abraham swore by God without saying God.

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

God swore by Himself, without saying God or Himself.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Abraham is not guilty of forswearing an oath as promised, just because he did not say the word God.

And so an idol is made of Jehovah's name, as though a simple yes or no isn't enough to be heard by Him.

If an idol is made of Jehovah's name in that way, then it must be Moses who makes it so. Moses is the one who allows swearing by Jehovah's name and doesn't limit one's word to Yes or No.

The idol maker is the one demanding the 'name' of the Lord, or the word 'God' be spoken when swearing an oath by the Lord God.

Deu 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Psa 89:24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

Jer 29:9 For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.

Mat 24:5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


The name need not be spoken, in order to speak and act in their authority.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Some make an idolatry of water baptism, by insisting "in the name of Jesus Christ" be spoken word for word, else the water baptism is judged undone. It's the same kind of carnal minded legalism, that would say Abraham did not swear an oath to Abimelech by God, because he did not say the word God.

Perhaps the same kind of idolatry over Jehovah's name, prevented some Jews from simply searing by the Lord's name.

Was that what prompted Jesus to tell them not to swear even by Jehovah's name, but to say only Yes or No?

Good point. It may indeed tempt some Jewish believers in Christ, who still cling to their old superstition over naming the name of the Lord. Perhaps even some Jewish proselytes converting to the Lord Jesus Christ, would continue with that fond old Jewish superstition, that only has a pretense of humility and honor:

Col 2:21 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour...

"Do not swear at all, but let your Yes mean yes and your No mean no."

How would that read in the Hebrew, and where does such a command appear in the Torah?

I don't know Hebrew. But that's neither a command, nor even said in the Torah, nor in any of the Bible. It's only cut off from what is taught in the Bible.

Do not swear by heaven, earth, etc...at all, but let your yea be yea, etc... would be in Matthew 5 and James 5.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #308]

He doesn't forbid swearing by the name of the Lord, but only by other things like heaven, earth...

He forbids swearing at all (μή ὅλως), approving only of Yes and No.


Swearing by something requires invocation of the thing being sworn by.

The Bible isn't bound by other definitions of swearing.

There are no other definitions of swearing.


Matthew 12:37 has nothing to do with oath-taking.

Only if the oath is silent without speaking. otherwise all words we speak are accountable to the Lord, especially swearing of oaths.

Accountable words don't have to be sworn oaths. Saying "Yes" or "No", for example, is not swearing an oath. Just ask Jesus.

There is no record in the Bible of swearing by heaven, earth, etc... that is approved.

Is there any record in the Tanakh [the only Bible around in Jesus's day] of such swearing being disapproved?

Num 30 is the law for swearing. Matthew and James are the rebuke to swearing another way than the law.

The law does not prohibit the swearing which they rebuke.

He took issue with swearing at all by heaven, earth...

He took issue with swearing at all and condoned only saying Yes or No. There's no getting around that.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

The context of His admonition is forswearing, which is swearing by other things than the Lord's name.

Forswearing is swearing an oath and then not following through on it.

"to make a liar of (oneself) under or as if under oath"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forswear

The command in Numbers 30:2 is to keep any oath you swear. The object of the oath is not at issue.


He literally says, "Swear not at all, but say Yes for Yes and No for no."

You can't take the end parts off and quote only what's in the middle.

You can take the first part out of context, and quote only on what's at the beginning, but it's a lie about what's written.

The context of the beginning ["swear not at all"] is what's at the end ["but say Yes for yes and No for no; anything more than this comes of evil"].

Abraham swore by God without saying God.

He could have sworn by Jehovah's name and not violated the law, even though it would have been more than Yes or No.

The name need not be spoken, in order to speak and act in their authority.

The name is spoken in the swearing of an oath, and can be even though it's more than Yes or No.


"Do not swear at all, but let your Yes mean yes and your No mean no."

How would that read in the Hebrew, and where does such a command appear in the Torah?

I don't know Hebrew. But that's neither a command, nor even said in the Torah, nor in any of the Bible.

Right. There's no prohibition on swearing in the Torah.

Now, this is a prohibition in the Torah:

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
(Deuteronomy 4:2)

.....which puts Jesus and James at odds with the Torah.

[bluegreenearth]

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.

First of all, the method you've described above neither acknowledges the possibility of confirmation bias nor mitigates for it. Secondly, even if the Bible were to be demonstrated as inerrant, this would only falsify the claim that it contains errors and/or contradictions. The existence of an inerrant Bible would not falsify the claim that the collection of books and letters comprising it were written by human authors in the absence of a deity.

At the same time, nothing in the contents of the Biblical texts will function to prove or disprove the claim that they disclose the words of a god. I know this is the case because I've encountered self-identified Christians who do not reject the notion that the Bible contains errors/contradictions, yet they still believe it captures the inerrant words of their god. The reasoning they offer is that the identified discrepancies were a natural and expected consequence of human fallibility on the part of the authors and transcribers, not the inerrant god who inspired their work. Similarly, to the satisfaction of Christians who feel it is necessary for the Bible to be perceived as literally inerrant, hermeneutics can be deployed to seemingly (and conveniently ) resolve all the apparent errors/contradictions they encounter in the texts. However, Christians are victims of their own success in this regard because the ability to post-hoc rationalize an apologetic defense against any possible objection to their claim renders it unfalsifiable.

Why is unfalsifiability a problem? Doesn't this mean that the claim must be true by default? No. The inability to identify any quantity or quality of evidence that would falsify the specified claim does not provide a justification to accept it is as true. It does not logically follow that an unfalsifiable claim will qualify as true as a consequence of our inability to imagine what evidence would be needed to disprove it.

To illustrate this point, consider the unfalsifiable claim that a fire-breathing dragon was responsible for the strange sounds I heard emanating from my garage this morning. My neighbor argues that the claim could be falsified by opening the garage door to observe no dragon in there. We proceed to open the garage and subsequently observe no dragon, but I assert that the dragon must be invisible. My neighbor attempts to resolve this issue by offering to spread sand or wet paint on the floor as means to detect the dragon's footprints. It was a clever suggestion, but I informed my neighbor of the dragon's ability to hover over the floor and not leave any footprints. Frustrated, my neighbor insisted that we should at least be able to feel the heat when the invisible hovering dragon breaths fire. I responded by noting the possibility of the dragon exhaling room-temperature fire. While we stood there contemplating this mystery, my neighbor suddenly pointed to a small hole in the baseboard that was occupied by a mouse and declared it to be the source of the strange sounds. My neighbor's explanation seemed worthy of consideration, but I wasn't convinced that such a small creature could be the only cause of the strange sounds I had heard earlier. So, I explained to my neighbor that the existence of the mouse in the present moment does not disprove the possibility of an invisible fire-breathing dragon having been the cause of the strange sounds I heard previously. Finally, my neighbor asks if there is any conceivable evidence that would prove to my satisfaction that there is no dragon in the garage. I was unable to provide my neighbor with an example of the type of disconfirming evidence that we would expect to find if the claim is false.

Having demonstrated the unfalsifiablity of my claim, would I be reasonably justified in believing in an invisible fire-breathing dragon? No.

Obviously, the claim about an invisible fire-breathing dragon is not directly analogous to your claim about the Christian god, but a one-to-one correlation is not necessary to demonstrate how both are unfalsifiable and subject to the same limitations.