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.

[Difflugia]

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").
• Genesis 21:31 contradicts Genesis 26:33 ("And that is why it's called Beersheba").
• 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").

[benchwarmer]

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

... 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.

That is pure gold. I've never heard it put that way, but it's so true! You have just summed up the entirety of inerrantist apologetics.

As for the OP:

"Proving the Bible" doesn't even make sense. We all know the Bible exists, no need to 'prove it'. Where you will fail is proving everything inside its covers is true. Given the myriad of contradictions, it's not even possible without absolutely torturing the original author's meanings as already pointed out.

If you want to prove your God exists, then simply skip the Bible (which is just a bunch of written words from various authors) and point out some actual evidence we can all verify. What these debates often seem like are that the Bible itself is the 'God'. If there is an actual 'God', I imagine it is likely quite insulted at much of what is in the Bible.

[1213]

...

• 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").
• Genesis 21:31 contradicts Genesis 26:33 ("And that is why it's called Beersheba").
• 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").

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

And God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by My name JEHOVAH I never made Myself known to them.
Exodus 6:2-3

2) And about the well city, for example Green's literal has it like this:
On account of this that place is called The Well of Sheba, because the two of them swore there.
Genesis 21:31
And he called it Shebah; so the name of the city is The Well of Sheba until this day.
Genesis 26:33
I don't see a contradiction there. (well apparently means beer in this case).

3) In the case of how Judas got the field, to acquire would be more accurate translation, because he acquired the field by the money he got. It was bought with his money and he acquired the field by it, therefore it can be said he bought it, even if there was a broker making the deal. It is also possible that the "this one" means some other person than Judas, for example the broker.
Indeed, then, this one bought a field out of the reward of unrighteousness; and falling headlong, he burst in the middle, and poured out all his bowels.
Acts 1:18

4) Why do you think these are about the same field?
And taking the pieces of silver, the chief priests said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. And taking counsel, they bought of them the potter's field, for burial for the strangers.
Matthew 27:6-7
And it became known to all those living in Jerusalem, so as that field to be called in their own dialect, Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.
Acts 1:19

[Difflugia]

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

That's an extremely tortured understanding of what's going on and would strain even logic-puzzle inerrancy, but if we still assume that there's a way that the patriarchs could somehow know Yahweh without Him revealing Himself, that is contradicted by Genesis 15:7:

And He said unto him [Abram], "I am Yahweh that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it."

Yahweh Himself told Abram who He is.

2) And about the well city, for example Green's literal has it like this:
On account of this that place is called The Well of Sheba, because the two of them swore there.
Genesis 21:31
And he called it Shebah; so the name of the city is The Well of Sheba until this day.
Genesis 26:33
I don't see a contradiction there.

No? Who is responsible for the name? The first story is about Abraham and the second, uncannily similar story is about Isaac, but each story includes the Hebrew phrase עַל־כֵּ֗ן, which means "therefore" or "for this reason."

3) In the case of how Judas got the field, to acquire would be more accurate translation, because he acquired the field by the money he got. It was bought with his money and he acquired the field by it, therefore it can be said he bought it, even if there was a broker making the deal.

The particular conjugation of the particular Greek verb doesn't allow for this meaning. I've explained this before. Your "acquired" thing is just a red herring. Even if we agree that the root verb κτάομαι means "acquired," the conjugation ἐκτήσατο means "he acquired for himself."

It is also possible that the "this one" means some other person than Judas, for example the broker.

No it's not. Unless you're going to make the argument that the meaning of language is completely divorced from context, there's no way that "this man" (singular masculine) means anyone other than the antecedent, "Judas." If that's your argument, then you might as well argue that any statement can literally mean anything.

4) Why do you think these are about the same field?

Because I can read.

Seriously, are you trying to argue that the ἀγρὸς αἵματος of Matthew isn't the χωρίον αἵματος of Acts? If that's your apologetic, then what reward did Judas use to buy the χωρίον αἵματος? He threw his reward into the temple in Matthew.

[marke]

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.

God proves Himself by the existence of the universe He created.

[1213]

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

That's an extremely tortured understanding of what's going on and would strain even logic-puzzle inerrancy, but if we still assume that there's a way that the patriarchs could somehow know Yahweh without Him revealing Himself, that is contradicted by Genesis 15:7:

And He said unto him [Abram], "I am Yahweh that brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it."

Yahweh Himself told Abram who He is.

Ok, thank you. Now, if we look what was actually said in Exodus 6:2-3, it does not mean Yahweh could not have used his name at some point. It says "by My name JEHOVAH I never made Myself known to them". That means, it is possible that he didn't make Himself known by that name. But, it can be that they later got also the name YHWH, after they already knew Him.

And God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by My name JEHOVAH I never made Myself known to them.
Exodus 6:2-3

2) And about the well city, for example Green's literal has it like this:
On account of this that place is called The Well of Sheba, because the two of them swore there.
Genesis 21:31
And he called it Shebah; so the name of the city is The Well of Sheba until this day.
Genesis 26:33
I don't see a contradiction there.

No? Who is responsible for the name? The first story is about Abraham and the second, uncannily similar story is about Isaac, but each story includes the Hebrew phrase עַל־כֵּ֗ן, which means "therefore" or "for this reason."

It is interesting that if you read Genesis 26:23, it says "And he went from there to Beersheba". So it was known the place is Beersheba (well of Shebah). So, apparently in this case, "called it Shebah" is not the same as "named it the well of Shebah", as you seem to think. And the city maybe be called The Well of Sheba because he called the area that, even if it was not him who named it originally.

3) In the case of how Judas got the field, to acquire would be more accurate translation, because he acquired the field by the money he got. It was bought with his money and he acquired the field by it, therefore it can be said he bought it, even if there was a broker making the deal.

The particular conjugation of the particular Greek verb doesn't allow for this meaning. I've explained this before. Your "acquired" thing is just a red herring. Even if we agree that the root verb κτάομαι means "acquired," the conjugation ἐκτήσατο means "he acquired for himself."

Yes, he acquired it for himself, by the reward he got.

4) Why do you think these are about the same field?

Because I can read.

Seriously, are you trying to argue that the ἀγρὸς αἵματος of Matthew isn't the χωρίον αἵματος of Acts? If that's your apologetic, then what reward did Judas use to buy the χωρίον αἵματος? He threw his reward into the temple in Matthew.

Matthew 27:6-7 speaks about potter's field. It doesn't say Field of Blood.

And taking the pieces of silver, the chief priests said, It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. And taking counsel, they bought of them the potter's field, for burial for the strangers.
Matthew 27:6-7

The word "Field of Blood", is in Matt. 27:8. That is why I din't notice it, sorry.

In this case it is possible there were two fields that were called "Field of Blood". It is also possible that it is the same blood field and there are two reasons to call it with that name. Not really a contradiction.

[Difflugia]

But, it can be that they later got also the name YHWH, after they already knew Him.

Whatever helps you sleep. If you're asking me to agree that your attempts at linguistic gymnastics are somehow reasonable, let alone what any author intended, I'm just going to laugh at you. I've no reason to think that's a valid reading and I'm pretty sure you don't have one to offer.

It is interesting that if you read Genesis 26:23, it says "And he went from there to Beersheba". So it was known the place is Beersheba (well of Shebah). So, apparently in this case, "called it Shebah" is not the same as "named it the well of Shebah", as you seem to think. And the city maybe be called The Well of Sheba because he called the area that, even if it was not him who named it originally.

You're taking what's obviously intended as an etymology and trying to pick apart individual words until it means something completely different. This is what I was talking about before, when I said that the text can't both be inerrant and meaningful at the same time.

Yes, he acquired it for himself, by the reward he got.

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

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

Somehow bought with the same money, apparently?

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

It's not possible. The Greek word translated "therefore" in most translations is διὸ, a contraction of διά and ὅ, which is singular and literally means "through this." The ambiguity that you're trying to leverage from the English translation doesn't exist in the Greek.

Not really a contradiction.

Whatever helps you sleep.

[Goose]

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

I disagree this is the only way. Are you familiar with the branch of Natural Theology?

https://iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/

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.

That's an interesting approach but it seems to me proving there are no contradictions in the Bible wouldn't prove the existence of God anymore than proving there are contradictions in the Bible would prove the non existence of God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Are you as willing to prove God if it might turn out that God isn't the God of the Bible?