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.

[The Tanager]

First, thank you for clarifying (at least if I got you right and I apologize if I misunderstood you and would welcome correction). You are saying that there is no evidence that disproving that God exists, or that the God, as described in the Bible, is a false description of that God.

But, second, I think you are making a leap of blind faith to then say, therefore, the Bible is true in all it teaches (although I agree with your conclusion). Your logic would lead to if Tolkien believed and claimed his works to be historical record to consider it true.

Third, I think you are using more than the Bible to come to this conclusion; you are doing philosophy, just like the natural theologist (and the materialist and the Hindu, and the Buddhist, and everyone that has ever existed).

The alternative of natural theology is not to try to compel anyone to believe anything, but to bring us to a reasoned faith (which is better than a blind faith and is, I think, the Biblical idea of putting our faith in Jesus).

[1213]

I don't claim it means "someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf", as it was Judas who acquired the field with his money.

This either contradicts what you said earlier or you're changing definitions of words to the point that you're no longer speaking the same language that the rest of us are.

Please explain why do you think so?

[Difflugia]

I don't claim it means "someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf", as it was Judas who acquired the field with his money.

This either contradicts what you said earlier or you're changing definitions of words to the point that you're no longer speaking the same language that the rest of us are.

Please explain why do you think so?

Because here you're claiming that you meant Judas of Acts acquired the field without someone else (whom you called a "broker" before) performing the acquisition, but you also claimed that Acts doesn't contradict Matthew.

[RBD]

When a theorem is offfered, it is open to challenges. Statements of unbelief about the theorem are useless.

I'll keep that in mind.

Thnak you very much. To my mind, this proves your intellectual honesty, that is far too rare. Most people won't acknowledge a reasonable point, if it disagrees with their efforts in any way. And I will also keep in mind not to let my faith alone be proof of anything. When debating books, we must always be objectively honest and respectful enough to let the authors speak for themselves. Our own personal beliefs should never enter in as any kind of useful proofing for the book.

The boldness is in the Bible.

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

2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

First, neither of these asserts or implies inerrancy. Second, this is the Christianity and Apologetics subforum, where the Bible is only evidence of what the Bible says, not of its own truth.

First, I'm not saying it does, but only defending my boldness in the Author, that I wholeheartedly agree He is right in what He says about His own Book. Therefore, I boldly make the challenge for anyone to show any error or opposing contradiction within His own words. Whether anyone wants to argue the teaching of the Author, is another matter.

The second, if I read you right, is answered by the first. My defence is not the Bible is the only evidence, that the words are true in all things, nor that the Bible proves itself true by it's own words. My defence of the Author and His Book, is that there is no evidence that can disprove His words are right and true.

My challenge is only to those who declare the Bible, or at least some of it, cannot possibly be true for whatever reason. They then claim the right to declare any believer in all the Bible, must be decieved, blindly loyal, foolish, or useful idiots of religion. I don't mind being proved stupid, since I prove it to myself almost daily. But I do mind baseless claims unproven, not just for the Bible, but for anything that matters to us on earth. Only true and honest things can correct me; otherwise, sticks and stones are as water off a duck's back.

Job 6:25 How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing reprove?

The only convincing I need to prove a contradiction in the Bible, is that there are no reasonable alternatives to the challenge made.

I'd bet they don't even need to be reasonable.

I could likewise easily bet that some unbelievers don't need to be reasonable. Once again, that's neither here nor there with the argument at hand.

[RBD]

There is no contradiction. Before Ex 6 the LORD never gave Himself the name Jehovah to be known by. The patriarchs called Him by the title LORD, that were not exclusive to themselves. The title of LORD had been known by men since Adam in the garden.

It was not until Moses, that the LORD made it known that Jehovah was His name, and not just a title.

There was a recent conversation about the difference between a title and a name in Hebrew. The Tetragrammation (rendered Yahweh, Jehovah, or the LORD) never has a definite article, ergo it's a proper name.

What we see here is an honest back and forth argument about what is being said, not about any self-explanatory contradiction. Afterall, contradictions only need be quoted, not explained. Who needs to explain how A equals B in one place of a book, contradicts B does not equal A in another place? What need of interpretation? Why dive into definitions? A contradiction speaks for itself. All that remains is whether to believe what we read for ourselves, or we blindly believe something else contrary to our own eyes.

I am digressing here in order to point out the obvious difference between showing a contradiction proven by the frankly opposing words themselves, vs attempting to prove a contradiction by interpretation of those words.

In the Bible, there is no such contradiction made and proven by the words themselves. That has never even been suggested, and so is immediately sidestepped to begin arguments of interpetations, that some would say contradicts other words of the Bible. What is proven are not contradictions by simple quotes of someone, that has read all the words of the Bible cover to cover, but rather is proving interpretations can be made in some places, that do contradict other places in the Bible. Well, of course that can be done in many places of the Bible. But in such cases, it's obviously just one person's own interpretation made that opposes other Scriptures.

In this case, Gen 15:7 is being interpreted and defined in such a way as to contradict the record of Exo 6:3.

Gen 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Exo 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.


A factual contradiction would be, that somewhere in the Bbile, it says, "By my name Jehovah (the LORD) was I known to them." (Being Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or any one of them)

That is never said in the Bible, therefore that contradiction is never made by the Author. What we are instead given is a personal interpretation, that assumes Gen 15 is saying the opposite of Ex 6, as though Gen 15 is in fact saying "By His name Jehovah, He was known to them..." That is an interpretation not a fact. First, that not written there, nor is it the only possible interpetation of what is there.

Conclusion: we have not been wtinessing quoted contradictions within the words of the Bible, but only interpetations to suggest them. We are not seeing any proven contradictions quoted with our own eyes, but only proof that people can make interpretations to contradict other Scripture. And so, no one is blindly clinging to the Bible despite self-explanatory contradictions being quoted, but rather we are debating about possible different interpretations, that are possible almost throughout the Bible.

The only difference between believers and unbelievers arguing interpretations, is that believers are doing so in order to default the Bible itself, and declare there is no God, or the God of the Bible cannot be the perfectr God and Creator of heaven and earth.

[1213]

I don't claim it means "someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf", as it was Judas who acquired the field with his money.

This either contradicts what you said earlier or you're changing definitions of words to the point that you're no longer speaking the same language that the rest of us are.

Please explain why do you think so?

Because here you're claiming that you meant Judas of Acts acquired the field without someone else (whom you called a "broker" before) performing the acquisition, but you also claimed that Acts doesn't contradict Matthew.

Thanks for the explanation. I think Acts 1:18 doesn't exclude the idea that there was a "broker".

[Difflugia]

Thanks for the explanation. I think Acts 1:18 doesn't exclude the idea that there was a "broker".

Then you should be able to find an example of ἐκτήσατο that refers to a broker.

[1213]

Thanks for the explanation. I think Acts 1:18 doesn't exclude the idea that there was a "broker".

Then you should be able to find an example of ἐκτήσατο that refers to a broker.

Sorry, I disagree with that. The word doesn't need to refer to a "broker", because it is enough to tell Judas acquired the field. It leaves the possibility that there was a "broker" making the deal for him, even in that case, it would be true that Judas acquired the field.

[Difflugia]

Sorry, I disagree with that. The word doesn't need to refer to a "broker", because it is enough to tell Judas acquired the field. It leaves the possibility that there was a "broker" making the deal for him, even in that case, it would be true that Judas acquired the field.

What's to disagree with? I said that if you're right, then you should be able to find an example of a Greek author using the word that way.

Otherwise, on what basis are you challenging the definition of a Greek word or the grammatical conventions for its use?

[Goose]

Sorry, I disagree with that. The word doesn't need to refer to a "broker", because it is enough to tell Judas acquired the field. It leaves the possibility that there was a "broker" making the deal for him, even in that case, it would be true that Judas acquired the field.

What's to disagree with? I said that if you're right, then you should be able to find an example of a Greek author using the word that way.

Otherwise, on what basis are you challenging the definition of a Greek word or the grammatical conventions for its use?

Would you agree that, καὶ ἐκτήσατο Ιωσηφ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τῷ Φαραω could be correctly understood as, καὶ Φαραω ἐκτήσατο πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων?