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]

[Replying to RBD in post #74]

A grammatical contradiction in the Book, rather than simple bad translation in one place, would be quoting Ps 22:16 eslewhere, as the fulfillment of prophecy pertaining to piercing. In that case, the word written in Ps 22 would not only be mistranslated, but also misquoted elsewhere.

The Masoretic text is misquoted by Christian translators.

To an anti-NT Jew, it's claimed to be misquoted, and is then the accusation is further overinflated to declare, that there is no basis for Jesus' piercing to fulfill OT prophecy.

1. Bible error of words is not by translation errors. Nor can mistranslations be used to produce errors with other Bible words. Ps 22 is not quoted for Jesus' piercing, and therefore the Hebrew for digged into is not contradicted by the Greek pierced, which is synonomous. Piercing the wound is necessary to dig out a bullit.

A contradiction between Ps 22 and Jesus' crucifixion, would be if the Author said they tied, or cut off my hands and my feet. Therefore, the argument is not against Bible infallibility, but about translation and disputes of prophecy.

2. And so far as prophetic dispute goes, even with Ps 22 translated digged into, a crucifixion is a good fit for the physical tortures spoken of. Which cannot at all apply to David's personal travails. Unless, of course, the false interpreter also wants to try adding such things to David's record in the Bible. Or as some do, by personal fiat changing Ps 22 into poetic allegory alone.

3. Zech 12 is quoted to fulfill the prophecy of the suffering Messiah by Jesus Christ, whose hands and feet were pierced by others, that looked upon Him on the cross.

And so, no Bible error nor contradiction is inolved in the debate of Messianic prophecy from the OT, which is suitably fulfilled by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It is a reasonable match for the physical tortures of Ps 22. As well as an accurate quote in Zech 12 for the crucifiers looking upon Him whom they pirced.

[RBD]

The only quote for the prophecy of piercing is in John 19 from Zech 12:

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...

Jhn 19:37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Zech 12 is stated for prophecy, and piercing is an exact translation, and John 19 quotes accordingly for Jesus Christ's crucifixion.

"Christian commentators, in their confusion, equate the "Me" with the "him" of verse 10 and refer both to Jesus. Grammatically, the "Me" and the "him" cannot refer to the same individual.

Grammatically, it's not about 'me' vs 'him' other than by translation, since there is no 'me' nor 'him' in the Hebrew preposition 'upon' and 'for'. Only context can postulate whether it be me, he, she, or it. Unlike Greek and English, the Hebrew does not require a netrual preposition to have a stated object, but only if required for clarity. Such as, with all flesh that is 'upon' the earth, and as one mourneth 'for' an only son.

The only error of grammar made in this case, is the ignorant linguist that thinks the writer of John 19 quotes Zech 12 from the English. The Author of Zech 12 gave no object of preposition, but He did give one for the Greek's sake in John 19. Therefore, it's not John 19 in Greek misquoting Zech 12 in Hebrew, but rather simply confirms by necessity of Greek, that it was a man prophesied to be pierced, whom they shall mourn as an only son.

And further, mourning 'him' as an only son is also an added object for English' sake, that cannot be proven from the context to be a father or mother, but only one from whom the son is born, or even adopted.

Lastly, if someone does insist on 'me' being looked upon in Zech 12, then they present an error of idolatrous deification: if Zechariah is the sole author, then he himself was that God, who could pour out his own Spirit of grace upon others looking upon him. In addition, as a God he could do so after dying bodily by piercing him to death. No Scripture says he was pierced to death, anymore than David had his bones exposed, his feet and hands digged into, and his garment parted by lots.

So, if anyone insists on 'me' as the object of prophecy, then they make themselves idolators, or they must simply acknowledge the Author is that same God, who gave the prophecy to Zechariah about Himself, as Him who would also provide Himself a sacrifice upon a cross.

The only admissible interpretation is, as stated above, that the Gentile nations shall look to God, whom they have attacked by the persecution, death, and general suffering they inflicted on the nation of Israel ("him"), whose dead will be mourned by the surviving Jewish people. The rabbis of the Talmud saw this suffering personified in the leader of the people, the warrior Messiah, the son of Joseph, who will be slain at this time (B.T. Sukkah 52a). The entire nation's dead will be mourned, but the mourning over the death of the warrior Messiah symbolizes the collective grief as the people mourn for the fallen of Israel.

The only admissible interpretation to anti-Bibliophobes is turning the Bible into symbol and fable, instead of literal prophesy coming literally to pass.

But that's not confined to active disbelievers in the Bible, since it is practiced mostly by stated believers, who also don't like what is being prophesied, especially about themselves in the judgment of God by our works.

The author of the Gospel of John realized the untenability of the claim that Zechariah's prophecy referred to Jesus. John, perplexed by Zechariah's prophecy, changed the wording of verse 10 to make it conform to his belief. Thus, he wrote: "They shall look upon him [not "Me" as in the Hebrew text] whom they have pierced" (John 19:37). Emending a text may be a convenient way of demonstrating one's theological beliefs, but has nothing to do with biblical authenticity."
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ariah-1210

The Author of John 19 knew He would need to give an object for His preposition prophesied in Zech 12. Comparing Zech 12 and John 19, as though the Author was confirming the prophecy translated into English, has nothing to do with Bible error nor ancient grammar.

[RBD]

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves. (Zechariah 10-14)

Since all the families of Jerusalem do not mourn for Jesus when he is crucified, his crucifixion cannot be a fulfillment of this prophecy.

This is certainly true, if His crucifixion is the only fulfillment of the prophecy. His crucifixion concluded in v10, where as one they mourned for an only son, which certainly would include Mary and His disciples. Though they all forsook Him, they did love and mourn for Him as a good and great son of man.

V11 continues with His return with clouds, where every eye that sees Him from earth, and shall wail because of Him. And everyone gathered to make war with Him at Armageddon shall mourn because of Him. Nothing says the mourning of vs 10 for Jesus on the cross, is the mourning of His enemies at the valley of Megiddo.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #81]

Ps 22 is not quoted for Jesus' piercing, and therefore the Hebrew for digged into is not contradicted by the Greek pierced, which is synonomous.

If the piercing in John [supposedly via Zechariah] is the same as the piercing in the psalm, why is kara (כָּרָה) used in the psalm and daqar (דָּקַר) used in Zechariah? As I quoted earlier:

"Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15)"

And so far as prophetic dispute goes, even with Ps 22 translated digged into, a crucifixion is a good fit for the physical tortures spoken of. Which cannot at all apply to David's personal travails.

If the poetic language of the psalm can't be applied to David's travails, how can it be applied any better to Jesus's crucifixion?

"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

Were the sutures in Jesus's skull all out of joint? Was his jaw dislocated? (If so, how could he speak clearly?) Had his heart literally melted like wax and run into his intestines?

This is certainly true, if His crucifixion is the only fulfillment of the prophecy. His crucifixion concluded in v10, where as one they mourned for an only son, which certainly would include Mary and His disciples. Though they all forsook Him, they did love and mourn for Him as a good and great son of man.

V11 continues with His return with clouds, where every eye that sees Him from earth, and shall wail because of Him. And everyone gathered to make war with Him at Armageddon shall mourn because of Him. Nothing says the mourning of vs 10 for Jesus on the cross, is the mourning of His enemies at the valley of Megiddo.

Here you're conveniently running two scenes together and ignoring what the text of Zechariah says:

"they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo."

The mourning referred to here is compared to that expressed at the death of King Josiah, who fell in battle against the Egyptian army (II Chronicles 35:20-25), but the latter mourning is to be expressed in the day of the piercing, and by all the families of Jerusalem. That didn't happen with Jesus.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it.

“And thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
(Romans 11:26)

“A Redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord.”
(Isaiah 59:20)

What Paul says is written is not what's written.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it.

“And thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
(Romans 11:26)

“A Redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord.”
(Isaiah 59:20)

What Paul says is written is not what's written.

Just because I want to have fun pretending to be an apologist:

Obviously you have to arrive in Zion before you can leave it, thus first the Redeemer comes to Zion and then later leaves from it. No contradiction, just two descriptions of a longer event.

Wow, I have to say it sure is nice when I can just make up whatever I like to twist things to fit together. Rats, I should have remained a Christian if I knew how much fun this would be

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #86]

Obviously you have to arrive in Zion before you can leave it, thus first the Redeemer comes to Zion and then later leaves from it. No contradiction, just two descriptions of a longer event.

Wow, I have to say it sure is nice when I can just make up whatever I like to twist things to fit together. Rats, I should have remained a Christian if I knew how much fun this would be

Even that bit of pretending wouldn't work well, because if those in Jacob to whom he goes in Zion have already turned from transgression, there's no need for him to remove ungodliness from Jacob when coming from Zion.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #86]

Obviously you have to arrive in Zion before you can leave it, thus first the Redeemer comes to Zion and then later leaves from it. No contradiction, just two descriptions of a longer event.

Wow, I have to say it sure is nice when I can just make up whatever I like to twist things to fit together. Rats, I should have remained a Christian if I knew how much fun this would be

Even that bit of pretending wouldn't work well, because if those in Jacob to whom he goes in Zion have already turned from transgression, there's no need for him to remove ungodliness from Jacob when coming from Zion.

<puts apologist hat back on... hey there's a big hole in it... oh well>

Humans are never completely free from sin and are constantly transgressing God's law. Jacob turned, had a momentary lapse in judgement, and then had that transgression removed. Catholics do it every week with sacrament of confession, so it must be logical!

<takes apologist hat back off>

When you can make stuff up and insert your own story (which by the way is supposed to be a big no no when dealing with scripture) anything is possible. I bet if one passage said Jesus only used cedar when doing carpentry and another passage said he only used oak, there would be a big debate about how modern cedar and oak were the same thing back then (or some other gibberish). There's really no 'winning' here other than to point out where all the contradictory passages are and let readers see the evidence for themselves. We won't convince those who refuse to read the actual words and instead protect a faith position.

[RBD]

It won't matter that I show you the order of creation is different, you will tap dance around and pretend they aren't.

I.e. a typical bail with no response to an opposing argument.

The beauty of this debate is that I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything.

Same here. It's nothing personal, but just Bible responses to accusations against the Bible. It's the discipline of lterary debate that interests me.

It's not my Book, nor is it my duty to convince others to believe it by it's inerrancy. I only show how the pseudo-intelligent are irrational in their accusations against it, as well as against anyone choosing to intelligently believe it.

Anyone can go read both Genesis accounts and compare the order of when things were supposedly done.

Unless I missed something from you, all you did was suggest there are 2 different creation accounts, that oppose one another. Since you weren't specific, then I only compared the 2, to show how they are different in detail, but not in opposition.

To which you've bailed.

If you think your apologetics are convincing, then have at it.

Yes, I do. And I've enjoyed every challenge against the Bible, and every answer the Bible gives to show them false. That's what first convinced me of the God of the Bible, when I also thought there were contradictions. The difference between me and Bibliophobes, is that I was only making an objective analysis of another book of theology, history, and prophecy.

And what continues to amaze me, is that as more accusations come, just how well the AUthor gives them enough rope to hang themselves in an argument, that only gets worse and worse.

Like the Jewish scloar that casts aside any pretence of objective literary analyis, which any one of his first year chedar students would notice. All he does is make a reasonable argument of translation in Ps 22, but then destroys context in order to deny a crucifixion is a perfect match. And then finally bails and declares by personal fiat, that the torturous details of Ps 22 are just imaginative allegory alone.

Literary malfeasance 101.

Keep in mind not everyone reading this is already a believer.

Which is not my concern. I'm not a proselytizer. For me, it's only about the beauty of how the Book leads wilfull antigonists into a deep ditch of their own making. Or, as Ps 22 would say, "They digged into their own ditch with hands and feet."

Job 5:13 He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

Which do you think is more convincing? Reading the text as written, or torturing it and/or inserting your own words to make it line up?

What is remarkable is how many ways people can convince themselves, that the Author is saying something He never says, by torturing His words, and inserting their own instead.

Jer 19:5They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

[RBD]

With inerrancy we must conclude the book is all true or all false. All that is needed is one proveable falsehood for all the dominoes to fall.

Does this apply to every version of the Bible? Or only the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? What about the Ethiopean Orthodox Bible, which has 81 books in total?

This is a fair point. It doesn't take original language linguists to prove Bible doctrine and prophecy, nor to prove error. If a translation has grammatical contradiction, then don't read it for Scripture of God. If a translation has no such error in it, then read that. I'm sure the KJV is not the only suitable translation, but it's the one I trust my soul with for Scripture of God.

By the same standard, if apocrypha shows errancy with the rest of the Book, then it is apocrypha, not the Book. It doesn't make them useless for study and knowledge, but they cannot be trusted in for Scripture of God.

By virture (sic) of writing the Book and calling Himself the LORD God Almighty, He challenges all readers to show fault and prove Him wrong.

A logical fallacy here. We can’t assume God wrote the Bible.

The logical fallacy here is that assumption is the basis of the challenge. Intelligent objective analyis of the Book is the challenge. Which can only be accomplished by not assuming anything about the Book.

… the words themselves deserve to be acknowledged as a rational reason for believing them.

In your opinion.

The same goes for opinion.

Study and objective conclusions is the challenge. Which have no place for assumptions nor personal opinion about what is being studied.

While the inerrancy stands, the only irrational ones, are those who declare anyone choosing to believe them, must be blind or stupid.

Another fallacy here: ad hominem.

What? You've never heard of anyone accusing Bible believers of blind stupidity? Which is solely based upon their own unbelief? Or, of their own personal arguments that the Bible is errant?

If the Bible is inerrant, then it disproves all such ignorant accusations against it, and the Author's believers.

No-one is able to prove something ‘cannot be believed’. No matter how strong the evidence against it.

That's not true. In scientific research, if something is factually disproven, then it must not be believed as true. That's how once argued and believed theorems are dismissed by later evidence. The truth is that no person on earth can be made to believe something, nor forbidden to believe something. Anyone can choose to believe a lie in the face of irrefutable truth, or the truth surrounded by lies.

<bolding mine>

My reading of your response here, especially the bolded part, is that we agree. If you want to believe something despite irrefutable evidence and logic to the contrary, I can’t ‘prove’ that it can’t be believed.

Neither I you. And so, I don't try to. Nor do I care about assumptions and opinions, that have nothing to do with analyzing the Book itself.

Those who choose to believe only in part, and reject what they don't personal like, are called the lukewarm by Jesus. He says it's better to be wholehearted about something, whether for the good or the bad, than a half-hearted hypocrite.

Good for him. It’s only your (his) opinion, though.

Once again, that's the judgment of the one saying it. I agree with Him. And so would anyone who despises noncommital fence straddling. Especially when careers and lives are at stake. And, with the Bible, it's immortal souls at stake.

Re: moon’s ‘light’:

Once again, this is an interpretion of the words, not any quote nor statement made by them. The Book does not ever say the Moon is it's own light, or shines it. Any argument about the source of light is an unnecessary distinction,

<bolding mine>

A reminder: the point about the moon was to provide an example of standards for literary analysis.

Diagoras wrote: ↑Sun Jan 19, 2025 10:34 pmFor example, Genesis mentions God creating the Sun and Moon as ‘two lights in the sky’. When I apply my standards of precision, clarity and scientific fact, the Bible comes up short.

No, it's a scientifc aproach to literature, that is now disguised as literary analysis. Finding scientific fault with speaking of the moon as a great light in the nighttime sky, is the same as scientifically rebuking the sunrise of a new day.

Apologists frequently dodge biblical inaccuracies, errors and contradictions by falling back on ‘interpretation’.

I'm not a Bible apologist. Socrates offered an apology to his accusers. The Bible Author does not. I don't apologize for any defence of the Book and Author against unproven allegations of literary contradiction.

Phl 1:7Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel.

If I read any book that purports to describe facts, I don’t expect to find some of them needing to be taken literally while others only figuratively - and for it to be unclear which passages are which into the bargain. The Bible falls way short of this.

That's why you're not giving proper literary analysis, but only applying science to literature. You're not finding fault in the words, but only with literature itself.

To turn your ‘all or nothing’ argument around, the Bible needs to be read all literally or all figuratively.

Tell that to Diagorus of Melos.

Your argument against literature, does not invalidate it. It especially does not prove any contradictions within a book of literature.

In the Bible, that would only be the case if the Author writes something both literal and figurative at the same time. Such as recording the parting of the Red Sea, with people crossing on dry ground as historical fact, and then later calling it only a figure of speech. Or, that hell is a place of torment for certain men, and then later calling it only a parable. However, there is no contradiction when a historic fact becomes an allegorical lesson to be learned by others.

1Co 10:11Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

In any case, for proper analytic proofing of any book of literature or science, it needs to be read as written, in order to quote it accurately, without assumption nor opinion.

It’s certainly necessary to have a consistent way of determining which passages are which.

It's only necessary for the reader of literature, who ought stick to scientific manuals.

Once again, no one in history has ever quoted a grammatical contradiction between the words of the Bible. The Author never says A equals B, and then B does not equal A. All that has been offered is personal interpretations of the words, that do oppose the Book itself. And all such false interpretations are proven false by the words of the Book themselves.