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.

[benchwarmer]

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.

Who's bailing? This has happened in previous threads on this site. We detail the differences, inerrantists tap dance and torture the written word.

I mentioned where the differences are. Readers are free to go read it themselves. If they do as I suggested, they will see it themselves. That's more powerful than me trying to convince them of anything.

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.

The 'pseudo-intelligent'? What is that they say about attacking your debate opponents rather than the thing being debated? I trust readers are intelligent enough to compare two written passages that are proposed as being the same story. They will see the truth for themselves. Calling people who don't torture the text and make excuses 'pseudo-intelligent' is somewhat ironic.

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.

Anyone with a Bible or access to one online (biblegateway.com has a nice interface) is free to go read Genesis themselves and see what I'm talking about. The don't have to read very far.

Your problem is going to be trying to convince those readers that what they read is not what is actually written. Good luck with that.

[Diagoras]

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.

<bolding mine>

By that argument, if you look for and find one grammatical contradiction in the KJV, then you must no longer read it for the ‘Scripture of God’.

By the same standard, if apocrypha shows errancy with the rest of the Book, then it is apocrypha, not the Book.

<bolding mine>

Any difference between books A and B could conceivably be due to an error in either. It’s not a logically strong position to assert that the ‘error’ must always be with one.

Intelligent objective analyis (sic) of the Book is the challenge. Which can only be accomplished by not assuming anything about the Book.

Ok, so by your previous argument, you must do that analysis of every version of the Bible (see your ‘fair point’ above). After all, if you can’t assume anything about it, then it being an infallible version is one thing that definitely can’t be assumed.

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?

I’m pointing out the error in logical reasoning, not denying anyone’s stupidity.

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.

How about assumptions and opinions that have everything to do with analysing the Bible?

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.

<bolding mine>

The ‘at stake’ comment sounds rather like Pascal’s Wager, which is at heart, an argument from emotion. I find it revealing from that second sentence, plus other ‘all or nothing’ comments you have made upthread, that you view things in a rather black and white way - there doesn’t appear to be room for reasonable doubt. IMHO.

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.

It would be if both were written in the same book. And if that were a science book, I’d not consider it a very good one. If they were in a book of poetry or allegories, that would be very different.

The issue I’m addressing is that the Bible frequently mixes both literal and figurative language and it is impossible to objectively distinguish between the two. Two of every animal kind went into the ark. Was that literally true? There are over a million and a half described species (mainly insects)… Or was that meant figuratively? Those who choose to believe the Bible is infallible will argue either case, and construct elaborate and semi-plausible reasons for them. And being able to switch between having a literal or a figurative interpretation means the apologist can move the goalposts all too easily.

I'm not a Bible apologist.

What’s this about then?:
“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.’

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.

“You aren’t arguing properly!” Is that what you mean? Seems to me you’re now switching between ‘words’ and ‘literature’, ‘analysis’ and ‘science’ without good reason.

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.

<bolding mine>

Spotting the assumptions made about biblical quotes in this thread is left as an exercise for readers.

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.

Perhaps another exercise for the reader: which logical fallacy is being committed in that last sentence?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #92]

"And all such false interpretations are proven false by the words of the Book themselves."

Perhaps another exercise for the reader: which logical fallacy is being committed in that last sentence?

Circular argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #89]

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.

You mean like Paul does in Romans 11:26?

[RBD]

[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.

That's certainly true by a longshot. It's like overkill. In fact, let's include the whole context, and see just how many words of Paul are actually written by Isaiah:

Isa 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Rom 11:26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

That's 9 words out of 19. Wow, that's less than half of all the words that match. That's a really huge difference between Rom 11 and Is 59! So huge, that maybe it's not even quoted from Isaiah?

It certainly would be a more than perfect example of self-explanatory grammatical contradiction. If of course if Paul were actually trying to quote Isaiah, which he never says he is. Not like he does in Rom 10 for Is 65:

Isa 65:1 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Shall we now say Paul again contradicts Isaiah, because he reversed the order, or because he did not quote all of Isaiah's words?

Obviously something else is going on in Romans 11, than a simple quote of what Isaiah said, which is not claimed. Just as, or Even as, or According as it is written, is not necessarily a claim to quote, but rather a simple conclusion drawn from things written elsewhere. Such as, Even as the Scriptures say..., or, Just as the book of the Law says...

Perhaps a little investigation into the context of Is 59 and Rom 11 would clarify it can't be a quote, but rather a gospel fulfillment of prophecy. Isaiah prophecies the Redeemer's coming to the mount Zion on earth for His people to repent, and Paul preaches the gospel of the Deliverer coming from the mount Sion in heaven, to take away the sins of them that do repent.

In this wholly superficial claim made between Rom 11 and Is 59, we see here the similarity between Bibliophobes and modern fake news media. The only purpose is to slander the object of their scrutiny, without any hint of investigative reporting. They greedily pounce any appearance of contradiction, and immediately declare it contradictary, without any hint of objective investigation reporting of the Book.

The suggestion that Romans 11 is quoting Isaiah 59, and gets is so woefully wrong, that Paul was perhaps delerious with his latest stoning by persecutiors, or was drunk or stoned out of his mind. It's the same kind of superficial nonsensical conclusion, that the geneology of Jesus in Luke 3 contradicts that of Matthew 1, with every named parent being wrong between the two geneologies.

By their own sole purpose to find fault, they naturally take no time at all to actually read the Book to objectively learn what it is saying. And so, like politicised prosecuters only seeking slanderous charges, they demand no investigation into the contextual scene of the crime itself. They come up with accusations that not only have no investigative effort, but also disregard any common sense alternatives. Such as, maybe Paul is not trying to quote Is 59, and Luke 3 is the parentage of Jesus through Mary, rather than through Joseph in Matthew 1.

[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.

Which is the whole point of the challenge to anyone claiming errancy in the Book. The fact that there can be interpretive tap dancing, disproves any self-explanatory grammatical contradiction. Who is tap dancing better is another challenge, that has nothing to do with any grammatical contradiction.

Once we're tap dancing on a floor of interpretation, it's no longer that of grammatical contradiction. That floor only needs a quote, that brooks no tap dancing around interpretive explanations.

And here we have perfect example of this, by suggesting a contradiction between the 2 accounts of creation, that requires an explanation, since it is not readily seen from the text. The fact of neecing an explanation, proves it is not self-explanatory from quoting the texts.

And when the explanation is asked for, the answer is that if it's not readily seen, an explanation won't be given. Right. Got it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #95]

They come up with accusations that not only have no investigative effort, but also disregard any common sense alternatives. Such as, maybe Paul is not trying to quote Is 59

If he isn't trying to quote Is. 59:20, then what is he trying to quote? He says that he's referring to what's written, and what he writes bears more textual resemblance to Is. 59:20 than to any other verse, doesn't it? It's reasonable to assume that Is. 59:20 is what he was (mis)quoting. It makes more sense than trying to shoehorn Paul's statement into a more vague reference elsewhere.

[RBD]

As in all efforts to insert an error or contradiction into the Book, the correction for translation begins good and then ends badly with an invented narrative.

The good correction does show that the same translation can be done for Judas purchasing the field for himself in italics. This practice is done many times elsewhere in the Bible for expanded translation into English. In the Greek, it is understood and therefore redundant.

However, redundancy does not allow for the additional wording about performing the act himself. That is an abuse of translation for a false narrative.

Then you're misunderstanding the meaning in Greek for which you claim the wording is redundant. It is, as you say, understood in the Greek that Judas purchased the field for himself.

No, it's only understood that one buys for himself a field, is an unnecessary but acceptable stretch from one buys himself a field.

The middle voice does allow he himself purchased, or he purchased himself the field, and can accept he purchased for himself the field.

However, the middle does not in itself determine the means of buying the field. The stretched translation 'for himself' cannot then be used to change the narrative, so that he buys himself a field by himself and alone. Which is a first-year F translation by abuse of the middle. Which also has already been argued, and ignored:

And the middle person certainly does not allow a change of the record, to then say he purchased the field by himself alone. That is the false narrative added to the text by abusing the translation.

It also must add a narrative, where Judas went back to the priests to collect the money he no longer wanted to touch, so that he could buy the field with his own money without any need for the priests.

In English, one might argue that the priests performed the actual transaction. In Greek, that's not true.

In the record in the Greek, it is true that the priests purchased the field, without the middle conjugation, and so they did not purchase themselves, nor for themselves, the field. They puchased it for another. The record therefore makes them the means by which Judas purchased himself a field, for himself. But not by himself alone.

Others have already responded to this from the Bible, and I'll add some more:

Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

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

Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

None of these imply plenary verbal inerrancy, which is what you're arguing for in your initial post. Either doctrinal inerrancy or a doctrine of Holy Spirit intervention being necessary for understanding would satisfy any of these verses.

If a claim of being true and right altogether, and eternally enduring, is not for inerrancy, then someone is arguing inerrancy itself, and against objective eternal truth and righteousness. Which of course is not surprising for anyone disbelieving the Bible.

The Author's claim is that all the words of the Book are true and righteous, written by God, and eternal.

The whole point of seeking error in the Bible, is to disprove the Author's claim of true, righteous, divine, eternal inerrancy.

That's a fine theological conclusion

Thnak you for the compliment.

, but not a necessary one.

Entrely necessary when the argument turns from accusing the Bible of errancy, to arguing against inerrancy itself. The unbelief in the latter case must lead to belief about the former: If nothing is unerringly eternally true, then everything must have error in it at some time.

We are seeing a root cause for seeking errancy in a Book, where the Author claims eternal unerring truth: Not believing in it, and so must find fault in it.

[benchwarmer]

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

Which is the whole point of the challenge to anyone claiming errancy in the Book. The fact that there can be interpretive tap dancing, disproves any self-explanatory grammatical contradiction.

Well, at least you admit what's going on. If you don't read the text as written and are happy to twist the story to fit whatever narrative you like, then I'm not sure why you even bother reading it in the first place.

And here we have perfect example of this, by suggesting a contradiction between the 2 accounts of creation, that requires an explanation, since it is not readily seen from the text.

I'm sure everyone who wasn't aware there was a difference and has now gone an read it for themselves will see what we are talking about.

The fact of neecing an explanation, proves it is not self-explanatory from quoting the texts.

Yet no explanation (tap dancing) is required. Simple read the words as written. If you don't trust the English translation (or whatever your native language is), go read the original language.

And when the explanation is asked for, the answer is that if it's not readily seen, an explanation won't be given. Right. Got it.

Fine, let's show everyone how apologists tap dance and spin stories. Just for extra fun we will also point out all the scientific inaccuracies for bonus points rendering both stories (regardless of trying to twist them into the same story) as obvious myth.

I trust everyone can follow the links and read the text themselves to avoid creating a wall of text in this post.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Story 1, day 1, in Genesis 1 1-5. God creates the heavens, earth, and light. (notice no stars yet which come later, is God a flash light or has a flashlight?)

Story 1, day 2, in Genesis 1 6-8. God creates the sky. (notice it's done by separating water in two parts. Our 'sky' is roughly 80% nitrogen, not oxygen and hydrogen)

Story 1, day 3, in Genesis 1 9-13. God creates land, seas, and vegetation. (note we still don't have the sun yet, these must be magic plants that don't need sunlight. Oh ya, God's flashlight).

Story 1, day 4, in Genesis 1 14-19. God creates the sun, moon, and other stars to separate day and night (oops, the previous days already mentioned morning and evening, maybe God flicked His flashlight on and off?) (note the moon is not a light, but like every other natural object reflects light i.e. from the sun)

Story 1, day 5, in Genesis 1 20-23. God creates life in the water and on the land EXCEPT for humans. This will be important later.

Story 1, day 6, in Genesis 1 24-31. God creates men and women to rule over all the other life.

Story 1, day 7, in Genesis 2 1-3. God has a nap, He's done.

Now, notice carefully the order change as we look at the second story in Genesis 2.

In fact, it's blatantly spelled out right at the beginning of Genesis 2. In this case I will quote the actual text here, because all we really need to blow this case up is 1 obvious difference.

Story 2, no days are spelled out, yet the order is specific. Genesis 2 5-7. NO vegetation yet, God forms ONLY man.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Case closed, but let's continue. Also notice no sun, moon, or stars are mentioned. Here we could maybe give the story a pass based on modern knowledge that these things are in the 'heavens'.

Story 2, Genesis 2 8-9. God creates plants (the garden of Eden) and puts the man in it.

Story 2, Genesis 2 18-20. God creates all the birds and animals on land to find the man a helper. None of them were suitable as a helper. (note there is no mention of sea life, I guess they wouldn't be great helpers?)

Story 2, Genesis 2 21. God creates a woman FROM the man. (Well that's backwards, but we are dealing with magic I guess).

Case extra closed.

To summarize:

Story 1 (in order): heavens, earth, light, sky, land, seas, vegetation, sun, moon, stars, living things (fish/animals), humans.

Story 2 (in order): heavens, earth, a man, vegetation, birds/animals, a woman.

Let the apologist tap dancing commence. It will only appease believers, but have at it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #98]

We are seeing a root cause for seeking errancy in a Book, where the Author claims eternal unerring truth: Not believing in it, and so must find fault in it.

Is that how you approach the writings sacred to other religions?