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 #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)"

Once more, there is no grammatical contradiction, because John 19 is not quoting Ps 22, but only Zech 12. A contradiction would be to say the quote is specifically from Ps 22, which nowhere speaks of them looking upon the tortured man.

The only claim offered in Ps 22, is that of translating digged into rather than pierced. Which in itself does not forbid the Psalm's use as prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion. And by digging deeper into such an argument, we see a pit of unreasonable translation being dug. You now appear to suggest that the word digged into must only be used for dirt, which is false, since it is used figuratively more times than literally, such as:

Psa 7:15 He made H3738 a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: H3738 burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Shall we now insist ears full of dirt were digged into? Was there dirt in those hands and feet?

In any case, allowing a translation of digged into in Ps 22 does not negate the context well suited for a crucifixion, which certainly cannot apply to David's own travails. And if anyone really wants to get deeper into a translation battle, then it makes more sense to say one's hands and feet are pierced,
and ears are opened rather than digged into for dirt.

And if digged into is insisted upon as the sole translation, then it figuratively confirms the prophesy of the Bible, that crucifying Jesus on the cross sealed the doom of His enemies, when He rose again victorious over them all.

Psa 57:6 They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged H3738 a pit before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen themselves. Selah.

Gen 3:15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

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?

He literally did pour out water, and his heart burst, and all His bones were out of joint. If you insist on jawbone and skull too, then go ahead, but it's only the kind of gradeschool observation, that the literature teacher and other learned students could chuckle at. And it certainly does not at all apply to David's personal travails.

And further, if someone wants to turn it all into a poetic allegory, solely to avoid their own contradiction pertaining to David's travails, while seeking to forbid any match to a crucifixion, then they lose all credibility of literary analysis and critique.

And finally, if Ps 22 it is not declared poetic and not real, then why bother speculating that pertinent parts of Jesus' crucifixion record may have been made up? Such as parting His garment by lots? As I said, the more this anti-crucifix argument in Ps 22 is dug into, the deeper the nonsensical nose dive gets.

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

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

Of course. If you'd like a lesson of double prophecy in the Bible, then I could give other examples. Such as Jesus being bruised by His enemies on the cross, and bruising their heads at His return.

Rev 19:15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.


One more time, none of this exploratory analyisis of what is written in the Book, has anything to do with a self-explanatory grammatical contradiction therein. John 19 does not say, "They shall not look upon me whom they pierced" Nor, "They shall look upon me whom they beheaded." Nor even "As the Psalmist saith, They pireced my hands and my feet." As though John 19 is quoting a questionable English translation of the Hebrew.

It's therefore obvious why John 19 quotes Ps 22 for His garment, and Zech 12 for His piercing.

Finally, since that is the only quote from Zech 19, then it is possibly the only part of the prophecy applying to Jesus Christ's crucifixion. But, of course, such debates about that, have already departed from any manner of self-explanatory grammatical contradiction. Arguing interpretation of prophecy is a far cry from obvious grammatical contradiction.

"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.

Which is why Zech 19 is obviously not all about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Zech 12 obviously speaks of His return with power and glory:

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

We see then that Zech 19 mostly applies to Jesus Christ 2nd coming, not only for the families of the Jews but also for all the inhabitors of the earth. The part pertaining to His crucifixion, is the only part quoted for it, when they look upon Him they pierced, which itself is a double prophecy apllying to seeing Him in the air.

And if anyone wants to claim a contradiction about looking upon Him pierced on a cross, and also in the air, then we can go there too.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #101]

John 19 is not quoting Ps 22, but only Zech 12. A contradiction would be to say the quote is specifically from Ps 22, which nowhere speaks of them looking upon the tortured man.

But according to you, Psalm 22 and Zechariah 12 are about the same event. So there should be consistency in how they're quoted.

He literally did pour out water, and his heart burst

The psalmist says he is poured out like water. As for his heart, bursting isn't the same as melting like wax and running into the bowels.

and all His bones were out of joint. If you insist on jawbone and skull too, then go ahead, but it's only the kind of gradeschool observation, that the literature teacher and other learned students could chuckle at. And it certainly does not at all apply to David's personal travails.

So all told, the description is symbolic of Jesus's suffering and not precise in a literal sense? That's how it fits David's travails.

If you'd like a lesson of double prophecy in the Bible, then I could give other examples. Such as Jesus being bruised by His enemies on the cross, and bruising their heads at His return.

Where does the text of the Bible say that any prophecy therein will be fulfilled more than once? If prophecies can be fulfilled twice, then why not three times? Four times.......etc.?

Zech 12 obviously speaks of His return with power and glory:

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

What makes this "obvious"? If I pick something prophesied centuries ago and write about it being fulfilled in the future, does my writing make it obvious that I'm right about when the prophecy is to be fulfilled?

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened

It's interesting that you include this, since it's another place where Christian scripture misrepresents the Tanakh:

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
But a body You have prepared for Me."
(Hebrews 10:5)

None of the gospel narratives have Jesus saying this when he came into the world----which would be a strange thing to have a baby do anyway----and no text in the Tanakh has the Jewish Messiah ever making such a statement. It's a purely Christian claim with no biblical support.

[RBD]

"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?

This is what's good about challenges to Scripture, because they cause the Book to be read with the challenge in mind, and so add a unique perspective. The record is that the Roman soldiers not only scourged Jesus, but also beat His head with a reed, which could result in cranial concussion and a dislocated jaw.

It serves explain the peculiar instance of when they misheard Him calling out to God:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

In this case, many have asked why they misunderstood Jesus, and a common sense answer has been that all the abuse resulted in Him talking unclearly. A dislocated jaw resulting from head bashing certainly qualifies. And that was also unique to Jesus's own crucifixion preliminaries, when the Roman soldiers plaited a crown of thorns (being themselves embedded in the cranium by a staff), mocked Him as king of the Jews, and beat on His head with a staff. Only scourging was the legal standard of Roman precrucifixion.

[RBD]

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.

Another purposed false translation in order make up something else. The verbal future infinite has no past tense: To turn back, to become turned back, to return, to become returned.

The Redeemer comes in the flesh to earthly Zion unto them to repent, and they crucify Him. The Deliverer comes in the Spirit of resurrection to take away the sins of them, that repent after crucifying Him.

In any case, the writer of Romans 11 does not offer a quote from Is 59, which isn't anywhere near quoting the prophesy of the coming Messiah in the flesh, but is the gospel of the resurrected Jesus Christ coming from heaven in the Spirit.

Acts{3:19} Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

A similar abuse of translation to change the narrative. is made by having Judas purhcase the field by Himself alone, with no other intermediaries present.

[RBD]

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.

Well done. Though it's not completely accurate (He comes to earthly Zion and returns from heavenly Sion), it does show someone can understand the difference between different interpretations about the text vs grammatical contradictions in it. People can then choose an intepretation that does contradict the text, rather than one that agrees with it.

In any case, there is no grammatical contradiction between Rom 11 and Is 59. The writer neither claims to quote the other, nor can his words possibly be a quote.

The problem with limiting one's purpose to finding fault with a book (rather than first reading it to fully understand it), is that normal intelligence and even common sense is limited by that one purpose. No normal reader could think Rom 11 is trying to quote Is 5i verbatum, and so must be doing something else in relation to it.

[RBD]

Humans are never completely free from sin and are constantly transgressing God's law.

Are you a believer in sinners saved by grace alone, or just heard it? Sounds like you are quoting them. Almost verbatim, other than constantly.

And so here we see the hidden secret for attacking the Bible, that sooner or later is spoken openly: Eternal judgment of our works by a righteous and holy God.

There are plenty of skeptics about miracles, prophecies, etc...but purposed attacks against the Author and His Book, including ridicule of anyone wholly believing and preaching it, always boils down to simple rejection of the law, judgment, and fear of the LORD.

The flood proves the folly of justification by numbers, as well as the lie that 'everyone' is doing it.

You do realize that you just professed faith in the Author of the Bible, by believing His law is the law of God, that no human ought transgress, right?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #105]

In any case, there is no grammatical contradiction between Rom 11 and Is 59. The writer neither claims to quote the other, nor can his words possibly be a quote.

No, they can't be a quote----but they can be a misquote. You're admitting that what Paul says was "written" actually wasn't.

The problem with limiting one's purpose to finding fault with a book (rather than first reading it to fully understand it), is that normal intelligence and even common sense is limited by that one purpose.

The same is true of limiting one's purpose to overlooking the faults in a book.

It serves explain the peculiar instance of when they misheard Him calling out to God:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.

In this case, many have asked why they misunderstood Jesus, and a common sense answer has been that all the abuse resulted in Him talking unclearly. A dislocated jaw resulting from head bashing certainly qualifies.

Yet the thief on the other cross heard him clearly? John and Mary standing nearby heard him clearly? Conveniently inconsistent.

[RBD]

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've detailed the pseudo-intelligent arguments several times. But I accept the correction, and will not then judge the authors as being pseudo-intellegent, since the the Author of the Bible doesn't:

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

My experience here is that some people do limit their intelligence in an argument, by limiting their reading of the Book to only find fault with it. With the Bible their use of intelligence become limited by confining themselves to fault alone. They do not bring with them their normal intelligence to first objectively read the Book, and understand fully what is written. Their argument begins superficial at best, and only degrades into fundemental errors in literary analysis, such as tortured translations, lack of context, or symbolizing the Book into obscurity.

Calling people who don't torture the text and make excuses 'pseudo-intelligent' is somewhat ironic.

Ironic at best. The debate of course is who's doing the torturing.

I can give several quick examples again: A tortured translation of the middle person, by saying that Judas purchased the field by himself alone. Turning the future infinitive into past tense in Is 59, in order to say the Redeemer comes to His people, that have already repented. And claiming Ps 22 is only about David's history of travails, which is not literally possible, and so then just making it all allegory by personal fiat.o09

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.

if you are saying different creation stories means the Book errs, then that is opposition if they do not agree. Gen 2 is not different from Gen 1, as in alternative, but is only a more detailed revelation of creating man and woman in God's image on the 6th day.

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.

Once again, this is only about the exercise of refuting pseudo-contradictions of the Bible. Convincing anyone else is not my purpose.

No one in history has ever quoted a self-explanatory contradiction. Once any explanation is required, it's not a contradiction between words of the Book, but only a purposed interpretation made to contradict it. And there is always another possible interpretation, that does not have to contradict it.

[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.[/quote]
<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’.[/quote]

True. No longer read that translation for Scriptures of God. But the words penned by prophets and apostles remain unerring. And since there is no translation that is a perfect rendering of the original words, then we can choose the least erring one. I choose the KJV, because it has no doctrinal nor prophetic error in it.

Just because Ps 22 perhpas should read 'digged into' rather than pierced', does not nullify it as a good translation of the Bible for insturction in righteousness, and revealing the true principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ for redemption and purifying of the soul.

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.

If there is no error in the one Book that challenges all comers, then any other book can either agree or disagree with the Bible, but that does not prove one or the other wrong in itself. Also, those books written as God speaking, nor claim infallibility.

The challenge is to prove error in the Bible, not disagreement from other books, which are in abundance on earth.

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.

There are no 'versions' of the Bible, but only translations. And no one needs to go through all of them to determine which is most acceptable to oneself. I have looked at other translations out of curiosity.

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.

Not with the Bible itself. We can either believe them or not, but no errors have ever been proven with them, in order to justify condemning them as false. And the reason many choose not to believe the Author, is because He leaves no doubt between light and darkness, black and white, hot or cold:

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Jas 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


People who want to live by the gray shadows of this world, can go to someone else to place their faith and trust in, or just trust in themselves alone.

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.

Since it's not then, it's mute. The Bible speaks of the moon as a light seen on earth, given by the Creator to provide light at night.

[RBD]

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.

That's a subjective conclusion. Many superficial readers don't interpret such things in the Bible from other areas of the Bible,a nd so they make uninformed conclusions.

That also includes cases where the literal also becomes allegorical for insutruction in wisdom and righteousness. Such as the crossing of the Red Sea was an historical fact, that latter symnbolizes clean and sure deliverance by the hand of God Himself from onrushing enemies of the soul, such as sins and trespasses.
1111

Two of every animal kind went into the ark. Was that literally true?

When stated literally, then it must be taken literally, unless other places identify it as only symbolic or allegorical. People changing it to allegory by their own minds, are those changing the Bible into just another book of man's fables, like Aesop's.

1Ti 1:4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Or, they disbelieve the Bible record of the flood, and just write it off as another old flood legend and myth, such as Gilgamesh's.

It's not wrong to search for symbolism in the historical record of the Bible, so long as the historical fact is not done away with. And if anyone chooses to not believe it is fact, than that is their own choice. However, the Bible shows no errors, that would justify such a choice.

And finally, if the Bible ever recorded an event as fact, and then later claim it was only symbolic, then that is a contradiction between record and doctrine. But that only happens with unbelievers in the record make it only symbolic for themselves.

A good example of historical record being taught with spiritual instruction is the wilderness trek from the Red Sea to Jordan:

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The fact that the Spirit of Christ was the one doing those things in the wildnerness, does not deny that the sea, the manna, the water, and the rock were literal, and the record is true. The latter spiritual insturction is given for the additional benefit of the soul to the knowledge of the record.

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.

Not me. I'm not an apologist. The Bible can be defended, but it has no need for apology, because the only offence it causes is speaking the truth.

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.’

Just a statment of fact. Not an apology for it. I choose not to conform to any paradigm set by others about the Bible. Socrates did well to offer his defence as a kind of apology, but the Author does not. He's not defending Himself but declaring Himself for the good of people on earth.

Defending the integrity of the Bible against accusers of the Book, does not put me nor the Bible on the defensive, but rather agressively shows the unintelligence of the attacks.

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.

No, I'm not accusing you of not arguing properly, but only of arguing about something else, other than contradiction in the Bible. If you want to argue against the inclusion of both literal and allegorical in a book, then you're arguing against much great literature on earth.

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.

True. If you see me making an assumption without showing evidence for a conclusion, then let me know. But, as with the Bible, you'll need to prove it by quoting me in context.

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?

It's my conclusion based upon the evidence of what I've ever seen, when contradictions are claimed. Every supposed grammatical contradiction quoted, always has a possible explanation to the contrary. Whether anyone accepts the explanation or not, is neither here nor there. A truly grammatical contradiction is self-explanatory. There is no possible explanation to the contrary.

I've only seen on this thread 2 challenges of contradiction, that is made by quoting the words alone. One states that the words of Rom 11 are not the same as in Is 59, which is true. That would be a self-explanatory contradiction, if Rom 11 were seeking to quote Is 59. It's not.

Another is the example given above between Zech 12 where they shall look upon 'me', and John 19 where they shall look upon 'him'. But, that is only contradiction with a future English translation, not between the Hebrew written in Zech 12 and the Greek in John 19. The Hebrew has no object of preposition, and the Greek demands one.

English also demands an object of preposition. Why the English translators choose 'me' in Zech 12, and then 'him' in John 19, is a question for them, not for the Author of Zech 12 and John 19.

Simple answers to these challenges only need a little investigation into the linguistics and context of the Book, which is not done nor acknowledged by the accusers. They wilfully limit their ordinary due diligence reserved for any other book of literature, history, or science, because they confine themselves to only finding fault. They don't want to do the investigative research, that they would do elsehwere, because they don't want to learn what is actually said. As literary critiques, they get an F for superficial reading and unintelligent conclusions. Or, perhaps a D under a bell-curve grading system, for at least opening the Book and reading enough to try and find fault.