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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #110]

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.

Do you know that it's not, or do you merely assume that it's not? The similarity between Rom. 11:26 and Is. 59:20 strongly suggests that it is.

And there's still the matter of how the author of Hebrews 10:5 came up with the idea for that verse [certainly not from Ps. 40:6].

The challenge is to prove error in the Bible

Here's something I've submitted elsewhere. Not an error in the Bible per se, but an inconsistency between Christian scripture and the [Jewish] Bible:

1. The book of the law states that all the law therein is what the God of Israel himself gave to Moses to command the people (Dt.1:3)

2. Christian scripture supports #1 (2 Timothy 3:16)

3. Moses allows divorce in the law (Dt. 24:1)

4. Moses commands that nothing the law allows is to be prohibited (Dt. 4:2)

5. Moses commands that everything in the law is to be followed in order to please God (Dt. 11:13, 13:18)

6.Jesus declares that he has not come to nullify the law (Mt. 5:17)

7. Jesus declares that anyone who breaks any command of the law will be least in heaven (Mt. 5:19)

8. Jesus nullifies the law in #3, violating the law in #4 (Mk. 10:9)

9. Jesus denies the validity of Moses's command in #5 (Mk.10:5)

10. Jesus declares that everything in the law is in keeping with the two greatest commandments, undermining his own position in #9 (Mt. 22:40)

Such behavior is inconsistent with one who could reasonably be expected to be the Jewish Messiah.
viewtopic.php?t=6580&start=60

I'd say that the contradictions here are fairly self-explanatory.

[Diagoras]

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’.

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.

<bolding mine>

I think the format of your nested quotes got a little muddled in your reply.

How can anyone know that the original words are ‘unerring’ when you admit that no perfect translation of them exists? All it takes is to mistranslate ‘human’ for ‘man’ or ‘citizen’ (in a hypothetical example) for the intended meaning to easily be lost, even though there’s no grammatical error or self-contradiction. Such changed meaning may well result in ‘doctrinal error’ but you would have no way of knowing that.

And choosing the ‘least erring’ translation is, I’m sure you can see, a matter of opinion. A quick Google search suggests there are over 900 English translations alone. Nothing stops you or anyone else having a ‘favourite’ of course.

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 (sic) in righteousness, and revealing the true principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ for redemption and purifying of the soul.

That’s verse 16, right?
”For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.”

This same psalm has a sub-title mentioning ‘Aijeleth Shahar’, but “This enigmatic expression has intrigued scholars and theologians, leading to various interpretations” (quoting from this link below):

https://biblehub.com/topical/naves/a/ai ... shahar.htm

For someone using the KJV for instruction, would it then matter which interpretation of Aijeleth Shahar they used to reveal the ‘true principles’? Are people free to decide what the psalm means to them personally, or is there one prescribed interpretation?

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.

<bolding mine>

So you agree that comparing an apocryphal work (that used to be in the Bible, or is only in some versions) that conflicts with the KJV (for example) can’t be proved wrong?

]Also, those books written as God speaking, nor claim infallibility.

Sorry, this is confusingly written. I don’t know what point you are trying to make.

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.

The same argument about objective analysis and making no assumptions applies equally to ‘translations’ as it does to ‘versions’. Your ‘most acceptable’ appears to be based on opinion, not objective analysis.

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, then that is their own choice.

<bolding mine>

Presupposes historical fact in the first place, so not a logically sound argument.

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.

Likewise, if anyone denies that the Bible contains multiple contradictory statements, that’s neither here nor there.

See how easily the opposing view to yours can be insulated from criticism just the same?

As literary critiques, they get an F for superficial reading and unintelligent conclusions.

You might consider refraining from such comments in a debate forum like this in future. By all means point out where specific conclusions are incorrect, but as written, this comes across as condescending and doesn’t invite further engagement.

[RBD]

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.

This is true. Some people professing faith in the Bible do all manner of things to change the text into something more suitable to their liking. And some disbelievers do the same to find something more sutiable towrd accusing Scripture of error.

If the Bible speaks only of oak, then only oak it is. Solutions to apparent contradictions are only offset by possible explanations, not by open denial or changing of the text itself.

[RBD]

[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?

Authors of a book are free to interpret tehir own words. Readers are invited to judge grammatically and analytically, if the interpretation contradicts himself.

[RBD]

[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?

It's obvious that he isn't trying to wholly quote any other passage of Scripture.

Once again, we see here that the argument is about interpretation of Bible prophecy, not about any grammatical contradiction of words. The mistaken impression is that such a contradiction can be argued, as though to prove a contradiction. Any argument for or against a contradiction, proves it's not a contradiction at all, but only an argument of passage meaning. That's because all contradictions are self-explanatory, that allow no argument.

Ex: If anywhere in the Bible the Author says the Redeemer will not come to Zion, and/or there is no new covenant established by Him. That's a contradiction of words themselves, that cannot be argued, other than as some kind of 'typo'.

Seeking a contradiction by interpretation of text, is only seeking a meaning of the text, that does contradict the words. But, when another intrerpretation is made, that does not contradict the text, then the argument is about interpretation, not about any grammatical contradiction.

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?

Sure, but just barely. Only 6 words in Rom 11:16-27 matches in sequence about 30 words in Is 59:20-21. In comparison, 4 of those 6 words in Rom 11 match Gen 17:10. So, Is 59 has more claim of being quoted than Gen 17 by 2 words. Neither of which can claim any sense of being wholly quoted.

It's reasonable to assume that Is. 59:20 is what he was (mis)quoting.

It's reasonable to interpret Is 59 as the subject matter for Rom 11. It makes no sense to conlude it is wholly quoted, and thus radically misquoted. Unless the sole purpose is to conclude a predetermined contradiction. Or, the writer was drunk, delirious, or has broken fingers by the his latest stoning...

Referring to what is written is not necessarily quoting what is said. The example is already given of Rom 10 doing so with Is 61: But Esaias is very bold, and saith... And even here, the order of the passage is changed.

Another example of partial quoting to reveal prophetic fullfillment, as in Rom 11 from Is 59, is also in Heb 10 from Ps 40:

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Many more words are quoted here for Ps 40, than was for Is 59. And once again a fullment of prophecy is given, not a whole quote solely of what is said. And we see an all important addition to the subject matter of Ps 40, so as to fullfill the prophecy by Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. The same is done with Is 59, in order to preach Jesus Christ coming of heaven in the Spirit.

People can argue the apropriateness of the intepretation of fulfilled prophecy, but not any grammatical contradiction of supposed whole quotes. And the Author certainly has the right to partially quote old prophecy and shape it's new fulfillment.

Therefore, all that remains is to prove any contradiction of prophetic intepretation by the Author. Such as, Scripture ever saying that the Messiah never has a body prepared Him. Which statement would also contradict His prophesied virgin birth. I wouldn't be surprised if OT messianic Jews supply such a statement. However, it couldn't be from the Torah, but rather only from their own interpetative Talmud.

It makes more sense than trying to shoehorn Paul's statement into a more vague reference elsewhere.

It makes no sense to demand 6 words out of 19 must be a whole quote, that is insensibly mangled. The proof that it is not a grammatical contrdictioin is that trying to make it a whole quote, turns both passages into a mangled mess. And messing with the text like that, only makes sense when someone is trying to make a magled mess out of it, so as to claim it is in error. (Extremely so.)

When anyone limits their purpose of analysis to a subjective cause, then they must defacto limit their intelligence to conform to that goal. Any objective analysis is wilfully set aside, so that only a superficial reading is made, without any further investigation into the text. In this case, a simple investigation into the number of matching words, shows it can't possibly be intended as a whole quote.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #115]

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Many more words are quoted here for Ps 40, than was for Is 59. And once again a fullment of prophecy is given, not a whole quote solely of what is said. And we see an all important addition to the subject matter of Ps 40, so as to fullfill the prophecy by Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

When it comes to a body being prepared for the speaker, there's no prophecy to fulfill.

It makes no sense to demand 6 words out of 19 must be a whole quote, that is insensibly mangled. The proof that it is not a grammatical contrdictioin is that trying to make it a whole quote, turns both passages into a mangled mess. And messing with the text like that, only makes sense when someone is trying to make a magled mess out of it, so as to claim it is in error. (Extremely so.)

Your "6 words out of 19" argument is a red herring; the point is that those 6 words are out of order in the misquote. The misquote is set in the same context as the quote, so it has to be read in that context.

If the quote went on to say that there would be a reversal of coming to Zion to coming from Zion at a later time, that might be different. However, no such reversal is indicated in the quote.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #114]

Authors of a book are free to interpret tehir own words. Readers are invited to judge grammatically and analytically, if the interpretation contradicts himself.

"no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20)

Isn't that supposed to take all the guesswork out of it?

[RBD]

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.

There are 2 reasons I know of: The believers that want to change what's written for judgment by works, in order to justify themselves, and the unbelievers that want to change what's written, in order to excuse themselves from judgment of works.

The fact of needing 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.

Any translation is trustworthy enough to know the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do His words of truth, righteousness, and wisdom. The original language is the exact words given to the writers. They can help clarify specific details of contention.

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?)

First, there is no grammatical contradiction. A contradiction would be later in Genesis, or anywhere in the Bible, saying that God did not see light in the world until oe when He created the celestial luminaries.

Second, God creating the heaven, earth, 'and light' is sloppy reading. When God said let there be light, He said nothing of creating light, but only of creating the heaven and the earth.

Third, the context of the Bible is being discounted:

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.


The Spirit of God moved upon the dark deep, that was void of God, until God declared His light to shine within His own creation. God Himself entered therein for an habitiation of His own Being:

Psalm 90:1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.

Act 17:28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

God who is Light, was first in the darkened world, before He ever generated natural light. Today there remains two distinctly separate kingdoms of flesh with natural light, and of spirit with true light, and man dwells in both:

Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Psa 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

Psa 90:1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.

Act 17:26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

God creates the natural things of the world from within, not from without like some distant puppet master, as some deists suppose.

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)

The Author of the Bible says the sky includes the celestial bodies where no water is:

Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

Which is not the same sky first created when the heaven and earth was flooded with water. You say well in saying 'our sky', for the sky in water was before our sky, that man first looked upon with burning lights. There is no contradiction between the old heaven and earth full of water, and the present world being only with water on earth:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


This is not the flood in Noah's day, which is referred to in 1 Peter 3. Rather, it's confirmation of the old world being perished with water in Gen 1:2.

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).

Not magic, but God's word and work. Once again, unbelief in the words of a book, does not prove error.

And we also see here, that limiting oneself solely to finding fault in a book, requires casting aside not only objective analysis, but also the modern scientific intelligence, by which we know creatures and vegetation inhabit the darkest abyss of the sea. Haven't you seen Meg 2??

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #118]

there is no grammatical contradiction

You place great emphasis on grammar, so here's a discussion which has been going on elsewhere:

viewtopic.php?t=42229

[RBD]

[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?

What Paul says in Romans 11:26, is what the Author says.The same for anything said from Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21.