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 #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.

Have you anything to say about what I've posted since this?

[RBD]

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)

God called the light Day, and the darkness Night, before He divided the days and nights naturally by the stars of the sky (that burned up all the water above.) He also established on the first day, that each day would be by evening and morning, before making the natural sunset and sunrise thereof.

A contradiction in the Bible must speak of any 24 hour day, as not being the evening and morning thereof.

It also corrects the pseuodo sciences, that claim millions of years rather than 6 days to generate the things of the heaven and earth. And it rebukes the mythographers and symbolizers, who try to say the days were analogous to a thousand years, or more.

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

In the water on earth, not in the water of the heavens. They would be burned up by the stars of the sky.

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

It is specific, that the vegetation is mentioned first. A contradiction would be Gen 2 saying God formed man without, or before, any vegetation on the earth. As well as man there being rain before the vegetation and man was made.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


The revelation is about how the plants and herbs were in the the earth and growing by mist, before there was any rain. And they were growing unfarmed by man.

A limited reading excluding context, is always necessary to conform to the limited purpose of finding fault.

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.

Interpretive translation exposed false: 'Had yet' sprung up, and 'then' the LORD God formed grammatical fabrication, and 'appeared' is an added word, that appears not at all.

Not only limited reading, but also false grammar becomes necessary to only see fault.

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

The Lord planted a garden.

Not in itself a great error, but it continues to the show the pattern of sloppy reading, that began with claiming God 'created' light, when He said Let there be light... By the word of God, the light of God appeared where it had not been before. And God is that light. He did not create Himself nor His eternal true light, when He made His own creation His personal bode:

Heb 1:10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

He abode in the new heaven and earth forever, after this world is burned away and changed for all new clothing.

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?)

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The man should not be (separated) alone, is the reading by context, but also by the word's primary use elsewhere as a matter of separation, not of being all alone. Choosing the latter as being all alone, is purposely against context. Furthermore, Adam could not have been all alone on earth, since the LORD Himself was with him and speaking to him, and later we see also personally walks in the garden.

The Author of the Book says the LORD is a Person: Heb 1:3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,

He is not only the first Person in the universe, but contrary to deism, He is a Person that has relationship with all people. And of course, when He became a man in the flesh, He was related to all people by one blood, and so called Himself the Son of man.

I will show him an help, is also acceptable translation. The LORD showed Adam, by parade or by walking the field, all the animals for him to personally name. It also gave Adam the help needed to use his intelligence, rather just his hands for work.

And the LORD God had formed every beast, is a more accurate conjugation. As well as being contextually correct.

God creates all animals. He creates man on earth. He presents the animals to Adam to name. Concluding the order of creation must be by context. Choosing to say Adam was formed first, only purposes to contradict the context.

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

Day 6 of creating and making man and woman is expanded in Gen 2: Gen 2:7-22 is all done duing the 6th day of earth. It reveals how Adam's body was made, how the garden was planted and worked by Adam, how he named the animals, and how the woman was made from the man.

In the process Gen 2 also reveals how the vegetation was watered by mist before any rain on earth. (It's speculated that God did not send rain upon the earth, until He flooded it in the days of Noah. Which would have lent incredulity to Noah building an ark for a flood made out of mist alone...)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #95]

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,

He's certainly not trying to quote anything in full, esle he certain would have. The Author of the Bible certainly knows how to quote Himself in full, if He wants to. Referring to what is written is not limited to quoting, but also to the teaching and prophecy of Scripture.

What He does quote two limited parts of Is 59: The Messah coming, and His covenant to come: The prophecy is of the Redeemer coming to earthly Zion, and the fulfillment is the Deliverer coming from heavenly Sion. Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and is coming in the resurrection.

1Pe 1:12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

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:

Which things the unrepentant don't want to look into.

[RBD]

[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?

To a degree, certainly. I don't read anything just to uselessly find fault with it, which includes challenges to the Bible. I find Bible alternatives to it by investigating deeper than just grazing the surface for fault.

However, since I am a wholehearted convert to the God of the Bible, then I see the differences between other books than the Bible. I also can see fault in the authors, if they do contradict themselves. Such as Moohammed claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, calling Him Allah, and then accusing the God of the Bible of blasphemy for calling Jesus Christ His onlybegotten Son. I also see in the Koran plenty of pro-Ishmael corruption of the Bible, in order to declare the God of the Bible's promise is not through Isaac.

So far as people like Buddha go, if they want to call down tulips raining from the heavenlies in a cosmic blow out, then more power to him. But, I also know by the Bible, that the god of this world is really good at decieving people into believing they have attained to a kind of godhood on earth.

Gen {3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Nor do I doubt that an angel did appear to Moohammed in cave, and Jospeh Smith in an attic, but they weren't any angels of God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #123]

He's certainly not trying to quote anything in full, esle he certain would have. The Author of the Bible certainly knows how to quote Himself in full, if He wants to. Referring to what is written is not limited to quoting, but also to the teaching and prophecy of Scripture.

What He does quote two limited parts of Is 59: The Messah coming, and His covenant to come: The prophecy is of the Redeemer coming to earthly Zion, and the fulfillment is the Deliverer coming from heavenly Sion. Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and is coming in the resurrection.

You seem to be assuming that biblical text isn't being quoted in full unless it includes something you can interpret as the references to Jesus which you expect to find there.


"Isaiah 59:20
The Messiah’s role in Judaism has never been understood to take away our sins. We are taught, just the opposite, when we put aside our sins then the Messiah will come! It is significant that many Christian translations of Isaiah have this translated correctly, while Paul in Romans insists on advancing his agenda."
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text


You said yourself:

It's reasonable to interpret Is 59 as the subject matter for Rom 11.

In Romans 11:26, Paul refers to what is written, presumably in Isaiah 59:20. Therefore, if Isaiah 59:20 is written about the earthly Zion, then Paul would have to be referring to the earthly Zion as well in order to refer to what's written in Isaiah 59:20.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #124]

To a degree, certainly. I don't read anything just to uselessly find fault with it, which includes challenges to the Bible. I find Bible alternatives to it by investigating deeper than just grazing the surface for fault.

However, since I am a wholehearted convert to the God of the Bible, then I see the differences between other books than the Bible. I also can see fault in the authors, if they do contradict themselves. Such as Moohammed claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, calling Him Allah, and then accusing the God of the Bible of blasphemy for calling Jesus Christ His onlybegotten Son. I also see in the Koran plenty of pro-Ishmael corruption of the Bible, in order to declare the God of the Bible's promise is not through Isaac.

So the next question is: Do you subject other books and the Bible to the same analytical criteria?


FYI----I once came up with everything I could to make sense of everything in the Bible, so I know where you're at. The weight of contrary evidence eventually became too great to keep it up.

[RBD]

[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.

True, if they were both being quoted. Only Zech 12 is quoted for the onlookers, while Ps 22 reveals His crucifixion looked upon.

There is no misquote, where no quote is. (Normal readers know this. Limited purposes require limited understanding.)

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.

No, but it's a strong emotional description to an inflamed bursting heart. And the water with blood is real, that ran down from pirecing His side.

The point remains the same: Any claim of Ps 22 being strictly David's historical travails, or as being only symbolic, is a wilful corruption of the text.

And remember, the case is not made to prove any contradiction, but only to dispute the translation in Ps 22, in order to separate the NT from the Book of the God of Israel. If someone wants to insist on the politically correct Jews' translation of 'digged into' hands and feet, rather than the more readable 'piercing', then let them.

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.

You insist they cannot apply, and I give recorded evidence, that they certainly can. Laughing off an unexpected proof, works only among chukleheads.

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.

All told, the last ditch effort to deny it's curcifixion content, is to turn the text into symbology, so as to apply it to David. And in so doing, even the analogies become meaningless, sence they have no reasonable resemblance to his 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.?

One prophecy combined with double meaning is not the one prophecy repeated twice. (Normal readers also know this much.)

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"?

It's called literary similarity: There is an outpouring of the Spirit of power and glory. Only Jesus' blood and water were poured out at the cross. All eyes on earth look upon Him whom they pireced, and wail upon Him. Not just them at the cross.

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?

Not for you, nor me, nor any other reader. But certainly for the Author, whose has the right to write of His own prophecy and fulfillment. People don't have to believe it, but without contradiction, He certainly can be believed.

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)

I point it out as an example of how an Author can add to His own words, without contradicting them. As in the previous case, the readers cannot add such things, but it's the Author's right to do so.

The Author of the Bible does not attempt to write every detail at one time. It therefore requires more investigation to know the fullness of what He says.

2Ti 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Author of the Bible demands objective and honest study, rather than spoon-feeding everything as to unenergetic babes. Surface readers only show themselves unstudied.

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---

They also attempt poor mockery, when shown to be only surface readers.

-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.

Once again, the Author has the right to supplement His own prophecies, so long as they don't contradict them. A contradiction would be if the Author ever says His Messiah would not have a physical body, or that the body would only appear in full form, not from the womb with a mother on earth. (Doceticism)

Newly revealed Scripture is now Scripture, whether it's written of God first creating the heaven and the earth, or latter of God and the Lamb being the light of His city on a new earth. Nothing before Rev 21, ever says such a statement.

Do you now say the Author is forbidden to write anything new? I thought the argument was about writing anything self-contradictory, not about supplementing the old with the new:

Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #127]

Do you now say the Author is forbidden to write anything new?

Oh. You're Mormon, aren't you?

"Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?”
(2 Nephi 29:6-7)


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.?

One prophecy combined with double meaning is not the one prophecy repeated twice.

Where does the text of the Bible say that any prophecy therein will combine "double meaning"?

And remember, the case is not made to prove any contradiction, but only to dispute the translation in Ps 22, in order to separate the NT from the Book of the God of Israel.

That's the argument I was making back here.....

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.

.....which I haven't seen addressed.

[RBD]

[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.

I apreciate the debate in grammatical logic here. A misquote only exists where something is quoted incorrectly, which only exists when a quote is attempted.

Where there is no quote attempted, there can be no misquote. This also applies to a partial quote, where no attempt is made to quote the whole passage.

Is 59 is only partially quoted by Rom 11. The minor parts quoted are not misquoted. The purpose in Rom 11:26 is obviously not to repeat Is 59:20, but is only quoted enough to confirm it is the passage being written about.

You're admitting that what Paul says was "written" actually wasn't.

No, Paul does not say what was written in Is 59, actually wasn't written. He writes about what was written in Is 59, and only quotes a few words to show where He was writing from. The Author was plainly not repeating His OT passage, but is now expounding His NT message about it.

The Author sometimes quotes what He has said, whether in full or in part. He also sometimes expounds on what He has writtern afore, whether quoting in part, or not at all.

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.

Certainly. Therefore, let the arguments show the truth.

However, when someone's stated purpose is subjectively antagonistic, then objectivity is already known to be set aside. Someone purposed to confront all such attacks at least can still claim objectivity.

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?

And so, the argument is accepted. The jawbone was dislocated by the unprecedented and unnecessary beating of the soldiers, which explains His misunderstood words.

And, no, we cannot say the thief heard Him clearly, because there is no record of any response from the thief.

John and Mary standing nearby heard him clearly?

And yes, we can say He was heard well enough for John to take Mary to his home. But the argument is about a dislocated jaw with some misunderstood speech, not about it being impossible for Him to be understood.

A dislocated jaw can certainly inhibit eating and clear speech, but does not necessarily forbid it.

Conveniently inconsistent.

No, it was not convenient for the beaten and crucified man Jesus to be inconsistently heard.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #129]

Is 59 is only partially quoted by Rom 11. The minor parts quoted are not misquoted. The purpose in Rom 11:26 is obviously not to repeat Is 59:20, but is only quoted enough to confirm it is the passage being written about.

If Is. 59 is the text Paul is writing about, why doesn't he write what it says, reversing it instead?

No, Paul does not say what was written in Is 59, actually wasn't written.

No, it isn't what Paul said----it's what I said.

The Author was plainly not repeating His OT passage, but is now expounding His NT message about it.

There's nothing "plain" about it. Again, it's Paul's assertion----and yours.


And if you're so sure about all this, why have you still not addressed the ten points I've brought up twice now on Jesus and the law?