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 #118]

there is no grammatical contradiction

You place great emphasis on grammar,

That's because that is what a contradiction is. A is B, and B is not A, or Adam lived to be 930 years old, and 931 years old, or the flood did cover the whole earth in Genesis, and did not cover the whole earth in 2 Peter.

If it's about an interpretation in one place, that contradicts the Bible elsewhere, then at that point, any other possible interpretation does not contradict the Bible elsewhere, then there is no established literary disagreement within the Book.

so here's a discussion which has been going on
viewtopic.php?t=42229

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

There's not contradiction here. In fact, Gal 3 is ensuring no contradiction is made, but confirming it is one of promise by Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds...

Nor is there an argument made against there being more than one seed of Abraham, but that there is only one promised seed and son of Abraham by whom Christ would come, Isaac. Seeds is for sons of Abraham, and the Author is confirming the promise, that Christ would only come by Isaac, and not by Ishmael, whom Mohammed preaches.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Once again, a limited objective necessitates a superficial reading for a false report. As well as a silly accusation that Paul of Tarsus didn't know Hebrew.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #136]

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

Not for any created person on earth today. But certainly necessary for God coming in the flesh.

You're continuing to argue in circles. A body being prepared for a divine Messiah is a Christian invention; it's nowhere in the Jewish Bible.

The accurately quoted words only point to the old prophecy.

Then why do the "accurately quoted words" say the opposite of what the old prophecy says?

If the quote were reversing an old prophecy, then it would be contradicting it, by saying the Redeemer would not be coming that way afterall. I.e: The Redeemer would not come to Zion (as previously prophesied), but now only out of Sion.

You're trying to split hairs, but it doesn't work. The Christian author says he's referring to what is written. It isn't written anywhere in Jewish scripture that the Messiah will come from Zion----or "Sion", if you want to parse the spelling.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #141]

There's not contradiction here. In fact, Gal 3 is ensuring no contradiction is made, but confirming it is one of promise by Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds...

Nor is there an argument made against there being more than one seed of Abraham, but that there is only one promised seed and son of Abraham by whom Christ would come, Isaac. Seeds is for sons of Abraham, and the Author is confirming the promise, that Christ would only come by Isaac, and not by Ishmael, whom Mohammed preaches.

Paul is shoehorning Jesus as the Jewish Messiah into a passage which is about the number of Abraham's descendents and isn't messianic.

This is another exercise in circular thinking; you're ignoring the context and assuming that the Genesis passage is about Jesus simply because Paul says it is.

[RBD]

[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.

No, I make no assumption something is being quoted in full, unless it is quoted in full. Partial quotes do not require the whole be quoted. That would be a presumptive literary argument, that if an author quotes himself in any part, he must quote himself in full. Of course, no one in literarature needs to do that, as though it were a matter of literary rule. Just because someone wants to believe that, in order to make things simple, then he ought to stick to reading simpler books.

...unless it includes something you can interpret as the references to Jesus which you expect to find there.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't expect to find anything anywhere in the Bible, so that I may objectively learn what the Author is saying. If you mean most of the NT is about Jesus being the Christ of God, then that's because the NT is all about how He is. However, if your point is that I would therefore expect any OT Messianic prophecy to be confirmed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, then yes certainly.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

"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're quoting an anti-NT Jew that trusts in the law to justify himself with the God of Israel. He also trusts that the Messiah will not come, until enough Jews as himself are 'finally' perfected in the letters of the law. He also trusts that his own Messiah will only come to slaughter his physical enemies, and establish himself and other perfect Jews like him, as His rulers over the earth.

That is why their forefathers had Jesus Christ crucified for judging them sinners, not so much by the letter of the law, but by the Spirit of God:

Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mat 23:25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.


So, anyway, the challenge is not to prove the NT fulfills the OT promised Messiah, but rather whether any words of the Bible grammatically contradict one another. I am quite sure the Jew you are quoting would never say that his Hebrew OT contradicts itself. He is only bemoaning a questionable OT translation, in order to reject a NT fulfillment. And I personally have no problem with that, since John 19 is quoted from Is 59, not from Ps 22. (However, as a matter of sensible translation, I would prefer something other than, they 'digged into' my hands and feet.)

You said yourself:

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

Correct, as opposed to unreasonably declaring Is 59 must be fully quoted, if any of it is quoted, and so it is misquoted based upon an unreasonable literary expectation, that if an author quotes himself in part, he must then quote himself in full.

By the few words quoted from Is 59, Rom 11 does point to it as the subject matter. They are similar, because Rom 11 is extending the OT prophecy to the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. It plainly opposes those OT Jews, that declare Messiah has not yet come, and will only come to save of Israel after the flesh by destroying all their physical enemies. (Which they also say will not be until enough of them are really really really great at keeping the law outwardly, if not inwardly.)

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.

I've already explained and shown enough times, that there can be a difference between referring to what is written elsewhere, and quoting what is said elsewhere. As it is written can either preceed a quote, or a teaching about it. As it is said in the Scripture, must be followed by a whole quote.

Any author of a book as the right to refer to his earlier writings, in order to conclude them elsewhere in a new context. He also has the right to quote part of the previous writings, in order to point to them as the subject matter for the present conclusion. (Today, it's called an appendix)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #144]

I make no assumption something is being quoted in full, unless it is quoted in full.

Well, I make no assumtion that something is being quoted at all unless it's quoted correctly.

I don't expect to find anything anywhere in the Bible, so that I may objectively learn what the Author is saying.

.....which means that you presume the Christian Bible to have been divinely authored.

You're quoting an anti-NT Jew that trusts in the law to justify himself with the God of Israel.

I'm quoting a rabbi who knows Hebrew and the Tanakh. Your ad hominem argument is, "He doesn't believe in Jesus, so he must be wrong."

He also trusts that his own Messiah will only come to slaughter his physical enemies, and establish himself and other perfect Jews like him, as His rulers over the earth.

.....while you trust that Jesus will cast your enemies----and everyone who just doesn't believe as you do----into hell, which is a lot worse.

So, anyway, the challenge is not to prove the NT fulfills the OT promised Messiah

Are you shying away from that because you're afraid that it doesn't?

I am quite sure the Jew you are quoting would never say that his Hebrew OT contradicts itself.

....just as you would never say the same of your "NT".

He is only bemoaning a questionable OT translation, in order to reject a NT fulfillment.

You can sling all the mud you want at him; he knows the Hebrew of the text and he explains it.

By the few words quoted from Is 59, Rom 11 does point to it as the subject matter. They are similar, because Rom 11 is extending the OT prophecy to the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

.....like the Book of Mormon is "extending" those sheep who hear Jesus's voice to include the Lamanites.

[RBD]

[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?

Of course. I first began to read the Bible for the sole purpose of literary analysis, when I was assigned it as a study in classical literature. The problem is not believers treating all other books as anathema, but rather is active disbelievers not honoring the Bible with the same honest analysis, that they give to other books. Like fake news media, their 'investigative journalism' must be cast aside for the sole purpose of finding fault. That is why they must limit themselves to superficially uninformed readings.

FYI----I once came up with everything I could to make sense of everything in the Bible, so I know where you're at.

No. I don't 'come up' with anything to cover for the Bible, but only set aside conclusions until fully investigated. What I find in the Book itself, is reasonable alternatives to the superficial charges of error, that preclude any serious investigation.

Only seeking to make cover for something, is as intellectually dishonest as only seeking to find fault with it.

The weight of contrary evidence eventually became too great to keep it up.

Since the contrary evidence is superficial at best, then obviously not much weight was given to the Book''s defence. Like a publicly appointee attorney caving to a mass media hit job.

Trying to make cover for something by family or social tradition alone, does not result in any serious investigation nor defence.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #146]

I first began to read the Bible for the sole purpose of literary analysis, when I was assigned it as a study in classical literature. The problem is not believers treating all other books as anathema, but rather is active disbelievers not honoring the Bible with the same honest analysis, that they give to other books. Like fake news media, their 'investigative journalism' must be cast aside for the sole purpose of finding fault. That is why they must limit themselves to superficially uninformed readings.......

I don't 'come up' with anything to cover for the Bible, but only set aside conclusions until fully investigated. What I find in the Book itself, is reasonable alternatives to the superficial charges of error, that preclude any serious investigation.......

Only seeking to make cover for something, is as intellectually dishonest as only seeking to find fault with it......

Since the contrary evidence is superficial at best, then obviously not much weight was given to the Book''s defence. Like a publicly appointee attorney caving to a mass media hit job......

Trying to make cover for something by family or social tradition alone, does not result in any serious investigation nor defence.

If you subject the Bible and other religions' writings to the same analytical criteria so as to avoid superficially uninformed readings, do you agree with the Book of Mormon that the "other sheep" who hear Jesus's voice include the Lamanites?

[RBD]

[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)

An author can write new things in his own book. Such as the NT in the Bible, with new prophecy added to the old. Other authors writting new and different things from their own mind and imagination, are only writing their own books alone.

The Author of the Bible is not the author of book of mormons, which contradicts the words, doctrine, and prophecy of the Bible. Jospeh Smith wrote his own book, the same as Mohammed. And any angels helping them, as they claimed, were not angels of God written of the Bible.

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

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.

See post 133

You're fundemental error in trying to teach law, is by treating liberty in the law as commandments of the law. God does not command divorce, nor does it please Him.

The law allowing for divorce is not a law commanding divorce, that must be obeyed to please God. That's what the adulterous generation in Jesus' day taught for obedience to God.

Jesus reversed a corrupt jewish tradition that abused the liberty of the law. The law only allowed for cause of uncleanness, not for any cause the people wished.

With that adulterous generation, not getting at least one or two divorces was not only strange, but also rudely colloquial, but as you argue, was akin to disannulling and disobeying the law of God.

The same self-righteous Jews treating the Romans as unclean beasts, were emulating Roman high society in their own 'priveleges' of divorce.

Mat 15:3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mar 7:13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[RBD]

[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?

He quotes enought to refer to it. He doesn't reverse it, but adds His second coming to it.

The first prophecy was the Redeemer coming to Zion for His people of Israel to repent. The second prophecy is for the Deliverer coming out of Sion to save all Israel that did repent.

We can continue to argue interpretation of Bible prophecy if you like, but since the whole prophecy was not quoted, then it wasn't contradicted nor reversed.

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.

Correct. What you said is not what the Author of the Bible 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.

Correct again. I'm agreeing with Paul, not you.

[RBD]

[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"?

When the Bible later shows two meanings to be fulfilled.

The old prophecy of the Lord coming to earth, is revealed in the NT to be first by flesh, and then by resurrection. He first comes to Zion in the flesh as a servant, and will come again out of Sion in resurection power as the Lord of glory.