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 #131]

Since it's not from Ps 40 alone, any surface reader can conclude how and where His revelation in Heb 10 comes. Such as, He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7), and so would be born with a babe's body. He would be crucified on a cross (Ps 22), which also required a man's body. And of course, He is already preached Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4), long before Heb 10 is written. And so, like all people born into the world, He had a body prepared by God in a mother's womb.

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"

Let's look at Hebrews 1:5....

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

.....and apply the same rhetorical logic to Heb. 10:5. At what point when Jesus entered the world is it recorded that he said anything about a body being prepared for him? (Remember----it isn't just about the body being prepared; he supposedly said that a body had been prepared. Where/when did he say it?)

At what point it is recorded that Jesus said, Lo, in the volume of the Book, it is written of me..?

The standard of prophecy is that it be fulfilled, not necessarily repeated by the one fulfilling it. As already noted, a recorded contradiction of the prophecy is not by enhancing it with historical fact, but by the Bible record saying or teaching that Jesus did not have a body prepared for Him.

Nowhere in the OT does it ever say the Messiah would not come with His own body on earth. Anti-NT Jews only say He hasn't come yet, and when He does, it will only be with an immortal glorifed body fit for the LORD God Himself. They reject any Messiah suffering in the flesh on earth.

He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7)

We could get into a whole big thing about that.

No problem, but that's only interpretation arguments and matters of faith, not about any contradiction in the Bible. No OT prophecy forbids the Messiah coming to earth born of a woman.

[RBD]

Meanwhile, take a look at this (I first jump in with post #69):
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6580&hilit=making&start=60

Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

They were tempting Jesus to rewrite law of Moses to conform to their divorce-happy tradition. Instead He used it to teach the letter and spirit of the law.

Doing away with a bill of divorcement was never part of the debate. Neither the adulterous Jews nor Jesus had any thought of forbidding divorce for any cause.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #148]

The Author of the Bible is not the author of book of mormons, which contradicts the words, doctrine, and prophecy of the Bible.

Are you sure that you aren't just looking to find fault?

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.

Your fundamental error is in assuming that I'm regarding divorce as a command. Moses allows divorce in a way which the law states is right in Jehovah's eyes (Deut. 13:18), and Jesus calls it "the hardness of your hearts".

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.

Then why didn't Jesus say, "Only for uncleanness did Moses suffer you to put away your wives"? Moses writes that all of the law was given by Jehovah (Dt. 1:3) and was to be followed to serve him with all their heart (11:13) to do what is right in his eyes (13:18). So when Jesus says that Moses had suffered them to put away their wives for the hardness of their hearts, he was saying that Jehovah had suffered them to put away their wives for the hardness of their hearts, contradicting what Moses himself said about the law.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #131]

Since it's not from Ps 40 alone, any surface reader can conclude how and where His revelation in Heb 10 comes. Such as, He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7), and so would be born with a babe's body. He would be crucified on a cross (Ps 22), which also required a man's body. And of course, He is already preached Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4), long before Heb 10 is written. And so, like all people born into the world, He had a body prepared by God in a mother's womb.

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"

Correct. That's what the record says He said after coming into the world. Not recording where and when He said it, doesn't make it untrue. Nothing is proven by a negative. And so the argument once again is only of belief or unbelief, which also proves nothing.

Here are the possible contradictions: He did not say that. (Which can't be proven by a negative.) Heb 10 or Him elsewhere in the record saying He didn't have a body prepared for Him, or not a body at all. That would contradict the record that He did have a body of flesh and blood born of a woman, and crucified on a cross...

Let's look at Hebrews 1:5....

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”?

.....and apply the same rhetorical logic to Heb. 10:5. At what point when Jesus entered the world is it recorded that he said anything about a body being prepared for him?

First off, they both quote prophecy elsewhere. In Heb 1, the quote is extant and correct. In Heb 10 it is limited and correct where quoted, and also with something new added. And neither case is recorded at the time of the event, which only means the Author elected not to include it at the time.

If someone demands He ought record it at the event, lest they accuse Him of deception or contradiction, then it's not an Author's responsibility to answer to a personal literary critique, that is passed off as proof of grammatical deciet or contradiction. No author of literatue needs to worry about the crticism of readers who don't know the difference between personal literary criticism vs grammatical error.

Another example: Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.


There is no record of the Father saying this when Christ was born. And so, by this account the Author says He did at the time. And by the record at the time of bith, and we can say why the angels did praise Him at night, in sight of the shepherds: The Father told them to. The statement is simply an historical event revealed after the fact. The uniqueness of the Bible Author vs most other authors of historical literature, is that other authors offer explanations of such hindsight, but the Bible Author does not. He simple states what happens before, during, or after an event, and leaves it up to the reader to study it out, or just choose not to believe or not believe it without study.

The same is true for Heb 1 and 10, Lo, in the volume of the book it is written of me, and Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, the Author chooses not to record them at the time of the event. So whether anyone else heard them speaking or not, doesn't prove anything. But if true, then we do know that they at least heard themselves. Afterall, record says they said it, not just thought or mimed it.

(Remember----it isn't just about the body being prepared; he supposedly said that a body had been prepared. Where/when did he say it?)

The record doesn't say. And so, either people can take it on faith or not believe it, but no one can say for certain He did not, since a negative doesn't prove anything.

Remember----it isn't about the writer inserting things, that aren't recorded elsewhere. A negative doesn't proove anything. The Author has every right to reveal things He says is true, anywhere and anytime He wants, whether once, twice, or many times. So long as there is no contradiction elsehwere in the Book, then the reader is free to believe it or not.

He would come to earth by birth of a woman (Is 7)

We could get into a whole big thing about that.

We can talk about what the virgin birth means, but I don't argue with unbelief in what is said. Nor does unbelief prove error.

Rom 10:16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report.
Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

And if it did happen, then the error is unbelief.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #133]

Divorce is not a commandment to be obeyed

This isn't about divorce being commanded; it's about divorce being permitted.

Exactly. A permit is not a commandment that must be obeyed, but is only lawful if exercised. And the divorce permit is suffered, while divorce itself does not please God.

#5-7 are therefore irrelavant to a lawful permit, but only apply to commanded law. And so, #8 is false, because He does not disannul any commanded law. Nor is #4 violated, becaue He does not disallow any lawfully permitted divorce.

Divorce is suffered by God for cause. of uncleanness.

And that's where Jesus gets it wrong. Moses says that God permits a divorce for uncleanness, while Jesus says that Moses permits that same divorce "for the hardness of your [men's] hearts", but that God doesn't permit it.

This is false. Jesus never disallowed divorce, but only returned it to the limited cause allowed by law. Your case is failed, unless you acknowledge the error, and try to make your case another way in keeping with the record.

Jesus never gave commandment forbidding divorce, but only restored it's sufferage to God's original intent, for the cause of fornication.

Then why does he say in Matthew 19:8, "For the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives", instead of saying, "For fornication Moses suffered you to put away your wives"?

And why does he not even sanction that in Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18?

Because He did in Matthew 19. A a serious author has the right to expect reasonable study of the whole book, without need of repeating Himself over and over again.

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

False again. He only explains why the lawful permit is sufffered. It wasn't because of the Lord nor Moses' will that a bill of divorcement was suffered, nor was it because of the faithful and good hearted. The bill was only allowed because of the heardened hearts of the unclean.

False, since divorce is not a commandment that pleases God.

It isn't about divorce being a commandment. It's about divorce being an allowance.

Nor was it abridged by Jesus. In fact, He adds the cause of desertion to adultery for divorce in His NT law.

Then Jesus's statement in Matthew 19:9 is incorrect.

Divorce is not pleasing nor loving God, but is suffered as the possible last means of loving one's neighbor, that had been a spouse.

And Jesus restricts that means----along with remarriage----to a greater extent than Moses does, in violation of the law.

False again. The original cause for divorce was only for uncleanness. Jesus identifies uncleanness with fornication. He removes the Jews' self-righteously expanded uncleanness as a dirty body or house. (Even as the defined all Gentiles as 'unclean'.)

If anyone wants to arge for that expansion, and divorce for any cause, then they can certainly do, but they're arguing for the permnissive law of adulterous Jews, not for the law of Moses, nor of Christ.

Jesus concedes that Moses allowed divorce, but says that he did so "for the hardness of your hearts". Therefore,

Therefore, any argument that He forbid exercising the permit, is false.

if Jesus believed what Moses wrote (John 5:47),

Which is known by concession. If He did not believe Mose wrote it, He would have said so, or at least demanded to know where Moses said it.

then when he says, "for the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives",

Then, He is amplifying why Moses suffered it, which was only for the cause of uncleanness, which is further clarified as fornication.

what he's actually saying is, "for the hardness of your hearts God suffered you to put away your wives".

Exactly. Jesus above all men knew all Scripture is given by God. His law ought be obeyed, and His permits ought not be abridged. ANd in this case, neither should they be abused in the name of liberty.

1Pe 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

2 Peter{2:19} While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

But that would make Jehovah double-minded, for it would contradict his own declarations about his own law in Deuteronomy 11:13 and 13:18.

Jehovah was not double minded by suffering divorce, though divorce was not pleasing to Him. Nor was He double minded by being pleased with obedience to His commanded law, and also suffering the exercise of His own lawful permit.

Once more: The Lawgiver saying that His commanded law must be obeyed to please Him, is not the same as the Lawgiver suffering the exercise of a lawful permit. Obedience to commanded law always pleases Him. Exercise of a suffered permit is allowed, though not necessarily pleasing to Him.

I can only state the legal difference between commanded law and lawful permission. I can't make anyone acknowledge or comprehend it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

what he's actually saying is, "for the hardness of your hearts God suffered you to put away your wives".

Exactly. Jesus above all men knew all Scripture is given by God. His law ought be obeyed, and His permits ought not be abridged. ANd in this case, neither should they be abused in the name of liberty.

Then why doesn't Mark 10:2-5 go down like this:

PHARISEES: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

JESUS: "What did Moses command you?"

PHARISEES: "Moses said to give her a bill of divorce to put her away."

JESUS: "Then that's what you do."

......?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #155]

Jesus never disallowed divorce, but only returned it to the limited cause allowed by law.

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
(Matthew 5:31-32)

Jesus says, "but I tell you....". If he's returning the law to its original intention, why doesn't he say, "but Moses tells you...."?

[RBD]

[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.

True. We continue to argue in circles with each other. I argue for Jesus Christ the Messiah of the God of Israel, and you argue against.

Neither of which has anything to do with any grammatical contridictions in the Bible. The challenge is to prove any contradictions in the Bible. If you reject the NT as Bible, then only argue Bible contradictions in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Othwerwise, we'll stop uselessly circling each other on whether the NT is also made by the God of Israel. That's an argument of interpretation for the Bible, not of contradiction in the 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?

shall come and this is my covenant in Rom 11, does not contradict shall come and this is my covenant in Is 59.

We'll stop circling on this obvious point too. I can only show quoted written words, I can't make anyone acknowledge that they accurately agree...

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.

I've already argued the two ways of referring to what is written in the Bible, whether by quoting it or by teaching from it. If you haven't seen it, then here it is again:

2Ki 23:21 And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant.
We'll no longer circle on this point either.

Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

We see four examples of "As it is written" in the Bbile: The first two only point to what is written, without quoting it, while the last two actually quote what is written.


Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

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

We see here three examples of "saith": In every case only quotes follow, which is common to all such cases.

And so, when the Author writes 'as it is written', He is either referring to it, or quoting it. But when He speaks of He "saith", He always quotes.

Romans 11 uses "as it is written" to teach from Is 59, not to quote it. He only quotes a few parts, in order to show what prophecy He is teaching from. A full quote is not bnecessary, because Romans 11 does not include "as saith", as in Rom 10.

I'll also not be circling back to this anymore, unless you can show a flaw in the examples and argument given.

[RBD]

[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.

We'll no longer circle this one either. Gal confirms the seed of promise is singular in Gen 21, which is certainly possible in context. You don't accept it.

Whether that seed of promise is Messiah or not, is irrelavent to any supposed contradiction between Gal 3 and Gen 21, that pertains to the promsied seed.

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.

The context is of the promised seed, which further confirms one seed, not two seeds. And since Gal 3 does not contradict it, then I do accept what the Author says about it. You don't.

In any case, there is no contradiction here, but only an argument about whether to believe something that is possible, or not. Only a proven contradiction allows anyone to say it's not possible to intelligently believe it. In fact, it's so objectively possible, that I'd say anyone refusing to accept it as possible, is behaving by a personally subjective agenda not to.

[RBD]

[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.

True.
shall come and this is my covenant in Rom 11, does not contradict shall come and this is my covenant in Is 59.

But since nothing here is misquoted, then your argument is against quoting anything in part, and not in toto, as though that makes for a misquote.

Quoting in part is not a misquote, and no author of literature is bound to quote all of something, in order not to be accused of misquoting something. Misquotes are specific, not in general. Misrepresentations are in general, which is a matter of interpretation, not of misquote.

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.

It's like the Koran claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, and then Allah accusing the God of Israel of lying about His only begotten and beloved Son Jesus Christ. And The LORD having a Son begotten of Him is first read in Ps 2 of the OT.

I accept it by intelligent study. And since the NT does not contradict the OT, then anyone can intelligently believe it, or decline. If anyone excludes the NT from the Bible, then they must restrict their challenges of contradiction to the Testament written in Hebrew.

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."

That is ad hominum that ignores the objective arguments made for the Book itself. My conclusion is that inerrancy proves, it's not rational for anyone to declare no one can rationally believe Jesus is the Christ.

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.

And so, you agree with the OT Jews still looking for only onme kind of Messiah: to come and destroy all their personal enemies.

Your ad hominum summary of what I teach is so commonly false, that it's become boring. The Lord casts away all His enemies , that repent not from crucifying Him to themselves daily unto death. And if I or any other believer is judged worthy by unrighteous and evil works to be cast from His sight, then we are found enemies naming His name. Which is worst of all.

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?

No shying, but only continuing to recall the original challenge of proving a contradiction in the Bible, whether in the OT, the NT, or between them.

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".

Correct. Which shows this current argument is not about Bible inerrancy.

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.

Bemoaning what someone believes is in error, is mud? Are you saying, that he is not bemoaning what he believes to be an error in OT translation? Afterall, if there is an error, then it deserves to be bemoaned. And to a degree, I agree with him. I only suggest 'dug into' one's palms and hands is more clumsy than 'pierced'. And whether 'dug into' or 'pierced' is used in Ps 12, it does not invalidate using 'pierced' in John 19, since the quote is from Zech 12, not Ps 22.

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.

In like manner, yes. But since the Book of Mormon contradicts the NT, then Joseph Smith's words don't matter to the Author of the Bible.

And it doesn't take in depth study to show the contradiction, because it's written on the cover of the book of Mormon itself, which declares it is "Another testament of Jesus Christ..."

Gal 1:6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Like they say about criminals, they don't have to be smart, and many are quite stupid. So it is with liars. No matter what the lie, the father of lies will sometimes just come right out and say it, "Hey, it's me the devil here. If you want to read another cursed lie of mine, then by all means read another testament of Jesus Christ...