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 #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?

No. If any book contradicts the Bible, then I choose to believe the Bible. That includes books like the Koran, and other writings of history, reliigion, philosophy, metaphysics, spiritism, etc...

And I choose the Bible, because no other book or writings claim to be the true God and Author, written through so many people over so much time from so different backgrounds, without any error between them.

[RBD]

[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?

Yes. The fault is in the very title of the book: "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.

All such other testament gospels are false, because they claim to speak alongside the Bible, and then contradict it. The Koran does the same by claiming to be authored by the God of the Bible, and then accusing Him of lying about His begotten Son Jesus Christ.

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".[/i]

Deu 13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Deut 13 only applies to commanded law, not to a lawful permit. Getting divorced is by personal permission only, not by commandment for all the people to do for righteousness of God.

I can only teach the fundamental legal difference between obedience to commanded law without choice to disobey, and exercising a lawful permit or not by personal choice alone. I can't make anyone acknowledge nor understand not conform to it, when trying to teach law.

1Ti 1:7Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

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"?

Because uncleanness was being expanded by adulterous people to include dirty bodies and homes, and even insufficient zeal against touching 'unclean' Gentiles, which the LORD never said.

Jesus returned the cause of uncleanness to it's original intent: Sexual uncleanness.

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.

Already rebutted this before. Clarifiying hardness of heart as the cause of uncleanness is Bible doctrine:

Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Sexual uncleanness as cause for divorce is from lust of a hardened heart. Having dirty hands or touching a Gentile is not an 'unclean' cause for divorce.

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?

No. If your hands are dirty, wash them. If you brush up against a Gentile, say excuse me. If a spouse is sexually unclean, the law permits divorce by personal choice alone. But divorce is certainly not commanded to all the people of God to do, in order to righteously please God.

[RBD]

[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."

......?

Because in Matthew 19 went down like this:
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?

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The Author expects more than reading at a glance to know His law. Studying the whole Book in context is necessary to teach any part. If it were only about being lawful to divorce for the cause given in the law, because of uncleanness, then it could have gone down as you say, with no need to clarify it as sexual uncleanness. (However, He could still recall that divorce was not the original intent of marriage, though it was latter permitted by law...)

In fact, no self-respecting Jew with knowledge of the law would have asked if it was lawful to divorce. He would have promptly been told to go back and reread the Torah for himself.

Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Not for any hardened adulterous hearts wanting to divorce for any cause they wish, and justify it with the law.

[RBD]

[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...."?

Because He also was a respected teacher of Israel, with right to teach the law as well as quote it. Which is why He does not quote Moses saying so, but teaches the spirit of the law by Moses, that uncleaness is limited to sexual immorality, and not to dirty hands, homes, Gentiles, etc...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #164]

Because He also was a respected teacher of Israel, with right to teach the law as well as quote it. Which is why He does not quote Moses saying so, but teaches the spirit of the law by Moses, that uncleaness is limited to sexual immorality, and not to dirty hands, homes, Gentiles, etc...

"As elsewhere in this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cites a law from the Torah and then offers a more stringent teaching, namely that a man may divorce his wife only on the ground of unchastity. Implicitly, Jesus seems to understand the verse in Deuteronomy much as Philo and Josephus understand it: as allowing for divorce on any grounds. It is only Jesus’s new teaching that restricts divorce to this specific circumstance."
https://www.thetorah.com/article/when-i ... e-his-wife

If he was teaching the law of Moses, he could at least attribute it to Moses, don't you think? By dismissing the law with "you have heard it said", he seems to be trying to obscure the fact that what he's dismissing is written in the law.


Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
(Dt. 10:16)

So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—
(Dt. 11:13)

because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
(Dt. 13:18)

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
(Matthew 19:8)

Do you see what's wrong here? Jesus admits that Moses permits them in the law to divorce their wives. So how does Moses suffer them to divorce their wives because their hearts are hard in the same law in which he doesn't suffer them to harden their hearts?

For any law to be authoritative, it has to be internally consistent. What Jesus says about Moses in Matthew 19:8 would make the law of Moses inconsistent.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #159]

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.

How does the comparison of the promised seed to dust particles (Genesis 13:16) and stars (Gen. 15:5) confirm "one seed"?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #164]

Because He also was a respected teacher of Israel, with right to teach the law as well as quote it. Which is why He does not quote Moses saying so, but teaches the spirit of the law by Moses, that uncleaness is limited to sexual immorality, and not to dirty hands, homes, Gentiles, etc...

"As elsewhere in this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cites a law from the Torah and then offers a more stringent teaching, namely that a man may divorce his wife only on the ground of unchastity. Implicitly, Jesus seems to understand the verse in Deuteronomy much as Philo and Josephus understand it: as allowing for divorce on any grounds.

Allowing for divorce on any grounds makes marriage as meaningless as divorce.

There is nothing implicit about uncleanness including dirty hands, except to a self-righteous and adulterous-hearted OCD spouse.

This Philo and Josephus, that sides with them against the law, were just as wrong as them. The law is only for cause of uncleanness, not for any cause.

Rather than the law suffering divorce because of uncleanness, marriage becomes suffered to appear clean.

It is only Jesus’s new teaching that restricts divorce to this specific circumstance."
https://www.thetorah.com/article/when-i ... e-his-wife

Quoting Gen 2 for sanctification and holy bond of marriage is only new among them, that have perverted and forsaken the law. Making the old fresh and alive, is not making anything new, but only establishing the old anew.

Rom 3:31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Jesus was a reformer, not an activist innovator.

Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


Jesus teaches the letter and spirit of the law. The adulterers and their allies manipulate the letter of the law by a decietful spirit. They do the same with in many areas of law.

Whether it's the tradition of dishonouring marriage by divorce for any cause, or of dishonouring mother and father by a 'gift' dedicated to the priests, the commandment of law was decietfully nullified for corrupt personal cause and gain.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition....Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Some corrupt the law by their traditions so as to accuse Jesus of profaning the Sabbath by healing people on the Sabbath day...They are the same ones that accuse Him of nullifying the law by limiting divorce.

If he was teaching the law of Moses, he could at least attribute it to Moses, don't you think? By dismissing the law with "you have heard it said", he seems to be trying to obscure the fact that what he's dismissing is written in the law.

"Dismissing' the law is the false accusation of them, that are offended by purifying the law from corrupt traditions.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
(Deuteronomy 6:5)

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
(Dt. 10:16)

So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—
(Dt. 11:13)

because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
(Dt. 13:18)

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.
(Matthew 19:8)

Do you see what's wrong here?

Yes. What's wrong here, is repeating the same old error of mixing commandment of law that all must obey, with a suffered permit in the law, that is not necessary to do. As though getting a divorce is a commandment, that must be obeyed in order not to transgress the law.

What's also wrong here in this case, is a one-sided debate, where an opposing argument is repeatedly ignored.

No one is commanded to divorce as by law, nor does divorce please God. (Though it does please adulterous men and women playing the game of marry and divorce and marry and divorce...)

Jesus admits that Moses permits them in the law to divorce their wives.

True, and He renews the original intent for cause of uncleanness, which He defines as sexual in nature alone.

By the law of limited divorce, getting divorced for any cause is adultery by divorce.

So how does Moses suffer them to divorce their wives because their hearts are hard in the same law in which he doesn't suffer them to harden their hearts?

A fine piece of sophistry, intellectually speaking. The law doesn't command hearts not to harden, which is the weakness of the law.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law only exposes hardened hearts by transgression. Lawful permit can suffer hardened hearts, without executing judgment for transgression.

For any law to be authoritative, it has to be internally consistent.

Permission within the law ought not negate commandment of the law. Suffering a bill of divorcement for cause, does not contradict the law against adultery. Divorce for any cause is not lawful, and is transgression of the law against adulery.

What Jesus says about Moses in Matthew 19:8 would make the law of Moses inconsistent.

Limiting lawful divorce to specific cause, is not inconcistent with the law allowing divorce for specific cause.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.


To allow divorce on any grounds, then the cause of finding uncleanness in the spouse must be removed from the law. Or, exand uncleanness to any cause such as a dirty body or house. Or, for any contact with unclean foreigners. (Which the Jews forbid by their tradition under the banner of uncleanness, that is not written in the law of Moses...)

Or, just forget the whole decietful charade with the law, and declare divorce on any grounds. The adulterous Jews of Jesus' day did so freely, even as a mark of ruling class success. And though they didn't go so far as to sanction same sex marriage by law, it really doesn't matter, because divorcing on any grounds makes marriage as meaningless as divorce.

[RBD]

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy.

Word-puzzle inerrancy, I presume? "It doesn't say he died right then, so the rope broke, then he fell on rocks..."

I'm not suure what the point is, but since we're not making assumptions, who says he used a rope to hang himself? In any case, the record in Acts 1 doesn't say that he died at all:

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Only in Mat 27:5, can we confidently say he died by hanging. "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

We can conclude that his dead body only fell after the hanging device broke of it's own accord, allowing time for his body to bloat and gush out when hitting the ground. (Or, someone may have gotten tired of the sight and cut or undid the hanging device.)

It's always fun to see what damage inerrantists are willing to do to authorial intention in the pursuit of inerrancy.

It's always interesting to see deniers of Bible authenticity, referring to it's authorial intention, as if they seriously cared.

[POI]

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.

Without going to far, or too deep, it's quite likely and/or probable "the Exodus" story line never really happened, at least in part or maybe even entirely. If true, wouldn't this discount the claimed veracity of the Bible, rendering 'checkmate' for the skeptic to the Bible?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #167]

Allowing for divorce on any grounds makes marriage as meaningless as divorce.

That would happen only if remarriage were allowed on every grounds.

This Philo and Josephus, that sides with them against the law, were just as wrong as them.

Never mind Philo and Josephus; this is the debate between Shammai and Hillel, with the authors of Mark and Matthew having Jesus taking different sides:

"In the Mishnaic period the theory of the law that the husband could divorce his wife at will was challenged by the school of Shammai. It interpreted the text of Deut. xxiv. 1 in such amanner as to reach the conclusion that the husband could not divorce his wife except for cause, and that the cause must be sexual immorality (Git. ix. 10; Yer. Soṭah i. 1, 16b). The school of Hillel, however, held that the husband need not assign any reason whatever; that any act on her part which displeased him entitled him to give her a bill of divorce (Giṭ. ib.). The opinion of the school of Hillel prevailed."
---JewishEncyclopedia.com

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."
(Mark 10:11)

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
(Matthew 19:9)

Mark and Matthew even differ in how they have the Pharisees ask the question.

The law is only for cause of uncleanness, not for any cause.

Jesus states that the law permitting divorce was given "for the hardness of your hearts". Since the law does not allow for hard-heartedness (Dt. 6:5, 10:16, 11:13, 13:18), divorcing for uncleanness (Dt. 24:1) would not be hard-hearted according to the law. So when Jesus says that the law was given for their hard-heartedness, he must be saying that the law allowed them to divorce their wives for causes other than uncleanness. But Moses gave the law allowing such divorces, which means that by the standard of the law they were not hard-hearted.

What's wrong here, is repeating the same old error of mixing commandment of law that all must obey, with a suffered permit in the law, that is not necessary to do. As though getting a divorce is a commandment, that must be obeyed in order not to transgress the law.

You're still trotting out that strawman. It isn't about divorce being commanded; it's about divorce being permitted.

He renews the original intent for cause of uncleanness, which He defines as sexual in nature alone.

"Uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 is עֶרְוָה (erva):

Strong’s Definitions
עֶרְוָה ʻervâh, er-vaw'; from H6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):—nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness)

The uncleanness in question isn't specified, but it isn't fornication----זָנָה (zana)----and so may be a broader term for something shameful or displeasing.

The law doesn't command hearts not to harden, which is the weakness of the law.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law only exposes hardened hearts by transgression. Lawful permit can suffer hardened hearts, without executing judgment for transgression.

Again----Deut. 6:5, 10:16, 11:13, 13:18. The law clearly does command hearts not to harden [especially in 6:5, the "greatest commandment"], regardless of what Paul writes to the Romans.

For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell it to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell it to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather, this thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
(Deut. 30:11-14)

Permission within the law ought not negate commandment of the law. Suffering a bill of divorcement for cause, does not contradict the law against adultery. Divorce for any cause is not lawful, and is transgression of the law against adulery.

They wouldn't need a divorce for adultery, since the penalty for adultery was death (Deut. 22:22).