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.

[Difflugia]

I'm not suure what the point is, but since we're not making assumptions, who says he used a rope to hang himself?

And thus the word games. The word ἀπάγχω means to strangle someone. In the middle voice, it means suicide by hanging. It implies a rope in exactly the same way any sheriff's threat in a Western does. Now, I know you'd like to pretend that grammar is meaningless, but that's not practical if you genuinely want to know what an author is trying to tell you.

Here's a search for ἀπάγχω in Greek texts. I spot-checked the ones on the first page and in the middle voice, it refers to suicide by hanging.

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.

Yes. He clearly survived the noisy explosion of his guts.

This is exactly what I meant by word puzzle apologetics. In order to read what you want out of it, you have to pretend that the author of Acts is writing in a way that is completely counterintuitive. 1:18-19 is a narrative sequence that tells a short, but complete story. Your harmonization, however, would have us believe that the author is telling a completely different story that also requires knowledge of details that aren't included anywhere in the narrative. No marginally competent author writes that way.

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.)

The only way we could conclude that is by trying too hard to harmonize two different stories told by two different authors about two different deaths of the same character. If the stories weren't fatal, we could just have one on the mount and one on the plain.

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

You'd better check your fly. Your projection is showing.

[RBD]

[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"?

Because it's a comparison of numbers, not of origin. The promised seed of Abraham is by one son Isaac, not by Ishmael. The multitude of stars is not by one star alone, but are all created the same at once.

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

While the mulititude of natural children of Abraham are by two sons, the promised mulititude and land is only by the one son Isaac. It's correct to speak of natural offspring of Abraham through Isaac and Ishmael, but an error to say the same of the promised seed.

Ishmael was still promised a blessing by natural birth of Abraham, but not pertaining to the promised land and numbers to his natural children by Isaac alone.

Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

The seed promised to Abraham is one son Isaac in Gen 21. If it were by two sons in Gen 13/15, then it would be contradicted by both Gen 21 and Gal 3.

The proof that it is one son and seed of Abraham spoken of in Gen 13/15, is in Gen 21. The confirmation of Gen 21 is in Gal 3-4, and especially Rom 9, which is where Gen 21 is quoted.

Rom 9:6 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

While the multitude of stars are not by one star, the mulititude of natural children of Abraham are by two sons, but the promised mulititude and land is only by the one son Isaac.

Then to whatever extent it might be a promise about one seed, the one seed is Isaac and not the Messiah.

[RBD]

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?

Of course. And believing that, is as proveable and believable as contradiction in the Bible itself. Not by the Book itself, but only by imaginative supposition and/or accusation.

I.e. IF is not just a mighty big word in this case, but beyond literal imagination and reason.

[RBD]

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?

Of course. And believing that, is as proveable and believable as contradiction in the Bible itself. Not by the Book itself, but only by imaginative supposition and/or accusation.

IF may be mighty big word at times, but in this case the word is nowhere to be found. I.e. just writing off sections of a book does nothing to disprove it's content. Unless of course the Author does so. Nowhere in the Bible does He ever cast any doubt about the words He's written by the hands of men, but rather continually confirms them as right and true altogether.

The fact of their inerrancy with so many hands, over so much time, and from all backgrounds, proves the Author can be intelligently believed. Without proven literary errancy, it's unintelligent to say He can't be believed.

[RBD]

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?

Of course. And believing that, is as proveable and believable as contradiction in the Bible itself. Not by the Book itself, but only by imaginative supposition and/or accusation.

IF may be mighty big word at times, but in this case the word is nowhere to be found. I.e. just writing off sections of a book does nothing to disprove it's content. Unless of course the Author does so. Nowhere in the Bible does He ever cast any doubt about the words He's written by the hands of men, but rather continually confirms them as right and true altogether.

The fact of their inerrancy with so many hands, over so much time, and from all backgrounds, proves the Author can be intelligently believed. Without proven literary errancy, it's unintelligent to say He can't be believed.

P.s. I have amended the challenge, to say that the Bible can be rationally believed as true. No one can prove it is all true on earth, because much is in heaven. And no one therefore can be made to believe in the physical Bible as God's own words, no more than anyone can be made on earth to believe in God Himself.

That choice of faith of course ends with the grave.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

Nowhere in the Bible does He ever cast any doubt about the words He's written by the hands of men, but rather continually confirms them as right and true altogether.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no man.
(Acts 9:7)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
(Acts.22:9)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #167]

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

If that's all the law does, why----again----does Deut. 30:14 declare of the law:

"this thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it"?

And if the law "only exposes hardened hearts by transgression", why are the first 14 verses of Deut. 28 a promise of reward for keeping the whole law and the rest of the chapter a warning of punishment for not keeping the whole law?

[RBD]

[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.

Which is the case by all reasons for divorce being made lawful. Which is what the adulterous Jews did in Jesus' day, as well as some nations on earth today.

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

Sure, prevailed among men, yes, not over the law of Moses. Like the Athenians, the Jews are just as notorious for caring about formal debates between men, than about the words of the law. And, no doubt the aduterous hearts were especially pleased by his intellectual prowess.

Isa 58:4 Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness:

If someone wants to argue divorce for any cause, then let them have at it. The problem is when the law is perverted in order to justify it.

2 Peter 3:16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Mat 15:14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

"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.

Since the Pharisees asked in one place about adultery for any cause, then that is their context of any such questions about divorce.

As pointed out before, no self-respecting Jew, especially a Pharisee of the law, would ever ask if divorce were lawfully permitted at all.

And if no other record did show the adulterous spirit of the day, in seeking divorce for any cause, then such an ignorant question about the law would be odd at best. Yet, Jesus' answer would still be rightly the same, that of the law allowing for divorce in the cases of unclean sex.

I'll be back for the rest.

[POI]

The fact of their inerrancy with so many hands, over so much time, and from all backgrounds, proves the Author can be intelligently believed. Without proven literary errancy, it's unintelligent to say He can't be believed.

There exists serious doubt that an "Exodus" took place. Since this is likely the case, this Bible-book, in which you believe in, requires blind faith instead over evidence. Why? "The Exodus" is not some erroneous and small claim, but instead a rather large and integral part of the equation and storyline in which we actually can and have investigated. Hence, the skeptic can logically conclude that to retain belief in the Bible's said veracity is irrational.

P.s. I have amended the challenge, to say that the Bible can be rationally believed as true. No one can prove it is all true on earth, because much is in heaven. And no one therefore can be made to believe in the physical Bible as God's own words, no more than anyone can be made on earth to believe in God Himself.

That choice of faith of course ends with the grave.

Well, again, being that "the Exodus" is a rather large claim, which has been investigated to likely be false, it becomes logical to dismiss this big book of claims.