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.

[marke]

Judas entered an agreement to buy a field.

Which Gospel says that?

The Pharisees confirmed Judas's decision by taking the money Judas was supposed to have given for the field (but threw back into the temple) and consummated the sale agreement by declaring the property a field in which to bury the unwanted

So, we're to read Matthew in a way that assumes details that aren't present in any New Testament text, but that make sense in light of Acts if we pretend that Greek grammar is different than it actually is?

Solid exegesis, that.

Marke: We don't have all the details. Judas supposedly bought the field with money he got from the religious leaders and yet he 'gave' the religious leaders back the money and the religious leaders then apparently bought the same field. We may have to draw conclusions from the facts that are not specifically given.

[RBD]

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.

This isn't an argument about doubts and beliefs, but a factual argument about literary content based upon intelligent reading and grammatical analysis.

A book assigned for review, that is returned without analysis and summary, but only with a note of doubt that the book is 'real', gets an F in any gradeshool literature course.

Hence, the skeptic can logically conclude that to retain belief in the Bible's said veracity is irrational.

Doubting whether a book is genuine or not as written, is not skepticism of it's literary content, but only a refusal to analyse and critique the content, and then illogically claiming error in it.

The fact that there is no error between one book and the rest of the Bible, proves the book is Bible.

Make an accusationof error within Exodus itself, or with another part of the Bible, and I'd be glad to look at it.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

Ironically enough, I just updated this thread --> viewtopic.php?t=40622&start=280
..... Which demonstrates severe lack in Christian involvement. Care to share why you believe 'the Exodus' happened? If not, then I stand by the initial response in which I engaged you in this exchange.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

The fact that there is no error between one book and the rest of the Bible, proves the book is Bible.

Weren't we discussing Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 a few posts back? An error between one book and itself in the Bible counts, doesn't it?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #179]

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.

Calling the Jews adulterous doesn't make much of an argument.

Refusing to call any person an adulterer, that divorces a spouse for any cause in order to marry another, is not an argument for lawful marriage and divorce. It's an adulterous argument against having lawful marriage and divorce in any civilisation.

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

Since one gospel writer has them ask about divorce for any cause and another gospel writer doesn't, and since the two writers have Jesus give different answers, it's evident that the gospel writers were taking divergent positions on the issue.

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.

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mar 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.


No contradiction. Since Jesus acknowledges the cause of fornication in one place for divorce, then it must be understood in every place He teaches on divorce. A contradiction with Himself, as well as with the law of Moses, would be Jesus saying divorce is not permitted for any cause at all.

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

That's what you claim, but the author of Mark has the Pharisees doing exactly that.

This is true. Therefore, no self-respecting honest Jew would ask such an obviously ignorant question about the law:

Mar 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

As with the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery, the hypocrites already knew the answer. They did not challenge Jesus' knowledge of the law, but were only seeking fault in His answer.

In the case of adultery, they were tempting Jesus to violate Roman law, by consenting to execution under Jewish law.

In the case of divorce, the adulterous generation of rulers were tempting Jesus to separate Himself from the other established rabbis, that did argue divorce for any cause, that pleased their masters. (Paid rhetoricians in matters of law was not unique to Gentiles alone. Afterall, lawyers are not necessarily honest with the law, to say the least.)

Jesus' answer would still be rightly the same, that of the law allowing for divorce in the cases of unclean sex.

As I suggested earlier, "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 might have other than a sexual connotation, and it turns out that this is indeed the case. The word "erva" (עֶרְוַת), the word in Deut. 24:1, is the same word which appears in Deut. 23:14 referring to a soldier's use of an army camp latrine, which clearly has no sexual connection.

Which clearly has no divorce connection, unless any person using an army camp latrine, can be divorced for cause.

That's the problem with arguing law and doctrine by word definition alone, rather than serious context.

1 Tim 6:3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is... doting about questions and strifes of words.

Thus, the "uncleanness" of a divorced wife in Deut. 24 need not be sexual in nature.

Which is why the adulterous generation was getting divorced for unclean hands and brushing up against dirty Gentiles.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Niowhere, does the law of Moses forbid keeping company with Gentiles, but only not making marriages between them. This is why Jesus and the apostles speak of the corrupt Jew's law and religion, rather than the righteous law and covenant of the God of Isreal by Moses.

[RBD]

Exodus 6
3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.
Isaac knew the Lord and called on the Lord but he did not know everything about the Lord. There is no contradiction there.[/b]

Another good point. Moses now knew the LORD by name, as well as His present purpose with all the children of Israel and Egypt.

Moses also asked for His name, unlike anyone before, in order to have His name and authority to fulfill the LORD"s purpose. Neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob was sent by the name of the Lord to anyone else, much less to unbelieving people and rulers of the land.

Moses was the first called and sent apostle of the LORD. And not only to His own people, but also to a hostile Gentile nation.

[*]Genesis 21:31 contradicts Genesis 26:33 ("And that is why it's called Beersheba").

Marke:
Genesis 21
31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.
Genesis 26
33 And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.

Both are true without contradiction. Both are the cause of the name as stated. Calling a city Beersheba in a place already known as Beersheba, does not contradict a well in that place called Sheba.

Nor would there be a contradiction in calling the city Sheba, in a place known as Beersheba. It would simply be honoring the son above the father, which was not honorable in the days of Abraham and Isaac, as well as later in the law of Moses.

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

[*]Matthew 27:7 contradicts Acts 1:18 (the priests bought "the Potter's Field" to bury strangers vs. Judas buying a piece of property for himself).
[*]Matthew 27:6-7 contradicts Acts 1:19 ("And that is why it's called the Field of Blood").[/list]



Marke: I see no contradiction here.
Matthew 27
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
Acts 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.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

True again. Using the middle case to say Judas buys the land for himself, by himself alone, is fraudulent handling of the words by wilful mistranslation.

[RBD]

And I'm also sure sarcasm is lost on the uber-practical.

You made these three statements:

• who says he used a rope to hang himself?
• Acts 1 doesn't say that he died at all
• We can conclude that his dead body only fell after the hanging device broke of it's own accord

All three statements are equally absurd.

No, only the first two are absurd. The last is one of two options: The hanging device broke of it's own accord, or someone got tired of seeing a hung man and broke it. Which may be more accurate, since for the Jews the law declared hanging bodies should not be left to hang overnight.

Deu 21:22And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

For himself is correctly middle passive as written. By himself is adverbial and not written.

I'll risk assuming that this isn't intended to be sarcastic. The point of the middle voice is that it encapsulates both and the subject is both actor and object.

But the middle does not specify the number of people involved in the event. Doing so for oneself is the middle voice, but doing so for oneself by oneself alone, is extending the middle beyond it's conjugal reach. The middle voice is only used to identify an actor, not to the exclusion of any other actor. Otherwise, the middle voice could never be used to show a person buys land for himself through intermediaries. Which is of course Judas' money being used by the priests to purchase the field.

Any conclusion from the record merely by middle voice, that Judas had to buy the field for himself, and by himself alone without any other possible intermediary, is an obvious abuse of grammar.

If we put aside word games, though, Matthew doesn't include Judas in the purchase and Acts 1:18 doesn't include anyone else. They're not the same story.

They are not the same account of the same story. There is no literary rule, that an Author cannot give different accurate accounts of the same event. It's called a separation of narrative accounts. No author has to include every detail of an event, in order not to contradict himself by adding more detail elsewhere. Contradiction is only if the details conflict.

There is no conflict whatsoever between Judas buying a field for himself, and the priests purchasing it with his money. A contradiction would be Judas by a field for himself alone, without any others involved in the transaction. (Which the middle voice has no say) Or, that the priests purchased it with their own money, or from the temple treasury.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #185]

The hardness of heart is not on the part of the one writing the bill of divorcement, but on the part of the one found unclean in marriage.

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives"
(Matthew 19:8)

Strong’s Definitions
ὑμῶν humōn, hoo-mone'; genitive case of G5210; of (from or concerning) you:—ye, you, your (own, -selves)

Same word.

Ok. You're not suggesting Jesus was in error, because they themselves were not there in the wildernerss, when Moses wrote the law, right? As though the law did not apply to themselves?

You've done well to apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, so that uncleanness is rightly defined as transgression of the law, which is fornication.

Uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) is not defined as fornication (וַיֶּזֶן) in Deut. 24:1, just as it isn't in Deut. 23:14.

Applying the great commandment to the permit for divorce does include fornication, not using a soldier's camp latrine...

you first tried to argue getting divorced is like keeping commandments in order to please God.

I'm arguing that getting divorced with a bill of divorce was keeping a commandment to please God.

That's better. Jesus never forbids divorce under any circumstances, in order to please God. In fact, after His resurrection, He now includes desertion as just cause for divorce.

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

It is when you rightly apply the commandment to hard-heartedness, and so specify uncleanness as disobedience to the law: Fornication.

Fornication isn't the only disobedience to the law.

True, but fornication is cause for divorce. Every lawful community knows that.

But uncleanness isn't limited to fornication (Deut. 23:14).

It certainly doesn't include using a camp latrine. Or, even in the woods.

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

Well done. I've waited to see if you make the right point. If they were executing the law as written, then divorce would be by death due to fornication, not by any bill of divorcement.

Death was for adultery (תִּנְאָף), so the uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) in Deut. 24:1 obviously isn't that since it was grounds for divorce but didn't carry a death sentence.

You've bypassed the point that their hardness of heart included not executing the law properly. Adulterous people may acknowledge the law, but that doesn't mean they keep it, nor enforce it. (Then there wouldn't people anyone left to adulterate with...)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #189]

Acts 9 is the Author accurately recording what He says happened. Acts 22 is the Author accurately recording what Paul says happened.....

But they certainly could lie to Paul about what they did or didn't hear. The only way for Paul to know what they heard, is by them telling him. Paul was wrong about their record, because he believed their lie.....

According the love and mercy of the LORD, Jesus would have all men to repent and be saved. He wasn't there just for Saul of Tarsus, but also for his companions, who did see the light standing speachless, and did hear His voice, standing against Him with hardened hearts. And lying lips.

In other words, you have to assume that they lied because it's the only way to keep the narrative intact.

No. You'd have to assume they didn't lie, in order to accuse the Author of contradicting Himself.

You'd also have to ignore the difference between the Author's account of what happened, and His account of what other's say happened...

I'm seeing a pattern of literary comprehension and analysis being set aside with this book, that would not be done for others. It's the natural result of purposing only to find fault with that one certain book. It's necessarily due to any lack of normal literary intelligence.

I'm sorry, but I have to say it----that's just intellectually dishonest.

I won't say you're doing it on purpose, but only because you solely focus on finding fault in the Book, rather than objectively reading and understanding it like any other book.
[/quote]

Confronted with an undeniable inconsistency, you're resorting to the whole-cloth invention of a convenient escape,

Confronted with an undeniable explanation for consistency, you resort to ignoring literary use of narrative.

By your charge, if any author writes an account, and also records someone else talking about it, then the Author would be charged with contradicting Himself, rather than faithfully recording others contradicting his account.

The account recorded in Acts 9 is not Paul's, but the Author's. The account offfered in Acts 22 is not the Author's, but Paul's.

Act 22:9 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.

They could not lie about standing speechless, but they certainly could lie about what they heard or not. Anyone denying this, is not only limiting literary analysis, but is also putting on blinders to the possible manners of men and women in extreme circumcstances.

supported by nothing in the text, as an excuse for saving the story.

It's supported by a proper use of literary narrative, as well as understanding the ways or men and women in this life.

If you found the same type of discrepancy in the writing of another religion and a follower of that religion were to go to this length to cut it slack, you'd call it out immediately, wouldn't you?

No. I'd acknowledge the literary argument. Mainly because I don't have a phobic angst against any book of religion, philosophy, or history on earth. My conscience isn't vested in proving someone else wrong, when they could be right. I simply reserve the right to choose to believe or not believe.

I do not at all condemn others for choosing otherwise, under the pretence of literary critique.

You wrote in the OP:

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it.Well, I showed you one. I've met the challenge.

No, you showed me another apparent contradiction, that does not meet the challenge of proving one. You also fail to meet the challenge of a reasonable explanation for it.

If you can back up your excuse with text saying that they lied, then do so.

If you can back of your personal rule for literature, that says an author must say someone is lying, when it is possible they lied, then we'll be finding all manner of contradictions in literary history.

If you can't, then either admit it or say nothing.

I.e. either agree, or stop disagreeing.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #209]

In other words, you have to assume that they lied because it's the only way to keep the narrative intact.

No. You'd have to assume they didn't lie, in order to accuse the Author of contradicting Himself.

You'd also have to ignore the difference between the Author's account of what happened, and His account of what other's say happened...

All of this still comes out of the assumption that the text is divinely inspired.

I'm seeing a pattern of literary comprehension and analysis being set aside with this book, that would not be done for others. It's the natural result of purposing only to find fault with that one certain book. It's necessarily due to any lack of normal literary intelligence.

And this is just projection. It's you who wouldn't resort to such mental gymnastics to come up with an excuse for such a discrepancy in any other religion's text.

By your charge, if any author writes an account, and also records someone else talking about it, then the Author would be charged with contradicting Himself, rather than faithfully recording others contradicting his account.

If an author writes an account and then writes of someone else contradicting that account, the author is obliged to point out that it is a contradiction. If the author doesn't, then actual contradiction is the reasonable conclusion----especially if the author's words are supposed to be infallible.


supported by nothing in the text, as an excuse for saving the story.

It's supported by a proper use of literary narrative, as well as understanding the ways or men and women in this life.

That's utterly meaningless. "Proper use of literary analysis" may sound brainy, but it's still just an excuse being made for an inconsistency in a narrative.


If you found the same type of discrepancy in the writing of another religion and a follower of that religion were to go to this length to cut it slack, you'd call it out immediately, wouldn't you?

No. I'd acknowledge the literary argument.

Then why don't you "acknowledge the literary argument" in the Book of Mormon?