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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #220]

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?

Someone was arguing for a contradiction based upon abuse of grammar. A reader's error does not make and author's error.

When a reader reads Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 and notices that they say opposite things, the reader has not made an error.

[POI]

[Replying to RBD in post #218]

Well, the Bible claims there was as "Exodus". As told from the Bible, this era would include many centuries and include million of folks. Multiple/many attempts, via archeology, ultimately conclude it's likely no such event ever took place. Since your premise is to prove God, by proving the Bible, then it is reasonable to reject the claims of your believed upon God, as the Bible looks to be incorrect about what is a very large claim which would be easily identifiable -- via mounds of physical evidence.

[Difflugia]

Since the record says he did buy a field for himself, the priests purchased that field with his money,

One story says he bought a field for himself. Another story says that priests bought a field to bury strangers in. They didn't buy it for Judas or on his behalf.

and he knew of it in order to hang himself therein,

He didn't hang himself in the field. According to Matthew, he left to hang himself even before the priests held council to decide what to do with the money.

then it's entirely possible he also agreed with it. At least enough to hang himself therein.

Neither story says or implies this. It's possible, but only in the sense that anything's possible.

Only if we read the Greek grammar as it actually is, and not find a way to make the Greek middle voice say something, that the middle voice cannot say alonme. I.e. that Judas had to buy the field for himself, and by Himself alone, without any possible intermediary.

Judas didn't have to do it alone, but he did have to at least be involved. Matthew doesn't treat the priests as an intermediary to Judas purchasing a field. Judas discarded the money and the priests decided among themselves to buy a field in which to bury foreigners. Judas had absolutely no agency in the purchase itself and the field never entered his possession. The middle voice of κτάομαι requires at least agency and perhaps more.

The First part is middle passive translation.

Middle voice.

The last part is an obvious abuse of Greek grammar, that is intended only to write new narrative in the Book.

Then you should be able to find examples of authors using grammar the way you want in extant Greek literature.

And it doesn't need to be pointed out anymore, especially since no one has responded to show the conclusion is not correct.

I've explained why you're wrong and given you references. You've merely asserted without presenting any further evidence that a straw man of my argument is wrong and you're not even accurately representing the stories themselves. If you're now declaring victory, I suppose that's absurd enough that I should treat it as sarcasm.

So, I'm still curious. Do you treat the doctrine of inerrancy a propositional claim or a dogmatic one?

[EYR]

It seems that proving GOD and Jesus and The Flood on this forum is as difficult as on every other 'Christian' forum.

Satan sure has millions of demon possessed peopel at his beck and call ever ready to defend him and his lies.

[RBD]

[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.

No, all this is simple literary analysis 101.

If you refuse to know the difference between giving an account of your own, and also faithfully giving the account of another that disagrees with your own, then you have no business writing nor reviewing literary narrative, nor bearing witness in a court of law.

Objective analysis and comprehension of basic literature and testimony must be set aside, in order to only find fault.

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.

I acknowledge literary rule for any book. I don't set aside intelligence in order to only find fault.

We are seeing that it's not the believers in the Bible, who study the Book objectively and comprehensively, that must practice blind faith. Rather it's the opposers of the Bible, who must set aside objectivity and literary comprehension, in order to practice blind disbelief.

Accurately recording Paul's account alongside the Author's, shows disagreement between Paul and the Author, not between the Author Himself.

And it's not as some believers suppose, that Paul is setting the record straight for Luke, but rather the Author is setting the record straight for any reader of ACTS.

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.

Seriously? No author needs comform to your personal 'rules of literature'. Stating the obvious is not necessary in order to record the obvious. Two accounts obviously disagreeing between one person and another, does not mean either contradicts himself

By your rule, the Author must either not record Paul's accounting, or lie about it, in order not to appear to be contradicting Himself. Just so personal critics won't faslely accuse Him:

Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Violating a fault-finders personal readership rule, does not make any author violate common literary technigue.

If the author doesn't, then actual contradiction is the reasonable conclusion----especially if the author's words are supposed to be infallible.

It's unreasonable for any reader to make unnecessary rules of any author, in order not to accuse an author of gross literary conduct.

Another anti-Bible accuser demands an author ought to either write historical record or allegory, but not both in the same book. So that he doesn't get 'confused'.

No author is required to dumb-down in order to please any reader.

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.

When you read a historical account, you don't realte it to real life, and the character of men and women? Stick to myths and fables.

2Pe 1:16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

"Proper use of literary analysis" may sound brainy,

It's literarature 101 learned in any high school course. (Or at least in my day it was. Now maybe someone may have to wait until college, in order to learn book-disciple.)

but it's still just an excuse being made for an inconsistency in a narrative.

Inconsistency in the narrative between the author and someone else in the narrative, is not inconsistency between the author and himself, but only between himself and who he includes in the 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?

If another book has the same type of narrative technique, then no slack is necessary. I respect authors of books too much to find personal fault under the banner of pseudo literary critique.

No. I'd acknowledge the literary argument.

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

I do. I also acknowledge it contradicts the Bible by it's cover alone, and so it's not Bible. I only argue for Bible inerrancy, not for any other book.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

"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?

What a straw you're grasping at. You pointed the finger at the divorced wives and I showed you text exonerating them.

I'm grapsing at your point. If it's to exonerate unlawfully divorced spouses for any cause, then it's not about lawfully divorced spouses for cause of uncleanness.

And I don't point at unlawfully divorced people. Unless I'm an enforcer of the law, then that's their business.

It's the hypocrites of the law that pointed at the adulterous woman, in order to tempt the righteous into executing her, without being appointed judges and officers of the law.

If they wanted to have the law enforced, they should have gone to one of their rulers, not to Jesus. He could easily have said that they know the law, so take her to someone authorized to enforce it. (Which under Roman rule was not permitted for provincial natives.)

Applying the great commandment to the permit for divorce does include fornication

Applying the great commandment to the permit for divorce does not limit it to fornication.

It limits it to transgression of law, not for any cause. Fornication transgresses the law and commandment. And if they were enforcing the law for adultery, then no divorce would be necessary.

Adulterous people, whether they are doing it or not, do not enforce law for adultery, lest they have no fellow adulterous to keep company with.

Rom 1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Fornication isn't the only disobedience to the law.

True, but fornication is cause for divorce.

....but not the only cause, according to the law.

Do you have another transgression of law, that the law does allow for divorce?

You've bypassed the point that their hardness of heart included not executing the law properly.

That's the accusation Jesus makes, but they point out that they have the law on their side.

They try to point out that their tradition of divorce for any cause, is law.

Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away...for uncleanness.

Some people are so caught up in their own traditional lies about law, that they no longer know the difference, and can't even quote it right. So are they that defend them.

Jdg 12:6Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right.

The law as written is shibboleth to lying traditions.

Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

And not just with marriage, but also with family itself:

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Dismantling good law, dsimantles good family and society. Divorce for any cause dismantles marriage, family, and society.

Anyone can keep advocating for divorce for any cause, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. And keep His law rather than corrupt people's traditions posing as law, even as the law of the LORD.

The adulterous rulers of Jesus' day treated divorce as some sort of rite of marriage, as if someone wasn't really married, until they've been divorced and married again and again... You couldn't be a serious member of the ruling class, until you've got at least one divorce under your belt. (Hurray for Hollywood!)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #205]

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.

Since his two answers play both sides of the fence on the hot-topic divorce issue, what you assert is exactly what can't be assumed.

Since He didn't contradict Himself, by saying divorce is not permitted for any cause at all, then any accusation of playing both sides to please both, is only assumed by superficial hearers without context.

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.

That's exactly what he says in Mark and Luke

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.

Don't read for any cause at all...Exactly what He said rebuked divorce for any cause.

Exactly quoting the law, and the exact teaching of the law, is shibboleth to corrupters of the law for personal gain.

(the author of Luke claims in 1:3 to have "researched everything carefully", so he certainly should have gotten it right).

He did. He quoted Jesus exactly right. Contradicting Jesus would be divorce is not permitted for any cause at all.

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

In other words, you assume that the Jews were being dishonest.

From the record they were:

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

No argument about any book, is advanced by not referring to the book. Including by not quoting it exactly right.

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

....and shows that uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) is broader than fornication (וַיֶּזֶן).

Not in matters of divorce, which is by not loving God and the spouse. Using a camp latrine may be messy unclean, but not sexually. (Unless of course, something else is going on behind them curtains...)

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

The problem is with trying to change the definition of a word to put it into a desired context.

Exactly. Dirty hands, houses, or latrines is not unclean cause for divorce.

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.

The "righteous law and covenant of the God of Israel by Moses" is exactly what Jesus touts in Matthew 5:18:

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

.....committing himself to exactly what the Pharisees declare:

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
(Mark 10:4)

Exactly what the Pharisees declare cuts short the commandment, in order to replace it with their own adulterous tradition.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Accuracy includes quoting a text fully, and not only the part we want to hear.

.....before taking issue with the righteous law as if it weren't righteous:

Corrupting righteous law, teaches it as if it weren't righteous.

Divorce for any cause at all is rightous? Only in a self-righteous adulterous nation, that also perverts law pertaining to family, as well as marriage.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #225]

If you refuse to know the difference between giving an account of your own, and also faithfully giving the account of another that disagrees with your own, then you have no business writing nor reviewing literary narrative, nor bearing witness in a court of law.

Objective analysis and comprehension of basic literature and testimony must be set aside, in order to only find fault.

In the law of Moses (Deut. 19:15), the word of two or three witnesses is required to establish guilt. You don't have even one witness against Paul's companions, whom you accuse of lying, but you have to throw them under the bus to save the narrative from its own shortcoming.

We are seeing that it's not the believers in the Bible, who study the Book objectively and comprehensively, that must practice blind faith. Rather it's the opposers of the Bible, who must set aside objectivity and literary comprehension, in order to practice blind disbelief.

That's an empty accusation. What you're calling "objectivity and literary comprehension" is just circular reasoning, and what you dismiss as "blind disbelief" is critical analysis.

And it's not as some believers suppose, that Paul is setting the record straight for Luke, but rather the Author is setting the record straight for any reader of ACTS.

Then why isn't it stated in the text that the record is being "set straight"?

By your rule, the Author must either not record Paul's accounting, or lie about it, in order not to appear to be contradicting Himself.

By the rules of logic, an author writing two accounts of the same event must write of the same group of people at the same time either hearing a certain thing or not hearing that thing in both accounts in order not to appear to be contradicting himself.

So tell me----if Paul's companions lied, and the Author had lied by harmonizing their accounts to make it look like they hadn't lied, you would claim that no one had lied, wouldn't you? And you would invoke "objectivity and literary comprehension" to support your conclusion that no one had lied.

Right?

It's unreasonable for any reader to make unnecessary rules of any author

Consistency is necessary for believability.

Another anti-Bible accuser demands an author ought to either write historical record or allegory, but not both in the same book. So that he doesn't get 'confused'.

Another Bible apologist demands that obvious inconsistencies be ignored so that his beliefs aren't challenged.

Inconsistency in the narrative between the author and someone else in the narrative, is not inconsistency between the author and himself, but only between himself and who he includes in the narrative.

Inconsistency which isn't acknowledged as inconsistency is just inconsistent.


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

I do. I also acknowledge it contradicts the Bible by it's cover alone, and so it's not Bible.

Then every time Jesus quotes what the Torah says and then says, "But I tell you....", he's violating Deuteronomy 4:2, so it's not Torah.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #227]

Since He didn't contradict Himself, by saying divorce is not permitted for any cause at all, then any accusation of playing both sides to please both, is only assumed by superficial hearers without context.

Not for the respective followers of Hillel and Shammai.

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.

Don't read for any cause at all...Exactly what He said rebuked divorce for any cause.

What he says here rebukes divorce for every cause, blatantly contradicting both Moses in the law and himself in Matthew.

Exactly quoting the law, and the exact teaching of the law, is shibboleth to corrupters of the law for personal gain.

Oh? Was Jesus in on that?

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19)


(the author of Luke claims in 1:3 to have "researched everything carefully", so he certainly should have gotten it right).

He did. He quoted Jesus exactly right. Contradicting Jesus would be divorce is not permitted for any cause at all.

Luke has Jesus give no cause for which divorce is permitted, thereby having him say that it is not permitted. If Jesus said that divorce was not permitted except for fornication, as Matthew has him say, then Luke did not quote him exactly right.


In other words, you assume that the Jews were being dishonest.

From the record they were:

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

From the Christian record.


and shows that uncleanness (עֶרְוַת) is broader than fornication (וַיֶּזֶן).

Not in matters of divorce, which is by not loving God and the spouse. Using a camp latrine may be messy unclean, but not sexually.

The word in Deut. 23:14 is uncleanness (עֶרְוַת), not fornication (וַיֶּזֶן). The word in Deut. 24:1 is uncleanness (עֶרְוַת), not fornication (וַיֶּזֶן). What matters isn't that the soldier using the latrine isn't being divorced; what matters is that uncleanness goes beyond sexuality.


They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
(Mark 10:4)

Exactly what the Pharisees declare cuts short the commandment, in order to replace it with their own adulterous tradition.

Yet Jesus doesn't correct them. He just tells them that Moses wrote that law for the hardness of their hearts. (The Mark version doesn't even have him make the sexual exception.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #226]

Fornication isn't the only disobedience to the law.

True, but fornication is cause for divorce.

....but not the only cause, according to the law.

Do you have another transgression of law, that the law does allow for divorce?

Yeah----uncleanness "עֶרְוַת" which isn't fornication "וַיֶּזֶן" (Deut. 24:1).

Like a soldier not taking his unclean business to the latrine, which would also have been a transgression of the law.