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]

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.

This is all fine,

Your agreement is noted. The passive voice cannot be used to justify writing new narrative, that contradicts the written text.

but the story in Matthew doesn't include Judas as an actor.

And Acts only includes the actions of the priests. Which is fine, because taken together, they include both.

That's the contradiction. In Matthew,

No, that's individual narratives for the same event, which is called differences in storytelling: The same event is told in different passages.

Different passages for the same event, is not in itself a contradiction, unless they do contradict each other.

a remorseful Judas discarded the reward and ran away to commit suicide. The priests didn't know what to do with the money, so had a conference at which they decided to buy a field with it. At most, Judas forced the priests to decide to buy a field.

This is a traditional reading of Matthew. However, any notion of Judas' dead body forcing the priests to buy a field, is a made up circular argument. There's notice of their motives in the record, and used to support a claim, that Judas could not have purchased it himself.

In Acts, an unrepentant Judas bought a field with his reward, then died in it.

True enough.

Taken together, it does mean that Judas and the Priests had a hand in purchasing the field for him. In fact, considering Judas' aversion to touching the blood money after casting it down, it makes sense for the priests to do so with their own hands. Much less repent himself again, and back to the temple to get the money, and then go purchase the field.

The problem with ruling out either party in the purchase, is that they are based upon assumptions about the time between the temple event and the purchase. To say that the priests' hands were forced only by Judas' dead body, is to assume he departed and immediately hanged himself without making a purchase. As well as the priests delaying their own departure to make the purchase.

In Acts, only the time between the purchase and Judas' hanging looks immediate, but nothing is said about the time before. And Matthew makes the priests' time of counsel and purchase also look immediate. And it's clear, that they went directly to the field from the temple.

As with stroytelling in different passages, a simple explanation is the literary device called narrative time gaps: The narrative is 'driven forward', while bypassing any time and details in between.

2Ch 35:24 His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers.

A quick assumption is that Josiah died immediately upon entering Jerusalem. In Luke 23, the narrative is driven forward from Pilate delivering Jesus, to Simon helping bear His cross to calvary. We know in John 19, that Jesus was first delievered by Pilate to be scourged and mocked, before having Him bear a cross to calvary.

There is no literary mandate to assume Judas left the temple, and immediately hung himself, (especially not without first finding rope to do so.) In a narrative time gap, there was plenty of time between Judas' departure, and the priests puchasing the field together, (even as there was plenty of time for the soliders to scourge, mock, dress in purple, and plait thorns upon His head.)

And by Luke's account supplementing Matthew's, rather than contradicting one another, it makes a joint purchase in person very likely. (And why not? What they had in common was getting rid of the bloody money.)

[RBD]

Otherwise, the middle voice could never be used to show a person buys land for himself through intermediaries.

The apologetic claim isn't about intermediaries, but that the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf.

Which is necessary, unless Judas returned to get his money back, in order to purchase it with his own hands. Which is contrary to the context, where Judas wanted nothing to do with handling the blood money, once he cast it away.

Which is of course Judas' money being used by the priests to purchase the field.

Of course. Then you should be able to find another similarly broad use of κτάομαι in the middle voice. Considering that some linguists consider κτάομαι to be a deponent verb, that should actually make your job easier. If Greek readers would understand it the way you do, we should expect authors to have used it that way.

And, if Greeks knew about someone purchasing something for himself through intermediaries, as well as, knowing the money and property belongs to the owner, not the intermediaries handling the money.

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.

And considering that you have to create a straw man of my argument is an obvious abuse of logic. The argument isn't merely grammatical or exclude any possible intermediary, but is that the description in Matthew of the priests buying a field with money discarded by Judas is incompatible with the story in Acts of Judas buying some property for himself.

Yes, this is true. I confuse you with someone else's argument, that want to deny the priests had any part in purchasing the field.

You may be going from the other direction, that Judas could not have possibly purchased anything for himself, much less with his own money, since you say he ran straightway from the temple tohang himself. Which is an added assumption.

Difflugia wrote:
"In Matthew, a remorseful Judas discarded the reward and ran away to commit suicide."

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.

Matthew's Judas character died by suicidal hanging. The Judas character of Acts died when his guts exploded in a presumed act of divine retribution. If those characters are meant to be the same person, they contradict.

It doesn't take much imagination to read into things what's not there, if we first take away from what is there: He fell headlong before bursting. Which implies hanging for a long while, or on a very hot day, or maybe he climbed the tallest tree and did a belly flop on rocks and hard ground...

Judas' body certainly didn't suddenly implode by one of Zeus' thunderbolts. (There is such a thing as instantaneous combustion, not explosion. Unless of course by dynamite.)

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.

Or, that the priests bought the field with neither Judas' agency nor in some way entering Judas' possession afterward.

Corect. (Although, I don't know what priests entering the field has to do with it.)

They took counsel together to determine what to do with the money, and bought the field with it. (They probably called it the field of blood, because of the money. Jerusalemites in general likely called it the field of blood, because of the imploded body, that fell headlong to the ground from hanging.)

Matthew 27:3-8 is almost tailor-made to exactly contradict Acts 1:18.

Almost only counts in horsehoes and grenades. Not in proving a contradiction. If there is any possible doubt involved, it's not a contradiction. There is no doubt that 1+1=2, and 1+2=2. Nor that A equals B, and B is not equal to A. Or, that the man walked leisurely up a hill from top to bottom, and walked leisurely from the the bottom, then ran to the top.

This raises what I find to be one of the interesting questions of inerrancy. Is inerrancy a propositional claim or a dogmatic one?

As with any book, it's a literary one, the same as errancy.

I can objectively read the Author's Book like any other book of literature. Others cannot, because of who He says He is. That can include both believers and unbelievers alike.

Are you using obvious inerrancy as evidence that the text is special

I am using ongoing inerrancy, that has not been proven errant, in order to choose to believe all that the Author says is true (including who He says He is.) Which is therefore based upon an informed decision from the Book itself.

My only objection, is anyone saying it cannot be intelligently believed. Especially if their sole purpose is to find fault with the Book, rather than study enough to make a fully informed decision. It's simply not possible to make such a decision about any book, if we're only looking for error.

It's like looking through a cracked window, and concluding the room inside is obviously cracked.

Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

, or are you declaring that the Bible is inerrant even when it's obviously not? It can't be both.

Or, are you declaring the Bible is errant even when it's obviously not?

You could try using a whole window, rather than a cracked one. But are you able to set aside disbelief to do so? I am able to set aside faith, to do so.

The faith I have in the Bible was not sought for, when I began reading it. I was only researching it like any other book of literature and history, when it was assigned in my literature course. The Bible itself makes me a believer.

It's the physical evidence on earth, that the Author could be who He says He is. (And by inerrancy, all of what He says must either be true or a lie. No compromise in between.)

{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[Difflugia]

Your agreement is noted.

I agreed with that part of your statement. Your statement doesn't justify your conclusion, though.

The passive voice cannot be used to justify writing new narrative, that contradicts the written text.

I assume you mean "middle voice" and again I agree with you. Unfortunately for you, that is exactly why your conclusion is wrong: your new narrative contradicts what is written.

And Acts only includes the actions of the priests.

Acts only includes the actions of Judas.

Which is fine, because taken together, they include both.

They can't be taken together because they can't simultaneously be true.

No, that's individual narratives for the same event, which is called differences in storytelling: The same event is told in different passages.

Different passages for the same event, is not in itself a contradiction, unless they do contradict each other.

If Matthew and Acts describe the same event, they contradict. In Matthew, Judas wasn't involved in the purchase of the field. In Acts, he was.

a remorseful Judas discarded the reward and ran away to commit suicide. The priests didn't know what to do with the money, so had a conference at which they decided to buy a field with it. At most, Judas forced the priests to decide to buy a field.

This is a traditional reading of Matthew. However, any notion of Judas' dead body forcing the priests to buy a field, is a made up circular argument.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

There's notice of their motives in the record, and used to support a claim, that Judas could not have purchased it himself.

It has nothing to do with motives. In Matthew, Judas threw money into the temple and fled. The priests decided to use it to buy a field in which to bury foreigners. Judas was gone and perhaps dead by the time the priests even decided what to do with the money, eliminating any reasonable way to claim that Judas "purchased it himself."

Taken together, it does mean that Judas and the Priests had a hand in purchasing the field for him.

No, it means that the priests bought a field that wasn't for Judas.

In fact, considering Judas' aversion to touching the blood money after casting it down, it makes sense for the priests to do so with their own hands. Much less repent himself again, and back to the temple to get the money, and then go purchase the field.

That's right. He threw the money down, fled, and then the priests decided to buy a field in which to bury foreigners.

The problem with ruling out either party in the purchase, is that they are based upon assumptions about the time between the temple event and the purchase.

No, they're based on what the two narratives say. Matthew says that the priests bought a field in which to bury foreigners. Acts says that Judas bought a field for himself, went for a walk in it, fell down, and his guts exploded.

To say that the priests' hands were forced only by Judas' dead body, is to assume he departed and immediately hanged himself without making a purchase. As well as the priests delaying their own departure to make the purchase.

What?

In Acts, only the time between the purchase and Judas' hanging looks immediate, but nothing is said about the time before. And Matthew makes the priests' time of counsel and purchase also look immediate. And it's clear, that they went directly to the field from the temple.

As with stroytelling in different passages, a simple explanation is the literary device called narrative time gaps: The narrative is 'driven forward', while bypassing any time and details in between.

You can have all the narrative time gaps you want, but that "cannot be used to justify writing new narrative, that contradicts the written text." In Greek narrative storytelling, events presented in the aorist tense are generally considered to be in a "narrative sequence." In Matthew 27:5-6, the narrative sequence is:

1. Having thrown [participle] the money into the Temple, Judas left.
2. Then, having gone [participle], Judas hanged himself.
3. Then, having taken [participle] the money, the priests said, "We can't keep this."
4. Then, having taken [participle] counsel, the priests bought the field.
5. Then, the field was called the Field of Blood.

Bolded verbs are aorist indicative. If the events happened in a different order, then the story wasn't written for Greek readers to understand.

In a narrative time gap, there was plenty of time between Judas' departure, and the priests puchasing the field together

Just so I've got this straight, your new version of the story is that Judas threw the money into the temple, left, then came back to help the priests buy the field? I can't believe that's a serious suggestion, but it at least shows that you understand the narrative problem that you need to overcome.

And by Luke's account supplementing Matthew's, rather than contradicting one another, it makes a joint purchase in person very likely. (And why not? What they had in common was getting rid of the bloody money.)

So, Matthew and Acts were being written in concert, such that in order to understand either one, they must have been presented together from the beginning? Is that another serious suggestion?

The apologetic claim isn't about intermediaries, but that the priests bought the field on Judas' behalf.

Which is necessary, unless Judas returned to get his money back, in order to purchase it with his own hands. Which is contrary to the context, where Judas wanted nothing to do with handling the blood money, once he cast it away.

That's a circular argument. You're just claiming that finding a harmonization is necessary because otherwise the two stories contradict. We already know that.

Then you should be able to find another similarly broad use of κτάομαι in the middle voice.

And, if Greeks knew about someone purchasing something for himself through intermediaries, as well as, knowing the money and property belongs to the owner, not the intermediaries handling the money.

Right. Where's your example?

You may be going from the other direction, that Judas could not have possibly purchased anything for himself, much less with his own money, since you say he ran straightway from the temple tohang himself. Which is an added assumption.

That's what the Bible says he did.

It doesn't take much imagination to read into things what's not there, if we first take away from what is there: He fell headlong before bursting.

QFT.

Which implies hanging for a long while, or on a very hot day, or maybe he climbed the tallest tree and did a belly flop on rocks and hard ground...

"... read into things what's not there."

The Bible just says that he was walking in the field that he bought for himself, fell face first, and then his guts exploded.

Matthew 27:3-8 is almost tailor-made to exactly contradict Acts 1:18.

Almost only counts in horsehoes and grenades. Not in proving a contradiction. If there is any possible doubt involved, it's not a contradiction.

The "almost" is the bit about "tailor-made." Matthew 27:3-8 sufficiently contradicts Acts 1:18, but there's a little bit of extra fabric.

There is no doubt that 1+1=2, and 1+2=2. Nor that A equals B, and B is not equal to A. Or, that the man walked leisurely up a hill from top to bottom, and walked leisurely from the the bottom, then ran to the top.

Or that Judas killed himself and then some priests bought a field, and then Judas bought the same field for himself and exploded to death while walking in it.

Is inerrancy a propositional claim or a dogmatic one?

As with any book, it's a literary one, the same as errancy.

What?

Are you using obvious inerrancy as evidence that the text is special

I am using ongoing inerrancy, that has not been proven errant, in order to choose to believe all that the Author says is true (including who He says He is.) Which is therefore based upon an informed decision from the Book itself.

If that's the case, then what kind of proof is it if you have to twist language and authorial intent to get the result you want?

[RugMatic]

So if a book's inerrant its divinity is established? None of my Mad magazines contain any contradictions. They tend to exaggerate things a bit though.

David gave 70 million pounds of silver to Solomon, 1 Chronicles 22:14. Scholarly consensus is a talent is 70 pounds. Oh, and 7 million pounds of Iron, 1 Chronicles 29:7.

A million screaming Zulus attacked Judah, they lost because they only brought 300 chariots, 2 Chronicles 14:9. Ok, they weren't Zulus, my bad!

If the Bible can exaggerate than so can Mad magazine.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."
(Matthew 5:33-37)

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it.

Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.
(Numbers 30:1-2)

Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.
(Deuteronomy 6:13)

[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.

Then it would be irrational to believe in the Bible God, as the Bible claims millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved by the ancient Egyptians for 100's of years. And we now know this likely did not happen. Game-set-match. Do-not-pass-go. Do not collect $200.00. All things are not true. Hence, research other 'creator' storylines. There are many....

[RugMatic]

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.

Job 13:8 Will ye accept his person? Will ye contend for God?

It seems you want to duke it out over: believing there is no remedy as opposed to believing perchance there is! Seems like a Rubik's Cube for the color blind!

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or wisdom of words, declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified, 1 Corinthians 2:1,2, ie., Paul says to hell with your Rubik's Cube.

Jolly well, I'll play. A discrepancy with no conceivable remedy would rid you of your faith? Or would you suppose the remedy were known only to God and retain your faith nonetheless?

Whatever happened to I love my redeemer, my sins hath he washed? I've read about such Christians in antique books, but Rubik's Cube apologetics is all Christians have anymore.

If you want a discrepancy here's one as good as any: By this will all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another. The world doesn't think of love when it thinks of Christians, and neither do Christians.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #215]

Which is why inerrancy proves anyone declaring the Bible cannot possibly be believed, is replacing intelligent reading with personal desire alone.

The presumption of inerrancy proves nothing except that the one arguing wants to start at a desired conclusion and work backwards.

The inerrancy continues without proof otherwise, and proves it can be intelligently believed. The believer wants to find alternatives to assumed contradictions, but must remain objective, so that the text proves itself.

The disbelievers wants to find assumed contradictions, but must also remain objective, so that the text provides it.

The argument between the two can show objective reasoning vs subjective assumptions.

[RBD]

[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.

When a reader looking for error notices an appearance of error, he makes the error of a subjective conclusion without proper investigation.

It's the superficial reading, that results from a limited objective.

2Ti 2:15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the words truly.

[RBD]

[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.

Already responded to this.

Lack of proof does not prove anything.

In the case of Assyria, there was expected to be archeological evidence of their stone inscriptions and buildings, which were not found until the 1800's. Until then, the Bibliophobes said it was just another Atlantean myth.