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 #238]

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.

Then here's another opportunity to have a go at this, to see what the text provides:

“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)


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)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #240]

Lack of proof does not prove anything.

Then I guess that the existence of those ancient cities in the Book of Mormon hasn't been disproven.

[RBD]

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.

No, your story says he bought it for himself, while the narrative says Judas himself bought it. The middle voice only identifies who, not why.

Trying to impute a cause by abusing the middle voice, is only for making a contradiction appear where there is none. And since it's only a beginner's error, then any attempted show of linguistics is either a pretense, or willful abuse.

Judas himself bought the field with the priests, who continued to handle his blood money. And the cause was for the burial of strangers.

Judas could likely think he left behind a work of charity for strangers, after hanging himself therein. It also testifies of himself being made as a stranger to all men, both followers and rejectors, by his betrayal of the Jesus for silver.

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.

The field of blood Judas himself bought with the priests', who handled his bloody money, is the same field he hung himself in. (And he didn't hang for himself therein, as some beginners could err and try to say from the middle voice...)

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.

Not anything possible, but rather several things possible from the text. And so now you have shown the difference between a contradiction, and only a possible contradiction. The first is shown by a possible alternative, and the later is shown by no other alternative possible.

The challenge is to show a contradiction, not a possible contradiction.

It's therefore incumbent upon the accuser of the Author, to never so much as acknowledge a possible alternative to their accusation, lest they acknowledge it is only a possible contradiction, not a contradiction.

The supporting believer in the Author is not obligated to defend against possible contradictions, since there is no error in something only appearing to be something, that it is not.

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.

That is an alternative reading I personally accept. The text really doesn't support a statement about a man having a field bought with his money, especially not without his knowledge.

The simple reading is that Judas himself bought the field with the blood money handled by the priests. They were all at the transaction together with one consent, to purchase it to bury strangers therein. And Judas made himself the first. (He did not make for himself the first, as some beginners would err and try to say from the middle voice...)

Matthew doesn't treat the priests as an intermediary to Judas purchasing a field.

Of course not. However it does show that it became Judas' possession by his own blood money, since they did not receive it for themselves nor the temple treasury.

By Acts 1 saying Judas himself bought the field, we must conclude they did so together. Context is not only in the immediate text, but in the whole book together. (The Bible is famous for revealing more and more detail for one event from all over the Book, especially with prophecy. It's called separating the narrative account.)

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

He had to, else Acts 1 would be false about Judas himself buying the field.

and the field never entered his possession.

It did when his money was used to purchase the field.

Any beginner banker and real estate agent would know that. And so once again, we have a show of knowledge, such as property law, that is either a pretense or a fraud.

The middle voice of κτάομαι requires at least agency and perhaps more.

Exactly. Oneself first, and also maybe others with oneself.

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.

Look up any translation of Greek middle voice. They are about identifying who is acting, never why. (But, that's only if someone wants their beginner's linguistics corrected.)

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

Like any theorem, it's propositional unless proven otherwise. But also like any theorem, it can be intelligently acted upon at present.

[POI]

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.

Well then, fingers crossed that someday, some archeologist will find any evidence at all regarding the claim that millions and millions of Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians for hundreds of years.

Here is a recap for any readers following along:

1) The primary reason why there is no evidence to suggest the ancient Israelites were enslaved in Egypt is because the extensive historical records of ancient Egypt, including inscriptions and papyri, do not mention the inhabitance of Israelites anywhere, despite the detailed biblical account of the Exodus story. This lack of corroborating evidence from any/all Egyptian sources, who recorded basically anything and everything, leads most scholars to doubt the historical accuracy of the biblical narrative regarding Israelite slavery in Egypt.

2) Egyptians left evidence of trying to erase physical evidence regarding other people and events, as mentioned in the video from post 12. This means that if the Egyptians were trying to cover up interaction(s) with the Israelites, for whatever reason(s), we would see plenty of evidence of their attempt to cover-up and/or sabotage existing evidence to the contrary.

3) The believer cannot argue that the evidence would be too degraded, as we have tons of evidence from the exact same period, of the Egyptians, and many/all of their action(s). This is due to the climate, which preserves all evidence.

*********************

Thus, as another recap, it is completely damning for some claims to not present clear evidence to promote the said claim. In this case, there would be much evidence to easily corroborate such a claim by the Bible writer(s). We do not merely take the word of one 'holy book' alone, that Egyptians did what they did back during this era. We have countless pieces of evidence to demonstrate all sorts of specifics about the Egyptians and their action(s)/etc...

[RBD]

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

Trying to prove something flawless must be true, to someone that doesn't want to believe it, is as foolish for the believer as trying to prove the earth is round.

Trying to prove something flawless must be flawed, in order not to believe it, is as difficult as trying to prove it's not true by disbelief alone.

In both cases, it's difficult folly to think believing or disbelieving, has anything to do with proving something is flawless or flawed. The evidence always speaks for itself.

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

True, but only the few are ever ready to defend the gospel of the Lord and His truth.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[RBD]

[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,

There are two witnesses: Jesus who was there, and Luke who he wrote for.

but you have to throw them under the bus to save the narrative from its own shortcoming.

And you have to throw under the bus any possible alternative to accusing the Author and Luke of lying.

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"?

Well, because it's literary narrative 101. And no literary rule, other than someone's own personal wish, states that obviously setting the record straight, requires the author to say the obvious. Many authors write to readers, that know how to study the narrative for themselves, without being spoon-fed the obvious.

Acts is a record in narrative form, not an explanatory analysis of the narrative.

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 here again, we have an acknowledged possibility, which rules out a contradiction, where no possible alternative can be made.

Possible contradictions are not contradictions.

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?

Right, if the Author had lied, and was trying to harmonize something that the record does not agree with.

Possible alternatives invoke "objectivity and literary comprehension", that proves only a possible contradiction, not a contradiction.

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

Consistency is necessary for believability.

Readers consistently coming up with personal rules for authors to abide by, is only necessary to authors that conform to the rules of readers.

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.

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.

If you want to have a personal rule for books only with literal fact, or only with analogy, then try Thucydides' Peloponnesian War for facts only, and Aesop's fables for analogy only. And leave the Bible alone.

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.

No, He's giving the Spirit of the law, along with the letter.

And so, if you also want a book of letters only without Spirit, then read the code of Hammurabi. and leave the Bible alone.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter only, but also of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[RBD]

[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.

Since they don't care what Jesus thinks, then it doesn't apply to them.

If they do teach lawful divorce for any cause, then they are pleasing the adulterous people, even if they themselves don't practice it.

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.

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.

And if rewriting Moses is all those Jewish teachers have, then no one would listen to them, except adulterous people who don't care what Moses or Jesus or anyone else says.

“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.

I've already taught how authors don't need to exactly repeat everything, whenever speaking of it. They write to contextual studiers of their books.

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).

Conceding the point without saying so. The Jews were being dishonest hypocrites, both with divorce and also the woman caught in adultery.

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.

Not with lawful divorce from Moses and Jesus Christ.

Applying grammar without context, is applying letters without Spirit.

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.

That's true. He bypasses the obvious abbreviation of law, and goes straight to the heart of the matter: Adulterous people covering themselves in personally abbreviated law.

Here, Jesus did not cast His pearl before known hypocrites. But reserved it for willing disciples.

Mar 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 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.


In context we know He was not agreeing with them, but only refusing to argue law with adulterous hypocrites. He responded directly to the others, that were at least being honest about their request for lawful adultery for every cause.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #246]

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,

There are two witnesses: Jesus who was there, and Luke who he wrote for.

Where does either Jesus or Luke state that Paul's companions are lying?


but you have to throw them under the bus to save the narrative from its own shortcoming.

And you have to throw under the bus any possible alternative to accusing the Author and Luke of lying.

I'm accusing no one of lying (that's what you're doing). I'm pointing out the fact the author of Luke's narrative is inconsistent.


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

Well, because it's literary narrative 101. And no literary rule, other than someone's own personal wish, states that obviously setting the record straight, requires the author to say the obvious.

"Obvious"? What reader, having never read Acts 9:7 and coming upon Acts 22:9 for the first time, would think, "Oh....when it says that they didn't hear the voice, it obviously means that they did hear the voice!"...?

Acts is a record in narrative form, not an explanatory analysis of the narrative.

But it isn't a consistent record.

Assuming that Luke wrote Acts, he clearly wrote both 9:7 and 22:9 after the supposed fact. So after writing 22:9, by which time he would surely have known that the companions didn't hear the voice, why didn't he go back and fix 9:7?


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 here again, we have an acknowledged possibility

My lead-in, "if Paul's companions lied," isn't an acknowledgement of anything; it's the setup to a hypothetical scenario.

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?

Right, if the Author had lied, and was trying to harmonize something that the record does not agree with.

How would you have known that the Author had lied?

Possible alternatives invoke "objectivity and literary comprehension", that proves only a possible contradiction, not a contradiction.

If there's even a "possible" contradiction in an author's writing, then that author is not stating the obvious, putting that author at odds with God not being the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).


Consistency is necessary for believability.

Readers consistently coming up with personal rules for authors to abide by, is only necessary to authors that conform to the rules of readers.

Apologists trying to dismiss critical analysis as readers' "personal rules" is only necessary when apologists don't have any other way of denying that inconsistent writing is inconsistent.


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.

No, He's giving the Spirit of the law, along with the letter.

How can he be giving the spirit of the law "along with the letter" when he's deviating from the letter? Moses declares to the Israelites that they are to keep the spirit of the law by keeping the letter of the law:

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

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
(Deut. 29:29)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #247]

If they do teach lawful divorce for any cause, then they are pleasing the adulterous people, even if they themselves don't practice it.....

And if rewriting Moses is all those Jewish teachers have, then no one would listen to them, except adulterous people who don't care what Moses or Jesus or anyone else says.....

Conceding the point without saying so. The Jews were being dishonest hypocrites, both with divorce and also the woman caught in adultery.....

That's true. He bypasses the obvious abbreviation of law, and goes straight to the heart of the matter: Adulterous people covering themselves in personally abbreviated law.....

In context we know He was not agreeing with them, but only refusing to argue law with adulterous hypocrites. He responded directly to the others, that were at least being honest about their request for lawful adultery for every cause.....

I've already taught how authors don't need to exactly repeat everything

You haven't "taught" anything. All you've done is repeat your accusations of the Jews being dishonest hypocrites and adulterers.

[Perspectivo]

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.

Greetings RBD

Your challenge is confined to prophetical and doctrinal contradictions. So the peculiarities of unrelated particulars are excluded. Well done.

I'm curious about the beneficiary of: I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true. Is this an evangelical endeavor or the vindication of a doctrinal position? I'm also curious how this strategy would pour a bowl of ontological charms. A book with no prophetical or doctrinal contradictions wouldn't prove that God exists. There's plenty of clever Muslims that propose to prove that the God of the Quran is true by proving there is no contradiction in it.

Jesus didn't stroll around Galilee saying I propose to prove that the God of the Bible is true by proving there is no contradictions in it. Do you believe in Jesus because somebody proved to you that the Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it?