Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[Difflugia]

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.

What you're describing is active voice, not middle.

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.

You're funny. I keep inviting you to find another text that uses κτάομαι in the way you want it to be used here, but you instead accuse me of being dishonest.

The field of blood Judas himself bought with the priests', who handled his bloody money, is the same field he hung himself in.

How could it be, when he left to hang himself before the priests had even decided what to do with the money?

(And he didn't hang for himself therein, as some beginners could err and try to say from the middle voice...)

You're funny.

It's possible, but only in the sense that anything's possible.

And so now you have shown the difference between a contradiction, and only a possible contradiction.

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

And now we're back to equivocating on what "possible" means. If it's "possible" that language can take on literally any meaning whatsoever, then there is no such thing as a contradiction and inerrancy is meaningless.

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.

Like adding "in bed" to a fortune from a fortune cookie.

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.

Like finding an example of the language being actually used the way you assert is possible.

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.

Judas threw the money down and left to hang himself. The priests picked up the money, decided among themselves to buy a field with it, then did so.

(He did not make for himself the first, as some beginners would err and try to say from the middle voice...)

You're funny.

By Acts 1 saying Judas himself bought the field, we must conclude they did so together.

Which contradicts Matthew, where all details of the priests buying the field happened after Judas left to hang himself.

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.)

And apologists are famous for illegitimately connecting otherwise disconnected narrative accounts, hence "out of context" having become cliché.

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.

Yes. That's the contradiction.

and the field never entered his possession.

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

As long as possession means something different than it does to everyone else. That's possible, I suppose.

Any beginner banker and real estate agent would know that.

I assume that a "beginner banker and real estate agent" would also know that freely donated money stops being the property of the donor.

And so once again, we have a show of knowledge, such as property law, that is either a pretense or a fraud.

You're funny.

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

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

Which is satisfied in Acts, but not Matthew, hence the contradiction.

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.)

That sounds to me like you're talking about active voice, but I'm open to being 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.

Are you trying to be difficult to understand?

[RBD]

[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.

You therefore prove any argument of uncleanness based upon grammar alone, is insufficient for divorce. And so, divorce for any cause is not allowed by law.

[RBD]

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

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

Which is the unproven argument here. My possible alternative does not have to be accepted, however it's very possibility disproves the accusation of contradiction.

Once you acknowledge that the definition of a contradiction, is where no possible alternatives can be found, then you'll understand possible alternatives disprove any accusation of contradiction. 'Absolute' contradiction is the only kind of contradiction.

Possible contradictions with possible alternatives are not contradictions at all.

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.

False. Neither passage states that no others were involved, nor could be involved. Any such reading is only a personal interpretation seeking that conclusion.

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.

A standard reading of Matthew by many believers, is that Judas hanged himself in the potter's field, and then the priests purchased it from the potter, to make it a graveyard for strangers, with Judas being the first one.

Acts 1 contradicts this, because Judas himself also bought the field. If he were already dead at the purchase, then it would not have belonged to Judas, even if it was his past money used.

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."

If he was dead, which Acts 1 forbids at the time. Nor, is there any proof from the narrative that he was. There is a narrative time gap between went and hanged himself. It's confirmed by Acts 1, that he must have been alive at the time of purchase.

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.

For himself is a corruption of the middlge voice, if it is used as a reason 'why' he bought it himself, as opposed to the reason the priests bought it with his money. The rest is fanciful speculation bordering on supernatural myth.

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.

And the aorist ends after gone. Acts 1 shows a time gap before hanging himself. Narrative time gaps are well-known literary tools to keep the account moving forward without unnecessary detail. Not wanting to believe or accept them in literature is a personal problem of the reader, not a narrative problem of the writer.

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,

That's because it's not from me. Sloppy reading of Bible teaching often follows sloppy reading of the Bible, such as adding your own words to both.

Some have suggested he had to come back to get the money, in order to purchase the field himself, but that is an unnecessary invention.

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?

Not presented nor understood at the beginning, since at the time of the events both sides were not necessarily privy to the other. That they were in concert at the time of purchase, isn't made known until after Matthew and Acts were both written. (The same with Paul not knowing his companions did hear the Lord's voice, until after Luke wrote Acts by the word of the Lord.)

Unlike those before all the Bible is written, we now have all the facts as recorded by the Author. Not wanting to believe them is just a personal choice, that does not reflect on the facts themselves, nor the Author's manner of historical narrative.

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.

No. It's a conclusion based upon evidence, not upon a conclusion used as evidence.

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

It's a reasonable argument for harmony from the text. Showing the possible harmony disproves any claim of contradiction. For a contradiction, it's necessary that no possible harmony does exist. The circular argument is claiming a contradiction exists, and then saying so despite possible alternatives to the contrary.

Whether you want to accept the possible harmony or not, is as meaningless as believing the text or not.

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?

Acts 1 and Matthew 27

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.

That's what readers adding their own personal interpretation to the Bible, say he did. The Bible never says Judas 'ran' to hang himself.

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."

It's an interpretation that may or may not be true, the same as an stretched interpretation that Judas 'ran' to hang himself. However, I don't preach my interpretations as though the Bible actually says it.


2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

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

And this is a false interpretation that must add 'walking' to the record. Once you acknowledge the difference between quoting a book, and adding your own words to it, then you'll understand the difference.

When adding 'ran' to Matthew, it could be called a reach for an intended conclusion, but adding 'walking' to Acts 1 is just a fabrication for a false conclusion.

And, it's an unheard of conclusion by me, that Judas didn't hang himself, or that by just by falling to the ground while walking, he burst apart.

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.

Contradictions don't need no extra fabric, just as bandits don't need no stinking badges.

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?

If it were true, then it would be the same kind of false proof of a contradiction, that is only made by adding personal language to the text. Which changes the authorial intent, in order to make a contradiction that the reader wants.

[RBD]

So if a book's inerrant its divinity is established?

Inerrancy proves that the Author can be believed when calling Himself the LORD God Almighty.

However, if inerrancy speaks of divinity, since no other men are without error, then it can at least be called divinely inspired by the divine Author.

Otherwise, all the men that wrote in the Book must be revered as unerringly divine, as opposed to all other people on earth.

Many Christians do so unnecessarily, rather than just believe those writing the Book, that say the Author is the holy One of Israel and Jesus Christ.

Num 16:28And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

2 Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

None of my Mad magazines contain any contradictions. They tend to exaggerate things a bit though.

Nor does the MAD author claim to be divine, so no harm no foul.

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.

If a MAD magazine reader can't understand the difference between possible historical fact and obvious fictional exaggeration, then maybe he ought to stick to MAD magazine. Or, take a break from MAD long enough to clear the mind.

[RBD]

[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)

Making difference between two things by definition, is not contradicting them, but separating them. Jesus makes the difference between making a vow, and swearing an oath. If no one swears an oath, then he can't be foresworn. People get tired of loud promises, fast.

Making a vow, and swearing an oath, is not the same thing. Especially since great swearing words are the habitat of untrustworthy fools. Vows are not just promises made, but commitments kept. There is a contradiction between between the two, just as Jesus points out.

A vow made by yea or nay, or only to oneself with no words at all, is not the same as words sworn on heaven, earth, a city, or your mother's grave.

Jas 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.


Act 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.


Jesus never told His people not to make a vow, but only not to swear by them. (I simply love the way, that He has so perfectly written the Bible to establish the truth about itself, and expose the lies against it.)

When you learn to read something careful enough, and not just superficially, then you'll see the different words used that purposely draw a distinction between them. There is no contradiction between an vow made by yea and nay, vs an oath sworn on heaven, earth, and all that is sacred therein...

And anyone that doesn't know that difference, has never learned that talk is cheap.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #252]

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

You therefore prove any argument of uncleanness based upon grammar alone, is insufficient for divorce. And so, divorce for any cause is not allowed by law.

Non sequitur. The command to the soldier to take his uncleanness out of camp does not invalidate a husband issuing a bill of divorce for his wife's uncleanness.

In Dt. 23:14, the soldier leaving his uncleanness in camp is improper. In Dt. 24:1, the wife's uncleanness is improper. The consequences are different because their social stations are different.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #255]

Jesus makes the difference between making a vow, and swearing an oath.

Moses says that they're to be treated in exactly the same way. He doesn't make the distinction between them that you're making.

Jesus never told His people not to make a vow, but only not to swear by them.

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.

"But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all"

"Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name."

[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?

Yeah, I'm quoting myself just in case it was inadvertently overlooked.
Never seen apologists answer questions like these.

[RBD]

Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things.

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....

Likely is also unlikely as not. And for hundreds of years people do not believe it is likely.

Rom 10:16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report…For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

[RBD]

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?

Isa 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold:

It seems you want to duke it out over: believing there is no remedy as opposed to believing

I don't care if anyone believes or not, but only if anyone can prove error in the Bible. It's a matter of verifiable evidence, not of faith. Otherwise, anyone trying to say that only uneducated people with blind faith alone can believe it, is making an unintelligent accusation by blind disbelief alone.

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.

Phl 1:7Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Neither Paul nor I care about unlearned anti-cubists. Anti-cubites?

Jolly well, I'll play. A discrepancy with no conceivable remedy would rid you of your faith?

Yes. My faith in the Bible as inerrant would be proven false.

Or would you suppose the remedy were known only to God and retain your faith nonetheless?

No. My faith in the Author is that he writes no error to remedy.

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.

I don't care what non-Christians have to say about being Christian. Just as I don't try to tell Muslims how to be Muslim.

Your personal judgment about love has nothing to do with any error in the Bible. One thing I do know of love from the Bible, is it's not promising something, and then not delivering.

1Jo 3:18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.


When you think you have an error in the Bible, I'll be glad to look at it. Otherwise, trash talk's a cheap waste of time.