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]

[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)

Answered in post 255, from first post 235.

Commanding to keep an oath, does not include swearing to keep it. And a pledge other than yea or nay, is the vanity of many words.

Pro 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

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

I.e. anyone with great and grand promises sworn by heaven, hell, and their mother's grave, is the sure sign of an empty vow, covered over by great sounding words.

Jde 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #261]

Answered in post 255, from first post 235.

And I replied in post 257.

Commanding to keep an oath, does not include swearing to keep it.

Commanding to keep an oath assumes that an oath has been sworn. In fact, only swearing an oath makes the command necessary.

“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...."
---Moses

"take your oaths in his name."
---Moses

"do not swear an oath at all"
---Jesus

Does Moses say, "Do not swear an oath at all"?
No.

Moses allows the taking of oaths. Jesus does not. In this, Jesus violates the command in Deuteronomy 4:2 that nothing be added to the law.

[RBD]

[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.

True. And, if anyone wants to believe Smith, then they're free to do so.

But like Mohammed lying about the God of Abraham, Smith contradicts himself in saying he speaks for the God of the Bible, when he writes an alternative testament condemned by the Bible.

Gal 1:7 If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #263]

like Mohammed lying about the God of Abraham

How can you say with certainty that Mohammed was lying about the God of Abraham when he says that the God of Abraham has no son in a book and you believe that the God of Abraham does have a son because it's written in a book?

[RBD]

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.

Not necessary. The Book's inerrancy is reason enough to believe it, if we choose. And finding Assyrian remains after centuries of no evidence, didn't change the gainsaying 'scholars' about believing the Bible.

It's not about convincing anyone to believe anything, but only about inerrancy providing legitimate faith. Without evidence against Bible inerrancy, then the only blind faith is believing it can't possibly be true.

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.

Basically is not completely, and doubting is not proving. Contradictions and errors are provable facts, not basic doubts.

And judging that the Egyptians should have left historical records of their defeat, is a presumptive modernized demand on the part of ancient powers.

Why didn't an Egyptian Pharaoh make a record of his defeat?? The same reason no ancient powers made any records of their defeat, especially not any Egyptian Pharaoh-god.

And least of all at the hands of his own slaves. The modern question of why not? is ignorance of the ancient mind of why at all!

So, in the interest of objective historical record, they should have left a stone pictograph of their arming drowning in the Red Sea? Right. Surrounding powers would not have praised their honesty, but pounced on their insane folly in a time of weakness...

The one notable exception of an ancient power recording it's defeats along with it's victories, is that of Israel. Why? Because the Author was not writing for propaganda purposes alone, but historical fact.

Otherwise, not until the Gentiles also began writing objective history at the time of Herodotus, did any established power record their own defeats.

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.

There 'should' have been evidence does not disprove anything. They 'should' have recorded evidence only proves historical ignorance. And, lastly they 'should' have left evidence of erasing evidence is meaningless, since the best erasing of records is not to make them in the first place. (Especially of the most humiliating defeat known in the ancient world: By their own slaves.)

As one ancient might say, if you can't control your own slaves, how are you going to control other nations?

Finally, marring inscriptions and demolishing memorials to erase past records, means that someone made them in the first place. Which in the case of the Pharaoh of Exodus, is so impossibly foolish, that he didn't do it.

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.

Degradation of bones has nothing to do with determining genetic race of bones, because there is no race genetics in bones. Archeologists can't look for 'Hebrew' bones among 'Egyptian' bones. Bone be bones.

Especially if there were no 'Hebrew' bones left behind, if they were all carried away by millions of Hebrews back to the promised land of their fathers, along with those of Jacob and Joseph.

The Lord coming to His people in Egypt, and not leaving them nor their dead bones behind, is the good example set for when the Lord comes to His people on earth, and not leaving them nor their resurrected bones behind.

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.

Since it's the only book of evidence, then without evidence to the contrary, it is the only source. And since it's an unerring book, then it can be believed.

And what the Egyptians did would never be recorded by their foolishly defeated Egyptian Pharaoh-god.

We have countless pieces of evidence to demonstrate all sorts of specifics about the Egyptians and their action(s)/etc...

True. Of victories alone, not any defeats.

And once again, lack of evidence does not disprove anything. Even for that of a whole ancient civilisation and empire with city foundations, buildings, and stone inscriptions...such as Assyria.

For which there always was evidence of their power and rule, the same as that of Egypt's powerful defeat: The unerring Bible record. (Whose objectivity in recording historical events is much greater than the rest of the ancient world, since He recorded victories and defeats.)

[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....

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,

The only play you have here is.... Well, we have just not found the evidence for the claim of an "Exodus' yet, but it's there!

Thus far, you have 2 choices:

1) Argue that we will find evidence someday.
2) Argue we should never expect to find any evidence.

I see no third option, in your current case/position.

[POI]

Not necessary. The Book's inerrancy is reason enough to believe it, if we choose.

Negative. The book is flawed, which renders your topic kaput.

And finding Assyrian remains after centuries of no evidence, didn't change the gainsaying 'scholars' about believing the Bible.

Apples and oranges. All I need to do is to point out any claim which is demonstrated false. We now know the Egyptians did not enslave millions of Israelites for 100's of years. I have done so, in the other thread. Hence, this topic is closed, in that you can move along and maybe search for the claims to another god or gods instead.

It's not about convincing anyone to believe anything, but only about inerrancy providing legitimate faith. Without evidence against Bible inerrancy, then the only blind faith is believing it can't possibly be true.

Yet again, it depends on the claim. The other thread has exhausted this particular exchange.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #246]

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

Because the record sets it straight. Paul's account about himself is confirmed by Acts 9. His account about the companions is shown only partly true.

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!"...?

First such a reader is only a skimmer, not a studier. Second, the reader would know Paul said some past companions didn't hear a voice, that he did. And if the reader did not study the Book, then would assume Paul's account about those companions was correct.

Anyone studying the whole book would know the Author says otherwise. Also, we only know of Paul's incorrect account, because the Author included it in the book.

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?

Luke already believed that error, by hearing it from Paul himself while travelling with him. When the Author gives Luke the correct account in Acts 9, then he knows otherwise. As well as Paul himself when later reading Acts.

Some confessing believers mistakenly think it is Paul setting the record straight, and show they either don't read the Bible as being written by the Lord Himself (who does know the secrets of our hearts, including what we hear or not), or they also need basic education in knowing the difference between an author's personal account of an event, and the author's record of another person's account.

If they do not agree, then it is the other person disagreeing with the author, not the author with himself.

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

There are no 'ifs' with the Author. He is not making any hypothetical scenario. Only skeptics say 'if' the account is so. Accusers say His account can't be so, unless He's contradicting Himself.

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?

No one not at the event itself. Paul would have believed the account of Luke given by inspiration of the Lord, and so would have known those companions lied when later reading Acts.

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).

This is a fair attempt to show the Author's error, by studying and applying His own words.

However, that's only if someone says it's confusing to have to thoroughly study something, in order to see it's consistent unity. Only a casual reader not seeking a challenge, would call it confusing. Others could call it lazy, and unsuited for such books as the Bible.

Authoring a serious book requiring study, is not sowing confusion. Authoring lies is confusion.

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.

Criticizing an author for not writing the way a reader personally likes, is not critical analysis. Demanding an author take time to say that he is setting the record straight, when he does so by his own account, is what deserves criticism.

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:

Sexual uncleanness does not deviate from divorce for the cause of uncleanness. Using field latrines improperly does deviate from divorce uncleanness, though not from camp sanitation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #268]

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

Because the record sets it straight. Paul's account about himself is confirmed by Acts 9. His account about the companions is shown only partly true.

The record shows an inconsistency and nothing else. Anything beyond that is confirmation bias to render the narrative unfalsifiable.

This is becoming tedious. All you're doing is repeating a denial that the text is inconsistent.


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

Sexual uncleanness does not deviate from divorce for the cause of uncleanness. Using field latrines improperly does deviate from divorce uncleanness, though not from camp sanitation.

"Uncleanness" in Dt. 23:14 and "uncleanness" in Dt. 24:1 are the same word (עֶרְוַת). The uncleanness in 24:1 isn't specified as sexual, as it would be if the word there were "fornication" (וַיֶּזֶן). Thus, uncleanness doesn't have to be sexual even in marriage.

[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.

Greetings RBD

Greetings back with blessing.

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

I appreciate the compliment, but the challenge is strictly about any grammatical contradiction in the Bible, where any words are in error, or contradict one another. That would prove Bible errancy, and so also prove the Author is not who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

Prophetic and doctrinal disputes are better suited for believers, that don't bother wondering who the Author is, but only what He has to say. (However, that does not include Jewish arguments that Jesus is not the Christ, and His NT is not Bible of Jehovah.)

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?

Neither. I've amended the original intent, since I agree something does not have to be true, just because it's unerring. Nor, can anyone be compelled to believe the truth, even if it kicks us upside the head.

I can only prove the Author can be believed, so long as His Book remains unerring. Therefore, any challenges to Bible errancy are welcome. So far, I have only seen apparent errors or contradictions, but none of them proven. So long as there is a possible interpretation, that does not contradict with the Book, then it is only a possible contradiction, not a proven one.

The exercise, therefore, is not so much that the Bible must be true and believed, but only that the Bible can be true and intelligently believed by objective study. So long as that holds true, then no one can intelligently say the Author cannot be believed nor trusted to be who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

It's simply an objective grammatical challenge that can reject anyone saying, that only uneducated blind believers would accept all the Bible is true. And, from what I've seen so far, by the manner of arguments made for error, it's by blind disbelief that allows anyone say the Bible can't possibly be true.

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.

Exactly, which is why the argument is shifted to something more provable, such as inerrancy proves He can exist, and He can be the God of the Bible.

However, the Bible is also uniquely qualified for that honour, because it is written by so many people, over so much time, and from so many backgrounds. Therefore, inerrancy suggests two real possibilities: That the Book is inspired by one divine Author, even as the writers confess. Or, that the writers themselves must be idolized as unerring men, unlike all other erring men on earth. (And some do so by 'veneration' of the prophets and apostles.)

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.

Which is fine for them. But that can only be done by first ignoring the most obvious contradiction of the Koran, whose author on the one hand says he speaks for the God of Abraham, called Allah, and then on the other hand contradicts the God of Abraham, by declaring He cannot possibly beget His own Son. (Which BTW, is also called blasphemy by Mohammed and Muslims, as well as anti-NT Jews.)

Joseph Smith also contradicts himself on the cover of his own book, by calling it another testament of Jesus Christ, when Jesus Christ says there is no other testament of Himself, than that given to His apostles in the Bible. The God of the Bible declares the decree of having a begotten Son, and so is not Allah of the Koran. The Bible says the book of Mormon is cursed, as being a self-confessed testament other that written by the apostles in the Bible.

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.

Thank you, no He didn't. Nor do I anymore.

He just knew all Scripture was given by Christ Himself, and went about doing good, and proving with actions and words what the Scriptures do say, command, teach, and prophecy.

That's the calling of His disciples also, to walk as He walked, and teach and prophecy what He gave to His prophets and apostles.

Do you believe in Jesus because somebody proved to you that the Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it?

Good question. No. I came to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, by objectively studying certain books in it, for a term paper in literature. In time I became interested in errancy arguments, and even had some of my own. However, I also applied standard objective study not to be too hasty in conclusions, but to first thoroughly investigate. I learned not only was I in error, but also others, when it comes to accusing the Author of contradicting Himself. And so, I had to acknowledge that His Book certainly can be true, and the Bible says Jesus Christ is Lord, then so be it.

What really hooked me about the Bible, was when it declared plainly what wisdom and justice is, rather than endlessly debating such things and their 'nature'. Having been an amateur student and lover of ancient Greek philosophy, I had never heard any author just come right out and say it once for all:

Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.


Once that gantlet was thrown down, I had to keep investigating. And still do.