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 #279]

"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.

So said the adulterous Jews of Jesus' day

There's the "adulterous Jews" accusation again. It seems to be your main fallback.

So long as someone keeps arguing like them, then they become the argument.

[RBD]

[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?

It's a matter of certain grammar, not of faith.

Mohammed not believing the God of Abraham is just simple unbelief shared by many in the world. The lie is Mohammed saying he speaks for the God of Abraham, and then says He does not beget a Son.

He makes the God of Abraham a liar, when He says He does beget a Son. He also shows that Allah, who does not beget a Son, is not the God of Abraham.

You make this claim, I ask you if you can back the claim up and you merely repeat it.

And you merely ignore the point. Another dead horse.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #290]

Jesus is rebuking the dishonest practice of swearing by other things than God's name, so as not to foreswear ourselves with God Himself. He points out that no matter what we swear by, God is still the Judge. Hence, swearing by heaven includes God on His throne, by earth includes God on His footstool, by Jerusalem includes God the King, by our own head includes God the Creator...

Once again, the spirit of the law is being confirmed with the letter: Any oath we swear is unto God, and swearing by other things does not escape God's judgment, nor does it make our oaths any more or less important.

He's rebuking the practice of swearing....period. He says, "Swear not at all" (ὀμόσαι μὴ ὅλως), but say "yes" for yes and "no" for no. This draws a distinction between saying "yes" or "no" and swearing. 

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #288]

The uncleanness in Dt. 23:14 is about using the latrine, not about sex in camp. There's nothing sexual specified in the uncleanness of Dt. 23:14 or Dt. 24:1.

Dead horse.

Making the same point ends at some point.

You're the one who has kept beating this dead horse.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #292]

Mohammed not believing the God of Abraham is just simple unbelief shared by many in the world. The lie is Mohammed saying he speaks for the God of Abraham, and then says He does not beget a Son.

He makes the God of Abraham a liar, when He says He does beget a Son. He also shows that Allah, who does not beget a Son, is not the God of Abraham.

You make this claim, I ask you if you can back the claim up and you merely repeat it.

And you merely ignore the point.

You're not making a point. You're making a claim.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #290]

Jesus is rebuking the dishonest practice of swearing by other things than God's name, so as not to foreswear ourselves with God Himself. He points out that no matter what we swear by, God is still the Judge. Hence, swearing by heaven includes God on His throne, by earth includes God on His footstool, by Jerusalem includes God the King, by our own head includes God the Creator...

Once again, the spirit of the law is being confirmed with the letter: Any oath we swear is unto God, and swearing by other things does not escape God's judgment, nor does it make our oaths any more or less important.

He's rebuking the practice of swearing....period. He says, "Swear not at all" (ὀμόσαι μὴ ὅλως), but say "yes" for yes and "no" for no. This draws a distinction between saying "yes" or "no" and swearing. 

Of course it does. It draws the great and important distinction between swearing an oath by a simple yea or nay to keep it, vs swearing with many words and not keeping it. It's not about the words used to make an oath, but about keeping it from the heart.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

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

This is in fact one of the closest examples offered of a 'grammatical' contradiction in the Bible, where the LORD says to swear oaths by His name, and then supposedly says not to swear an oath at all. However, relying on letters alone (ὀμόσαι μὴ ὅλως) fails, because it cuts off the grammatical rule of context.

If Jesus had simply commanded not to swear any oaths at all, so as to avoid forswearing ourselves, then that would disannul the law for swearing oaths. (The same as disannulling the law for divorce, if He had forbid any divorcing at all.) Both charges are false by cutting off context.

Num 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:...But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne...But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The context is swearing oaths, that are not kept, not about swearing oaths alone. The admonition is simple: It's better to swear not at all, than to swear and not do it. It's better not to make a promise at all, than to promise and not keep it. The words used to swear by, are not as important as keeping a promise and not forswearing ourselves.

The teaching on the actual words to swear by, is the simple wisdom of fewer the words, the better...Simply giving one's word and doing it, is better than many words of promise unkept. Promises, promises... Jesus is simply teaching that a man's word ought to be his bond. People using more words, does not make them more sure.

Ecc 5:7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

The simple fact is that Jesus cannot possibly be commanding to swear no oaths at all, because He ends with the simplest best words to swear by: Yea or nay.

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.

Any more words than these alone, can lead to oath breaking. Forswearing is usually preceded by much swearing... Keep it simple stupid...

Especially when they are high-sounding words of heaven, earth, and the name of a holy city. Like who cares?? Just do it already.

Jesus establishes the law of oath-making in Deut 6, to fear the LORD and swear by His name, by keeping the swearing to an absolute minimum.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #296]

This is in fact one of the closest examples offered of a 'grammatical' contradiction in the Bible, where the LORD says to swear oaths by His name, and then supposedly says not to swear an oath at all. However, relying on letters alone (ὀμόσαι μὴ ὅλως) fails, because it cuts off the grammatical rule of context.

We don't have to rely on "ὀμόσαι μὴ ὅλως" alone, because the command to say Yes for yes and No for no puts those words into context.

The context is swearing oaths, that are not kept, not about swearing oaths alone. The admonition is simple: It's better to swear not at all, than to swear and not do it. It's better not to make a promise at all, than to promise and not keep it.

He doesn't say, "It is better to swear not at all than to swear an oath and not keep it"; he says, "Swear not at all." You're putting words in his mouth because his own words create an inconsistency.

Keeping every oath you swear is the command in Numbers 30, so if that was what Jesus was saying, he could simply have let that commandment stand. Instead, he explicitly deviates from it with, "But I say to you, swear not at all".

The simple fact is that Jesus cannot possibly be commanding to swear no oaths at all, because He ends with the simplest best words to swear by: Yea or nay.

"Yea" and "nay" are not words used to swear by anything. As I mentioned earlier, swearing by something is invoking a higher authority or principle. Yea and Nay are simply statements of intention.

[RBD]

The simple fact is that Jesus cannot possibly be commanding to swear no oaths at all, because He ends with the simplest best words to swear by: Yea or nay.

"Yea" and "nay" are not words used to swear by anything. As I mentioned earlier, swearing by something is invoking a higher authority or principle. Yea and Nay are simply statements of intention.

I tried giving you a graceful out, but if this is the ditch you insist on digging, then so be it. You actually want to try and define 'swearing' as more than saying yea or nay? Swearing requires more words than one? Our word is only a statement of intent, not a bond?

Swearing to do or not do something must include more words than just yea or nay, as though more the words, then 'higher' the trust? The principle of a man's word is his bond, is less trustworthy? Well, for the untrustworthy, that's certainly true.

But so far as the LORD is concerned, our word is our sworn oath:

Num 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

The LORD's definition of 'swearing' is one word, not many. And Jesus says that one word is yea or nay. The Bible does not contradict itself in the matter of swearing oaths, but is the standard of honest character and principle, that "giving one's word and keeping it, is better than many words unkept".

It's also the Bible foundation of America's judicial and political system, so that 'swearing in' a witness is by our one word, yea or nay, to tell the whole truth, and taking an 'oath of office' is by our one word, yea or nay, to uphold the Constitution.

In order to find fault with Jesus Christ, not only is He accused of forbidding sworn oaths by letting our yea be yea, and our nay nay, but also the entire American foundation of swearing in and oath taking, by a simple yes or no, must likewise forbid swearing to tell the whole truth, and vowing to uphold the Constitution...

In any case, to them that say their word is only an intention, not a bond: "The world is full of people with good intentions, but an honest soul who can find?"

Ecc 5:7 For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.

The context of the Bible and admonition to let our yea be yea, and our nay be nay, pertaining to swearing oaths, is the simplicity of the wise and honest character: "The more words one uses to make a promise, the more promises are not kept."

In such cases of forswearing ourselves by a multitude of words and promises, the simple Bible solution is either to keep it to a simple yes or no, or to just make no promises at all: "The best way to keep one's word is not to give it."

The LORD Jesus Christ does not forswear Himself by making our word our sworn oath, by a simple yea or nay. His definition of 'swearing' an oath, is our word of yea or nay.

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.

Letting our yea be yea, is letting our yes be our sworn oath before God and man.

Letting our mouths run off with many high-sounding words of promise, is the fastest way to deceive the simple and forswear ourselves at the expense of others:

Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies;

Jde 1:16 Their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #298]

The LORD's definition of 'swearing' is one word, not many. And Jesus says that one word is yea or nay.

Think about this. Think very carefully about this.

When Jesus tells his followers to let their Yea mean yea and their Nay mean nay-----right after explicitly telling them to "swear not at all", how can he be telling them that saying "yea" or "nay" is swearing?

If "the LORD's definition of 'swearing' is one word, not many", why does Jesus define "swearing" as swearing "by heaven", "by earth", "by Jerusalem" and "by your head"? Those all go beyond one word.

And if, after condemning all those forms of swearing, Jesus accepts swearing by Jehovah's name as Deuteronomy instructs, why does he conclude by saying that anything more than Yea or Nay "comes of evil" when even swearing by someone's name is saying more than Yea or Nay?

Even in trying to get Jesus out of contradicting Moses, you still have him contradicting himself.


Edit:

It's also the Bible foundation of America's judicial and political system

The US judicial and political systems actually have their roots in Roman law, not in biblical law.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #298]

The LORD's definition of 'swearing' is one word, not many. And Jesus says that one word is yea or nay.

Think about this. Think very carefully about this.

When Jesus tells his followers to let their Yea mean yea and their Nay mean nay-----right after explicitly telling them to "swear not at all", how can he be telling them that saying "yea" or "nay" is swearing?

Because he explicitly says to swear not at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, etc...but only by yea and nay. He confirms the LORD's definition of oath swearing by one's word, not by many words of heaven and earth. Let your yea or nay be your word of oath.

When trying to show grammatical contradiction, the words must include their context, otherwise any author can appear to contradict himself at one time or another. Such as, Jesus saying to do not alms in Matthew 6, and then saying to give alms in Luke 11. It's the same childishly superficial accusation that the Bible contradicts itself, when the LORD says to swear by His name, and then Jesus says to swear not at all...

If "the LORD's definition of 'swearing' is one word, not many", why does Jesus define "swearing" as swearing "by heaven", "by earth", "by Jerusalem" and "by your head"? Those all go beyond one word.

Jesus defines false swearing as swearing by other words, than our own word of yes or no. Forswearing begins with more words to swear by, than our own yes or no alone...

And if, after condemning all those forms of swearing,

Which is why he condemns all such vain swearing.

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.

Any other form of oath swearing than yea or nay, only leads to forsworn condemnation of not performing it.

Jesus accepts swearing by Jehovah's name as Deuteronomy instructs, why does he conclude by saying that anything more than Yea or Nay "comes of evil" when even swearing by someone's name is saying more than Yea or Nay?

Because the LORD already confirms swearing by His name is by our word alone, which word Jesus sensibly says must be our yes or no. A formula of words does not make any oath higher in worth, nor stronger in performance.

It's the great instruction of the Bible, that all the wise and faithful consent to: It's the heart that performs the deed, not the abundance of words.

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

It's the double-hearted untrustworthy that trust in many words formulated to impress the hearers, and perhaps even seek to convince ourselves, that we will actually do what we are promising to do. It's the whole hearted and trustworthy that simply give their word as their bond, by a simple yes or no, and then do it.

Forswearing begins with much swearing. Doing it begins with yea and nay.

Even in trying to get Jesus out of contradicting Moses, you still have him contradicting himself.

The only way for Jesus to contradict Himself, when He admonishes us not to swear by any other oath, than by our own yes or no, is if He ever does swear an oath by other than His own yes or no.

There is no record of that in the Bible.

It's also the Bible foundation of America's judicial and political system

The US judicial and political systems actually have their roots in Roman law, not in biblical law.

Right. That's why all swearing in and oath of office by yes or no, is upon the book of Roman law, and not the Bible...

In any case, the American judicial and political system is based upon the teaching of Jesus, that swearing an oath ought be by yea or nay, not by other high-sounding words with low expectations...

2Co 3:12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

"Deeds speak louder than words..."