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 #551]

The sun not standing still does not contradict the Bible record of the sun standing still at that battleground. It would only contradict the Bible, if the sun were not standing still at that time and place.

The sun standing still without the natural consequences, does contradict presently known natural law. But then, the Creator and Maker of all natural things, in the Bible records can temporarily altar natural events and their consequences. Including ending this known natural universe by sudden melting fire and fervent heat. (2 Peter 3)

This is the classic "miracle" defense — an omnipotent God can do anything, so external science doesn't constrain biblical claims.

You've misquoted. Natural science does not constrain Bible claims, but rather spiritual things are not explained nor governed by natural things.

The record itself does not prove such supernatural things to anyone not seeing nor believing. Without seeing, they remain recorded eyewitness testimony of such things.

That is where Bible inerrancy in the provable natural things, allows for reasonable belief in the naturally unprovable things.

Heb{11:1}
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The evidence of the recorded things not seen in the Bible, is the inerrancy of all the recorded things that can be seen: I.e. The natural recorded facts and the unerring words between them.

Bible inerrancy produces intelligent faith in all things written therein, not just 'blind' faith. It's only those that declare all such things in the Bible cannot possibly be intelligently believed, yet cannot reasonably prove any errancy themselves, that are the 'blind' disbelievers: Either by committed fault-finding and/or by committed faith in only natural things and themselves.

The sun standing still for hours, the Red Sea and Jordan parting to walk on dry ground, the resurrection of the dead, etc...do not need to be proven to the skeptic, but only reasonably argued by the faultlessness of the recorded Book.

And for them that won't be persuaded toward any such faith in the all-powerful creating Spirit of God and life, then no amount of infallible proofs of inerrancy will do so: He that is unbelieving, let him be unbelieving still.

Rom 10:16
But 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;

Rev 22:10
And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.


My faith in the unseen things recorded in the Bible, is not just by personal experience nor desire, but is ground in one sure thing: Bible inerrancy. That is physical proof of the one perfectly intelligent and true God: Authoring the one perfectly unerring Book on earth, written by many men over much time without any flaw between them.

As Jesus would say, either believe the truth of the Bible God, or believe Him for His Book's sake:

Jhn 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #561]

The Ethiopian church exists. Their Bible is different. Your "one perfectly unerring Book" is a Western artifact, not a universal given.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #551]

You either overlook or dismiss the added context unique to the Bible: It's not written by one writer, nor at one time, nor in one place, but rather by many writers over thousands of years from many places. The possibility of all the writers being perfectly united without internal error, makes their untied claim of writing for the same perfect God and Christ, more believable than any other book written by one writer in one lifetime.

What I do see is that readers themselves do not agree with this collection of writings

So do I. But I've never seen any disagreement in those writings.

You got one? Or, do you just go by what others do.

which points to the probability that the writers would have also disagreed with each other had they known one another.

Your previous cop out is common enough, but this accusation is uniquely uneducated. Since when does the writer become at fault, because readers don't all agree about his writings? Or, two writers or more of the same authored book? People don't agree about what they write, and so they must not agree between them? And yet, no disagreement is found in the writings.

It's also spitefully disdainful of those Bible writers, by speaking of them as unlearned children playing at writing skills. Those writers penned the words in their own blood, to have them read by others for their own good. And not just the original writers, but also latter translators of their blood-bought words.

All the words of the Bible are written in red, not just those recorded of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #561]

The Ethiopian church exists. Their Bible is different. Your "one perfectly unerring Book" is a Western artifact, not a universal given.

The Bible of God's Scriptures are in such books, that include non-Scriptural prophecy, letters, and apocrypha.

So long as they don't contradict Bible commandment, doctrine, and prophecy, then they are interesting, but not bound to be believed nor obeyed as God's words.

You see, it's really not hard to know the difference, because those authors themselves never claim to be writing Scriptures of God, not like the prophets and apostles of God and Jesus Christ.

Gen 15:1
After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Jer 1:11
Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou?

Is 66:5
Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word;

Mar 1:1
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Eph 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

And the books of liars, that say they are writing Scriptures of God, such as Muhammed and Smith, are equally easy to know the difference, since they do contradict the Bible Scriptures of God.

And so, it's not as hard as some people want to make it, to know the difference between the Bible God's Scriptures, and other writings and books.

The real question is why do some people act like the Bible of Scriptures isn't commonly known? And want to make it so questionable? There are plenty of unbelievers, who can acknowledge the Bible is from Genesis to Revelation. I mean, who reading the Bible doesn't know that? And that there are some people claiming other writings and books 'ought' be included. But still...

Perhaps it's not really a matter of those Bible miracles and such being made so questionable, but rather those Bible commandments to keep? And questioning whether the Bible God will keep His word to judge all people by them, after the grave...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #549]

No Bible witnesses writing their accounts, conflict with each other. Therefore, all can be accepted as true.

This is simply a naked assertion which ignores evidence to the contrary.

This is simply a naked assertion which ignores evidence to the contrary.

I.e. Naked assertions are naked without the evidence.

Still waiting.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #549]

In J. Smith's book, the 'witnesses' are not writing for themselves, but their witness is all written by one person, J Smith. Therefore, if the one writer is proven false, then all are false.

In 1 Corinthians 15:6, the "witnesses" are not writing for themselves, but their witness is all written by one person, Paul of Tarsus. Therefore, if the one writer is proven false, then all are false.

Correct for the book of I Corinthians. And, we can add correct for any other book of the Bible, if Paul is proven false, then all writers are false.

That's why the words of the Bible are one word, that if any words fail, then all the word of the Lord fails. And if anyone adds or takes away from any of the Bible words, then the liar fails to show any error therein.

Still waiting.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #564]

On "I've never seen any disagreement in those writings":
That simply means you've already resolved every apparent contradiction through interpretation. The disagreement isn't in the text - it's between readers who don't accept your resolutions. You've defined "disagreement" as "what I can't explain away," which makes the claim unfalsifiable.

On "you got one?":
Sure. Matthew's genealogy (1:1-17) traces Jesus through David's son Solomon. Luke's (3:23-38) traces through David's son Nathan. They name different fathers for Joseph. Both claim to be the genealogy of Jesus. That's a disagreement in the writings. You'll have a harmonization (Levirate marriage, one is Mary's line, etc.) - but the fact you need a harmonization proves the surface disagreement exists.
Your inerrancy requires interpretive rescue.


On "uneducated" and "spitefully disdainful":
Ad hominem. Disagreeing with your conclusion about the writers' unity isn't disdain for their suffering. Many ancient texts were written with sincerity and sacrifice. Sincerity isn't inerrancy.

On "all the words of the Bible are written in red":
A poetic sentiment, not an argument. That would be like saying "God said do this" but "Jesus didn't" (working on the Sabbath) is all good and inerrant because of interpretive rescue.

You asked for a disagreement. I gave you one. Your harmonizations don't erase the text - they just prove you need them. That's not inerrancy. That's interpretation doing all the heavy lifting.

How do you know which self-claims are genuine? Enoch does claim divine revelation. The Ethiopian church accepts that claim as authentic. RBD rejects it. On what basis? His only answer is "it's not in my canon" — which is circular. His canon tells him which self-claims count. But the canon itself is the thing in question.
The Ethiopian challenge still stands, just on different grounds: not "contradiction vs. orthodoxy," but "why trust your canon's boundary-setting over theirs?

Re the Ethiopia there are teachings From Jesus between his resurrection and ascension that are missing from the Western cannons.
The Ethiopian Orthodox tradition includes the Te'amre Iyasus (Miracles of Jesus) and other texts that contain sayings and teachings of Jesus between the resurrection and ascension - a period the Western canon barely touches (Acts 1:3 mentions it but records almost nothing said).

Why this matters re your framework:

Your test #1 (author must claim divine authority) - These Ethiopian texts claim to record Jesus' own post-resurrection teachings. That's a stronger claim than most New Testament books make. Paul claims apostleship; these claim Jesus speaking directly.

Your test #2 (no contradiction) - These teachings don't obviously contradict core doctrine. They expand, but don't undermine. So by your own two tests, they'd qualify.

Any reason for you rejecting them - would not be the tests. It would be they're not in your choice of canon. The Western tradition rejected these texts centuries ago. You have inherited that rejection, not discovered it through any tests.

The deeper problem: The Western canon itself doesn't claim completeness. John 21:25 says Jesus did "many other things" not written. So why assume the 27-book New Testament contains all authoritative apostolic or resurrection teaching? The Ethiopian tradition simply claims to have preserved some of those "many other things."

You said the only way to prove God is to prove the Bible inerrant. But you can't even prove which Bible - which canon - is the inerrant one without circular reasoning. Your proof collapses before it starts.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #566]

You claim that if any part of the Bible is proven false, then the entire "word of the Lord" fails. This is a false dichotomy.

1. Lies and truth can coexist in the same document.

A text can contain both errors and accurate information. A historian can be wrong about a date but right about an event. A letter can express genuine love while misremembering a detail. A con artist tells nine truths to set up one lie. There is no logical necessity that an error in one part invalidates every other part.

2. The Bible itself never makes your "all or nothing" claim.

Where does Scripture say "if any word fails, then all the word of the Lord fails"? You've imported this premise from your own theology, not from the text. Paul argued with Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) - he clearly thought a fellow apostle could be wrong without collapsing the entire faith.

3. Your chain metaphor is the wrong model.

A chain breaks when one link fails. But a library doesn't collapse because one book contains an error. A net doesn't unravel because one knot is loose. The Bible is a collection of many texts by many authors over many centuries. Treating it as a single indivisible unit is a choice, not a necessity.

4. Your position is unfalsifiable by design.

If no single error can disprove the whole, then you've insulated the entire collection from any possible counter-evidence. That's not proof. That's a refusal to engage with evidence.

5. The burden is on you to justify the binary.

Why must it be all divine or all human? Why can't a text contain both human error and genuine spiritual insight? You've asserted the dichotomy. You haven't argued for it.

Until you justify your all-or-nothing premise, your claim that "if any words fail, then all the word fails" is just an assertion - not an argument.

[OneJack]

You/I/We/They can only be spiritually alive by coming to the Lord Jesus, calling on Him, and listening to Him when He responds.

No one transgressing the Lord's written commandments and disobeying His known will are coming, calling, listening to, nor obeying Him.

I'll no longer argue with your justification for disobedient transgressors.

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Especially where there are unbelievers, that know a self-justifying cop out, when they here it. Including when it's sweet-toothed with pretty sprinkles.

Rom 16:18
And by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2Ti 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

I already knew how to live ungodly before repenting for Jesus. I don't need nor want to hear how to live ungodly in the name of Christ.

Mat 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ today:

'I said to a woman, 'What was the last sin you committed today?' The woman replied, 'I don't remember.' I said, 'You don't remember or you don't know the meaning of sin?' The woman answered, 'Forgive me, because I don't know the meaning of sin.'

Then I said to a rich person who was doing charitable works, 'What was the last sin you committed today?' The rich person replied, 'I haven't committed any sin because I've been busy with charitable works and doing good deeds.'

'You are ignorant of your sins. Your good deeds won't save you. Come, and I will teach you. Only your Lord can teach you the meaning of sin, especially since there are many errors and not included in the Bible.

For example, when it says "Thou shalt not kill," the word "not" means "should not do." But without your Lord teaching you, how will you know what's right or wrong? Unless you let go of the old, what you've learned on your own will not bring you the wisdom that comes from your Lord.

If you don't let go of the old, you'll remain ignorant of the meaning of sin because no one can teach you the meaning of these things except your Lord God. No amount of good deeds will save you unless you trust and dedicate your life to your Lord God, the Almighty."

[OneJack]

[Replying to RBD in post #560]

Mat 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Thus saith the Lord Jesus Christ today:

'I am the Pastor, I am the Good Pastor. Remember, no one else will teach you except Me. If you explain to one another, it's only according to your own will, according to your own thoughts. So remember, anyone who stands as a pastor, who stands as a leader of My church, is working iniquity and stealing My place as the Good Pastor. Because you are only human, you who are pastors, you who teach and stand before people, you who work iniquity, you who cast out demons in My name, remember that when I return, many will call out to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we do mighty works and cast out demons in Your name, didn't we heal?' But remember, I will say to them, 'I never knew you, I never recognized you, you who work iniquity, you who cast out demons.' Remember, when you cast out demons, you're taking away the role that belongs to Me. If you encounter someone possessed by a demon, just pray to Me, and I am ready to hear your prayer and will listen to every complaint you whisper to Me, every cry you make, every prayer you offer. I will help you and never abandon you, especially those who are Mine and follow Me.'