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 #539]

In courts of law, eyewitness testimony is firsthand evidence, and 2 or 3 eyewitness testimonies confirms the firsthand evidence.

Eyewitnesses can be cross-examined. If their eyewitness testimonies conflict, then there's something wrong.

Skeptics can resist one eyewitness, but only disbelievers dismiss 2 or 3 eyewitnesses of the same thing.

Then I assume that you don't dismiss Joseph Smith's eleven witnesses.

So many people seeking to find fault with Bible consistency, proves the importance of Bible consistency to accept as direct evidence.

Then the same might be said of accepting the Book of Mormon as direct evidence.

[OneJack]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written.

Gen. 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This verse is wrong in its final clause [shaded in red] - ‘for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Adam did not die, so was Eve, on the day after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, neither is the Bible inerrant, nor perfectly written, as RBD claimed.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written.

Gen. 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This verse is wrong in its final clause [shaded in red] - ‘for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Adam did not die, so was Eve, on the day after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, neither is the Bible inerrant, nor perfectly written, as RBD claimed.

Is that a contradiction? What happened that day? The God ceased communicating with Adam. Never did again. Perhaps that is what is meant. A human without the God is surely dead.

Why use the word "surely" anyway? Why not "you will die"?

If "die" can mean spiritual separation rather than physical death, then any apparent contradiction can be resolved by adjusting interpretation. This makes the claim of "no contradictions" unfalsifiable - because for any discrepancy, one can always propose a non-literal or figurative reading.

Thus, the argument for God via biblical inerrancy collapses into an argument about which interpretive rules are valid. And those rules themselves come from prior theological commitments, not from the text alone. So the proof becomes circular: the Bible is inerrant because we interpret it in a way that makes it so.

Thus, one cannot prove God by proving the Bible. Even if one could prove the Bible is internally consistent (no contradictions), that would only prove internal consistency - not divine origin. A perfectly consistent work of fiction is still fiction.

What counts as a contradiction depends entirely on the hermeneutic rules applied. Since those rules are chosen by the reader, not dictated by the text, any "proof" of inerrancy is really just proof of one's interpretive commitments.
Proving the Bible does not prove God. It only proves the Bible (as interpreted). The two claims remain logically separate.

[William]

Even if we were to grant that there are no things in the bible which contradict other things in the bible - there are things outside of the bible which contradict things in the bible.

The sun standing still is one such thing...

So "Proving God by proving the Bible" isn't the same as proving God is aligned with the proof of nature. Bible does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in nature and is made of natural materials.

Proving a text has no contradictions only proves it is internally consistent - not that it is true, divinely inspired, or that its God exists. A perfectly consistent novel, legal code, or mythological system would pass the same test.

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #543]

Is that a contradiction?

Indeed, that is an absolute contradiction - the aftereffect was in paradox to reality. Adam and Eve were still alive after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But there was one thing that surely underwent a transition in their human nature after that disobedient act: they were no longer sinless, because they were clothed in sin right after eating the fruit. In the beginning, God created man with a spirit, and sinless in his human nature.

What happened that day? The God ceased communicating with Adam. Never did again.

What??????????? Were you with Adam and Eve on that very day and onwards, that you have witnessed them isolated in the presence and life-sharing moments with God until they departed from this world? In reality, God has always lived with mankind since the beginning and never ceases for even a bit of a second; the people are the ones who choose not to draw nigh to and communicate with God till this time, the reason why it took the Almighty God to send Himself to the world through the Son of God to draw the people nigh to Him, as in the beginning.

Perhaps that is what is meant. A human without the God is surely dead.

Your phrase, 'perhaps that is what is meant,' is nothing but your own opinion, in this case. God did not give the meaning of what He said in the way you thought it meant in actuality. You failed to bother yourself to come to God and ask Him for the truth behind the scenario in this issue of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The reason why too many doctrines flourish in the world of denominations is this blatant and bold act of everyone, in the denominational world, to interpret the bible on his/their own understanding, ignoring the presence of the Lord Jesus beside them, who is the only Good Shepherd and Teacher in His flock, across all generations.

Why use the word "surely" anyway? Why not "you will die"?

If "die" can mean spiritual separation rather than physical death, then any apparent contradiction can be resolved by adjusting interpretation. This makes the claim of "no contradictions" unfalsifiable - because for any discrepancy, one can always propose a non-literal or figurative reading.

What 'spiritual separation' are you trying to 'point out' in this scenario when the act was committed here on earth, not in heaven? Don't you realize that both Adam and Eve were still in flesh when they disobeyed God? You're not the Almighty to impose 'adjusting interpretation' so that 'no contradictions,' per se, reside in the bible. Learn to approach the Lord for the truth behind biblical verses so that you may not put your own words as an 'option' to what is written in the passage/s.

Thus, the argument for God via biblical inerrancy collapses into an argument about which interpretive rules are valid. And those rules themselves come from prior theological commitments, not from the text alone. So the proof becomes circular: the Bible is inerrant because we interpret it in a way that makes it so.

Two things: 1) God is not the bible, and vice versa, for you to make an argument for God via biblical inerrancy. We all can know God by and through Himself (God) alone, real and forever living. 2) The bible is not inerrant, and it does not interpret itself; you, me, and they are the ones who interpret the bible in a forum like this one - Debating Christianity Forum.

Thus, one cannot prove God by proving the Bible. Even if one could prove the Bible is internally consistent (no contradictions), that would only prove internal consistency - not divine origin. A perfectly consistent work of fiction is still fiction.

Fine!

What counts as a contradiction depends entirely on the hermeneutic rules applied. Since those rules are chosen by the reader, not dictated by the text, any "proof" of inerrancy is really just proof of one's interpretive commitments.
Proving the Bible does not prove God. It only proves the Bible (as interpreted). The two claims remain logically separate.

And, worse, it adds up to nothing for the benefit of our souls.

[William]

viewtopic.php?p=1136343#p1136343

(/Å\) Think outside the box

AI: This appears to be a transcript of a channeled or meditative dialogue, written in a poetic, philosophical style, between a user identified as “Medium (Entity)” and “The Voice of Christ.”

Here is a summary of the key ideas presented:

Core Argument:
The dialogue challenges why the Bible is granted “special rules” or privileged treatment when evaluating spiritual truth, arguing that direct, personal, internal experience should be equally valid.

Main Points:

Rejection of External Evidence: When asked for a video or observable proof of the “Voice of Christ” (referred to as “Old Soul”), the response is that no such evidence is needed. Subjective, personal experience and observing the world are considered sufficient.

Mutual Inner Communion: The “hearing” between the medium and the divine voice is described as mutual and internal—minds correlating into “Mind.” Comfort is found in this inner communion, not in external validation.

Collective Inner Hearing: The text suggests that if enough individuals “hear” this inner voice, change can happen. A metaphor is used: “10,000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope.”

Distinction Between Soul and Personality: A key theological claim is that the soul (as an aspect of an unchangeable God/YHVH) is an “independent helper” to the changing personality. Trusting only one’s own personality/conscience is unreliable (citing Bob Dylan’s lyrics), but trusting the inner voice of the soul/Christ allows for genuine change and guidance.

Overall Theme:
The passage argues for replacing external, Bible-centered authority with internal, direct, and communal spiritual experience—essentially answering the opening question (”Why give the Bible special rules?”) by asserting that personal, subjective communion with the divine is a sufficient and valid alternative.

Me: So, something which aligns with the idea and practice of Spiritual Science. The Science of Spirituality…
(SOURCE)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #538]

Are you referring to any "unerring agreement" in particular?

All of them. The whole Book. Ex:

Gen 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Heb 4:4
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

I don't see how a handful of verses establishes unerring agreement through the whole book.

Since you seem confused about what agreement means, verses erring contradiction,I give a simple example of three simple verses separated throughout the Book,that still agree from beginning to end.

I say any and all Scriptures quoted about the samething,will also agree from first to last.

Rev 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hebrews{13:8}
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #538]

Are you referring to any "unerring agreement" in particular?

All of them. The whole Book. Ex:

Gen 2:2
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exo 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Heb 4:4
For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

I don't see how a handful of verses establishes unerring agreement through the whole book.

Since you seem confused about what agreement means, verses erring contradiction, I give a simple example of three different verses separated throughout the Book, that still agree from beginning to end.

I say any and all Scriptures quoted about the same thing,will also agree from first to last.

Rev 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Hebrews{13:8}
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #539]

In courts of law, eyewitness testimony is firsthand evidence, and 2 or 3 eyewitness testimonies confirms the firsthand evidence.

Eyewitnesses can be cross-examined. If their eyewitness testimonies conflict, then there's something wrong.

One or both are false.

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

Skeptics can resist one eyewitness, but only disbelievers dismiss 2 or 3 eyewitnesses of the same thing.

Then I assume that you don't dismiss Joseph Smith's eleven witnesses.

Then you keep forgetting, or more likely dismissing, the standard of eyewitness testimony: No contradictions.

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.

Smith contradicts himself and the Bible, when he says he is writing another testament of Jesus Christ. While the Bible says that's a lie:

Gal 1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Including J. Smith and the lying angel he rode in on...

Rev 6:1
And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth deceiving, and to deceive.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written.

Gen. 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This verse is wrong in its final clause [shaded in red] - ‘for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ Adam did not die, so was Eve, on the day after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

Ignorance and/or disbelief in the spiritual teaching of the Book, is no excuse for not accounting for it.

Ezek 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Col 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

The Bible is the doctrine of the Spirit of God. Separating the record from the doctrine, is separating Scripture from context of Scripture, in order to find fault, that is not there.

There are plenty of spiritually dead sinners, that at least understand the spiritual teaching of a soul being dead by by doing evil. Indeed, the world speaks of the evil-doers as being dead 'on the inside'...

And it's too obvious to rule out spiritual death of the soul in that same day, since the Bible later records Adam's physical death about 900 years after eating the fruit.

I.e. you're not a serious person in this flimsy charge of Bible errancy. I was hoping for something with the challenge.