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]

RBD wrote,
It was not until Moses, that the LORD made it known that Jehovah was His name, and not just a title.

Difflugia wrote,
There was a recent conversation about the difference between a title and a name in Hebrew. The Tetragrammation (rendered Yahweh, Jehovah, or the LORD) never has a definite article, ergo it's a proper name.

[RBD]

But remember, all that is needed to show there is no proven contradiction in something, is if there is any possible and reasonable explanation otherwise.

Usually, as in this case so far, all apologists need is an excuse.

And once again, the same can be said of seeking contradiction. All accusers need is an excuse made by personal interpretation alone, not by grammatical fact.

And the LORD has provided an abundances of excuses to do so, on purpose:

Job 5:13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness:


All such intepretive excuses can be shown to be poor excuses for interpretation, by more reasonable interpretations, that begin with not taking any words out of context.

[1213]

Otherwise, on what basis are you challenging the definition of a Greek word or the grammatical conventions for its use?

By what I know, the Greek word that you mentioned is: ἐκτήσατο = acquired. And it can be used, even if Judas acquired the field by a "broker". One example is obviously the Bible.

[Difflugia]

Would you agree that, καὶ ἐκτήσατο Ιωσηφ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τῷ Φαραω could be correctly understood as, καὶ Φαραω ἐκτήσατο πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων?

That's an interesting example, perhaps reminiscent of a general capturing a city through the use of his army. If you want to present your case, I might be persuaded. I'm not making your argument for you, though.

[Goose]

Would you agree that, καὶ ἐκτήσατο Ιωσηφ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τῷ Φαραω could be correctly understood as, καὶ Φαραω ἐκτήσατο πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων?

That's an interesting example, perhaps reminiscent of a general capturing a city through the use of his army. If you want to present your case, I might be persuaded. I'm not making your argument for you, though.

You said if 1213 were right, he should be able to find an example of a Greek writer using the word (ἐκτήσατο) the way he descibed. I provided an example. If you need references let me know. What I'm asking is, do you agree the latter is a correct understanding of the former?

[Difflugia]

You said if 1213 were right, he should be able to find an example of a Greek writer using the word (ἐκτήσατο) the way he descibed. I provided an example.

You asked me a question, but didn't make a claim about your example or how it applies to Acts 1:18. I normally wouldn't be that pedantic about form, but I've debated with you enough to know that one of your debate strategies is to attack my position while trying to avoid committing to one yourself. I've ground enough axes for you in the past that I'm confident you can grind your own this time.

If you have an argument to make, then make it. If you intend your question to be a claim, then I'm fine with you just rewriting it as a statement.

If you need references let me know.

I would have expected references without having to ask for them.

[Goose]

You said if 1213 were right, he should be able to find an example of a Greek writer using the word (ἐκτήσατο) the way he descibed. I provided an example.

You asked me a question, but didn't make a claim about your example or how it applies to Acts 1:18.

That’s correct. I asked you a question, twice. Three times a charm perhaps?

I normally wouldn't be that pedantic about form, but I've debated with you enough to know that one of your debate strategies is to attack my position while trying to avoid committing to one yourself.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. And I haven’t really attacked your position yet. I’ve mainly just asked a question.

I've ground enough axes for you in the past that I'm confident you can grind your own this time.

If you don’t like engaging with me, you are always free to ignore me. I won’t take it personally.

If you have an argument to make, then make it.

At this point I’m just trying to get you to answer a question. If you don’t want to answer it, just say so. Aside from that the argument at this point, if there is an argument, is that your challenge to 1213 appears to have been met.

If you intend your question to be a claim, then I'm fine with you just rewriting it as a statement.

The question is not intended to be a claim.

If you need references let me know.

I would have expected references without having to ask for them.

In fairness though, the references are irrelevant to the question itself. I could have made up both statements wholesale and the question would still stand. The former statement, however, is taken from Genesis 47:20.

καὶ ἐκτήσατο Ιωσηφ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων τῷ Φαραω· (LXX)

Most English versions render Genesis 47:20 something like:

And Joseph bought (ἐκτήσατο) all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh.

Do you agree that it would be a correct understanding of this statement in Genesis 47:20 to say something like:

καὶ Φαραω ἐκτήσατο πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων

Roughly translated as:

And Pharaoh bought all the land of Egypt.

Could one, for example, preach on Sunday and correctly make the latter statement? If not, why not?

[Difflugia]

If you have an argument to make, then make it.

At this point I’m just trying to get you to answer a question. If you don’t want to answer it, just say so. Aside from that the argument at this point, if there is an argument, is that your challenge to 1213 appears to have been met.

OK. Benefit of the doubt.

Do you agree that it would be a correct understanding of this statement in Genesis 47:20 to say something like:

καὶ Φαραω ἐκτήσατο πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων

Roughly translated as:

And Pharaoh bought all the land of Egypt.

Could one, for example, preach on Sunday and correctly make the latter statement? If not, why not?

I meant it when I said that example is interesting, specifically because it's between Joseph and Pharaoh. My answer would be, "probably not, but maybe."

I don't think a preacher would be able to make the second statement in Greek and have Greek speakers accurately understand. My caveat to that and where I get the "maybe" is specifically because Pharaoh is Pharaoh. As I said before, there are a number of examples of κτάομαι in the middle voice referring to sacking a city with the military leader as the subject. I haven't been able to tell if it's idiomatic specifically when used in military terms or if this reflects a broader sense that might reasonably be applied to a superior "using" a subordinate in order to accomplish something. It's actually something I've wondered about and spent some effort trying to figure out since I started looking at the passage in Acts. The arguent (with myself) about this hinges on two things.

First, some Greek lexicographers consider κτάομαι to be a deponent verb because it never appears with active voice endings. The question there is if there is an active sense to the verb that would be outside a meaning normally associated with the middle voice, but that still uses middle voice conjugation. Doing searches and spot-checking search results, the only ones I've found fit either the military sense that I mentioned above or the Joseph example that you found, where the subject gets something for somebody else, but never from someone else.

The second consideration is whether or not ancient Greek speakers would consider personal agency (in the sense of making a decision) enough to justify using the middle voice for the way they understood κτάομαι, even if someone else did the physical acquiring. Again, I haven't found anything where that seems to be the case aside from the sense of military action resulting in the taking of a city or spoils of war.

So the question is whether or not the military idioms represent a larger understanding in which Pharaoh qua Pharaoh may be said to acquire something for himself through the subjects of his sovereignty. I don't think so, but a few broader examples of the military sense might convince me. I've found no examples, though, where the middle voice is used to indicate that an individual acquired something on the behalf of the subject and, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, I've found a concrete example where the author implicitly contrasted a gift with something else that the recipient ἐκτήσατο for themselves.

As an aside, I've spent some effort asking ChatGPT to try to find examples of κτάομαι in the middle voice where someone acquires something through the action or agency of someone else. I seem to get two different kinds of answers. The first is where it agrees with what I've written here and tells me that it doesn't know of any such examples. The second is when it says that yes, it sometimes means that someone else does the acquiring, but then lies about the examples. It will give me examples in different tenses (perfect and pluperfect past tenses very often mean "had become an owner of") and tell me that these fit what I'm asking for. It's kind of bizarre.

[RBD]

Why the city raised afterward in that place, is no made known, but it certainly wasn't by any name Isaac gave his well.

Difflugia wrote,
It absolutely was. Genesis 26:33 says, "And he called it Shibah, therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day."

[RBD]

There is no contradiction. Before Ex 6 the LORD never gave Himself the name Jehovah to be known by. The patriarchs called Him by the title LORD, that were not exclusive to themselves. The title of LORD had been known by men since Adam in the garden.

It was not until Moses, that the LORD made it known that Jehovah was His name, and not just a title.

There was a recent conversation about the difference between a title and a name in Hebrew. The Tetragrammation (rendered Yahweh, Jehovah, or the LORD) never has a definite article, ergo it's a proper name.

And so, we see how interpretations and then definitions are needed to try and prove contradiction, since the words themselves do not grammatically contradict each other.

Gen 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Ex 6: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.


Neither grammatically contradicts the other. Gen 15 does not say, "I am the LORD that you now know me by name..." Nor does any writing of the Book say, "By my name was I known to Abraham, Isaac, and/or Jacob..."

Only grammatical contradictions prove error in the words themselves. Interpretive contradictions are based upon the reader's own mind, not by the writer's words alone.

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.

And the contradicting interpretation is made by breaking a primary prinicple of literary analysis and critique: Do not take words out of context, which changes their intent.

The context of Exodus is entirely different from all of Genesis: First, a man asks for the name of the LORD. And he does so for the specifric purpose of being sent by the LORD to make Him known to other people, first to the believers and also the unbelievers.

Exo 3:10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.


Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

Even as the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ were sent first to the Jews and also to the Gentiles, Moses was the first apostle of the LORD sent to others on earth by His name.

The LORD had already introduced Himself to Moses, the same as He had to Isaac and Jacob:

Gen 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.

Gen 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Exo 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.


If the LORD introducing Himself to Moses, even as He did to Isaac and Jacob, was making Himself known to them by His name, then Moses would not have then asked after His name, to take with him to Egypt. Here is where a contradiction is set up by interrpeting the words without context: the LORD making Himself known by His name, and then being asked for His name.

In Exodus, when Moses asked for the LORD's name, it was to fulfill a mission given him by the LORD with a message to others by His name. This was not the case of Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob, when He introduced Himself as the LORD God Almighty.

In all context of Scripture and practical affairs on earth, giving one's name to another, with the expiress purpose of sending them by their name to others, it is bestowing all the power, wealth, and authority of that person.

Moses was the first man recorded on earth in the Bible, that was sent to other people by the LORD's name to preach faith to His people and to give commandment to His enemies by His name:

Exo 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him. And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.

Exo 5:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.

The LORD being known to Moses by His name, is the LORD giving His name to Moses to carry to His own people and enemies alike, for the express purpose of making Himself known by His power and might:

Exo 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Exo 7:5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

This is an interpretation made by context that contradicts no words of the Bible elsewhere. It is not made by isolating words alone to themselves, in a manner that proposes to make a contradictory liar out of the Author.