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 #26]

I am saying the Bible proves God is, and He is the God of the Bible.

Isn't that a circular argument? Couldn't it just as easily follow that the Upanishads prove that the Hindu deities are, and that they are the deities of the Upanishads?

Are the Unpanishads in one book without contradiction? And the deities say who they are? If not, then they are not the God Authoring one Book speaking for Himself.

It's not about which books men write about their deities, but about one Book written by God Himself to reveal Himself to man on earth.

If the God of the Bible is not God, then we must needs be our own gods on earth, and the next life is unknown.

That's a false dilemma----Bible God or no God. There could still be Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Osiris, the Mother Goddess, the Tao, a Deistic creator.....the possibilities abound.

The Bible says I am God and there are no other gods beside me. I challenge anyone to find any grammatical contradiction in the Book, and if not, then the God's declaration cannot be dismissed as impossible to believe.

The challenge is against the active disbelievers, who declare anyone an ignorant and unintelligent fool for possibly believing all His words.

And as some have said, if God did come in the flesh, He would ceratinly have to be like Jesus Christ.

Why not like the Buddha?

I've heard this, and in this case if God did write His own Book, He certainly would have written the Bible.

Did Buddah write his own book? Does he claim to be God come in the flesh? Does he say he will be there to meet us after the grave? Once again, it's not just about books of men and great imaginations, spiritualism, and religions for this life, but about the God that all of us will meet after this life.

A more accurate example beside God and the Bible would be Allah in the Koran. However, he discounts himself by contradiction. He first claims to be the God of the Bible, and then calls His Son a liar by calling Himself the Son of God. The God of the Bible can be the true and perfect God, but not Allah.

Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 4:36 pm[Replying to RBD in post #26]

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #26]

I am saying the Bible proves God is, and He is the God of the Bible.

Isn't that a circular argument? Couldn't it just as easily follow that the Upanishads prove that the Hindu deities are, and that they are the deities of the Upanishads?

Are the Unpanishads in one book without contradiction? And the deities say who they are? If not, then they are not the God Authoring one Book speaking for Himself.

It's not about which books men write about their deities, but about one Book written by God Himself to reveal Himself to man on earth.

If the God of the Bible is not God, then we must needs be our own gods on earth, and the next life is unknown.

That's a false dilemma----Bible God or no God. There could still be Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Osiris, the Mother Goddess, the Tao, a Deistic creator.....the possibilities abound.

The Bible says I am God and there are no other gods beside me. I challenge anyone to find any grammatical contradiction in the Book, and if not, then the God's declaration cannot be dismissed as impossible to believe.

The challenge is against the active disbelievers, who declare anyone an ignorant and unintelligent fool for possibly believing all His words.

And as some have said, if God did come in the flesh, He would ceratinly have to be like Jesus Christ.

Why not like the Buddha?

I've heard this, and in this case if God did write His own Book, He certainly would have written the Bible.

Did Buddah write his own book? Does he claim to be God come in the flesh? Does he say he will be there to meet us after the grave? Once again, it's not just about books of men and great imaginations, spiritualism, and religions for this life, but about the God that all of us will meet after this life.

A more accurate example beside God and the Bible would be Allah in the Koran. However, he discounts himself by contradiction. He first claims to be the God of the Bible, and then calls His Son a liar by calling Himself the Son of God. The God of the Bible can be the true and perfect God, but not Allah.

[RBD]

First, thank you for clarifying (at least if I got you right and I apologize if I misunderstood you and would welcome correction). You are saying that there is no evidence that disproving that God exists, or that the God, as described in the Bible, is a false description of that God.

Has anyone tried to prove God cannot exist?

But, second, I think you are making a leap of blind faith to then say, therefore, the Bible is true in all it teaches (although I agree with your conclusion). Your logic would lead to if Tolkien believed and claimed his works to be historical record to consider it true.

Not by blind faith, but by physical evidence of His Book, that the Author of the Bible can indeed be the God of heaven and earth, even as He claims to be. No one has to believe Him, but because of the Bible no one can intelligently dismiss Him.

Logically it's not the same with Tolkien, because he never claimed it. Logical conclusions of fact are not based upon hypoctheticals alone.

Third, I think you are using more than the Bible to come to this conclusion; you are doing philosophy, just like the natural theologist (and the materialist and the Hindu, and the Buddhist, and everyone that has ever existed).

You'll have to clarify and show the philosophy. Logical objective analysis and critique of a book, is not philosophic, but rather an intelligent book review.

The alternative of natural theology is not to try to compel anyone to believe anything, but to bring us to a reasoned faith (which is better than a blind faith and is, I think, the Biblical idea of putting our faith in Jesus).

Which is exactly what the physical challenge of the Book does. No one can be compelled to believe anything, but intelligent and reasonable people must acknowledge, when something inerrant must at least be possibly true.

We're not talking about such a hypothetical book being possible, but about that Book now on earth, that makes whole hearted faith in God not only possible, but entirely reasonable. That's why the Author wrote the Book, so that faith in Him is by light of reason, not by blindness. Which is also why that Author never even speaks of blind faith, much less promotes it, and even condemns being blind in darkness.

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.

The same is certainly for His Book's sake, which also is the handiwork of God on earth, even as the stars in heaven. And in fact, the Bible is greater proof than the stars, because God while they show His power and glory, He did not guide them to write of Himself. And long after these stars are gone, the words written by the hands of men of God will remain forever:

Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The Bible is the spearhead for natural theology, and continues beyond this natural world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #61]

Are the Unpanishads in one book without contradiction? And the deities say who they are? If not, then they are not the God Authoring one Book speaking for Himself.

It's not about which books men write about their deities, but about one Book written by God Himself to reveal Himself to man on earth.

The Bible itself isn't one book. It's a collection of books written by many authors across many eras.

I challenge anyone to find any grammatical contradiction in the Book

Since you are taking Christian scripture to be an extension of Jewish scripture, this would be a good place to start:
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

The Bible is the spearhead for natural theology, and continues beyond this natural world.

I have to admit that it bugs me a bit when Christians try to claim natural theology as if it were a Christian denomination. Christianity claims to be revealed. Deism is an example of natural theology.

[RBD]

This is a fair point, if we are talking about any proof or disproof available about God. (I've never heard anyone try to disprove God?) However, that is not the case here. This is a specific challenge and gauntlet of the Bible, that the God of the Bible is physically proven by His own Book. Either the Author is true by inerrancy, or proven false by errors.

Physically proven? Please lay out a case for that.

The Bible is physical evidence in pen and paper, of an Author claiming to be God Almighty and Creator. The evidence that it is inerrant proves that He can be believed. No freewill person has to believe Him, but only a person creating errancy that is not there, would declare He can't be believed.

Please also show how God = Author here, especially when you claim:

It also means there is one Author,

By inerrancy, we must agree all the words can be true as written, which includes the Author's declarations about Himself. It does not mean any person must choose to believe them as written, because we all have freewill to choose to believe things for ourselves. It's not an exercise in proselytization, but rather of rational intelligent choice. It is however a self-evident rebuke to the wilful disbelieves that accuse believers of unintelligble blind faith.

The argument for one Author is necessary; otherwise, the many authors must all be acknowledged as inerrantly flawless authors, that unerringly write independently of one another over thousands of years. But then, they would all be guilty of lying, when they all declare it is one Author, even God Himself:

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:20 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The conclusion is primarily that all the words can be intelligently believed, but that faith must be in the one Author and God writing by the hands of men, or be reduced to idolizing the separate writers that are proven liars.

By inerrancy, the Bible certainly can be believed as written, and have faith in the one true God and Creator of heaven or earth, or promote foolish idolatry of self-confesssed liars.

Muhammed is ruled out as a true prophet of the one true God, and writing for Him by the name of Allah. He does contradict himself by then calliing that God of the Bible a liar, when He honors Jesus Christ as His only begotten and beloved Son.

Mat 3:17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

The analytical challenge is that the Bible itself is the physical evidence, that the Author of the Book is God by His inerrancy. Therefore, it is reasonable for anyone to believe He is God as He says.

That is indeed a circular argument ("the God of the Bible is God because the Bible says that he says so").

The argument is that it is reasonable to believe the Bible, due to it's inerrancy. It is therefore unreasonable to say it's unreasonable to do so, as though only the ignorant would believe. It's inerrancy says only the willfully ignorant say it's not rational to believe it.

The argument is not to compel anyone to believe the Book, just because it's inerrant. That's not possible with freewill people, who can choose to believe the truth or a lie according to their own will.

Likewise by the Book's inerrancy, it is therefore unreasonable for anyone to declare it impossible to believe any or all the words of the Bible.

You're assuming the book's inerrancy.

Not true. Bible inerrancy was proven to me by reading it objectively with the same standard of literary analysis and critique, that I apply to any book on earth. You're free to join the analytical challenge and try prove otherwise.

It's not by chance that much more time is spent over the errancy of the Bible, than any other book in history. So far as I know, there aren't any books written to prove errancy in those other books.

That's probably because not many other books have been used in such a fervent effort to convert the entire world.

No other book tries to convert anyone, because no other book says our souls depend on it in this life and beyond the grave. Other than the Koran. And Muhammed is proven false by his own self-contradiction of claiming to speak for the God of the Bible, renamed Allah, and then calls that same God a liar by declaring Jesus Christ to be His only begotten and beloved Son on earth.

Mat 3:17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye him.

I notice you don't include Satanists nor druidism in your list. That's the problem with unitarnianism. If any two opposing beliefs in God is acceptable, then all beliefs and gods must be accepted equally.

I had no intention of offering an exhaustive list; that's why I pointed out that the possibilities abound. And I wasn't suggesting unitarianism; any of those alternatives could be considered rather than the God of the Bible.

I only pointed out that you left out Satanists and Druidism. Which means to me that you believe they should not be considered.


I don't believe Untiarianists accept them into the world brotherhood of man. In your quest to seek alternatives, don't you believe they should be honestly considered?

And in critiquing the Bible, why would I include Satan as an alternative when he's a Bible character?

Because Satanists do. And they do so only because the Bible does acknowledge him as the god of this world, and that he seeks worship with powers promised for the bad, not the good.

Why not like the Buddha?

Once again, in this context, why not like Buddha, is because unlike the Author of the Bible, Buddha has no one book alone, that claims to be written by Buddha. A better question would be why not Moohammed or Joseph K. Smith.

The claim was that God in the flesh would certainly be like Jesus. There's no book claiming to be written by Jesus, so how is Buddha disqualified?

1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

If you're going to critique a book, you need to read it from front to cover first. And then search it thoroughly to make sure you're not contradicting it.

So, as I've said. The challenge here is to prove grammatical errancy in the Bible, not necessarily to debate other options.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #61]

Are the Unpanishads in one book without contradiction? And the deities say who they are? If not, then they are not the God Authoring one Book speaking for Himself.

It's not about which books men write about their deities, but about one Book written by God Himself to reveal Himself to man on earth.

The Bible itself isn't one book. It's a collection of books written by many authors across many eras.

Every time I pick it up to read it, it's one book. And everytime I read it, all the books, poems, letters, and prophecies agree it's one united book without contradiction. Which is why it's rationally possible that there is one unerring Author, and what He says about Himself is true: "I am the LORD God."

And His writers of the Book all agree it is one book:

Deu 30:10If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

Jhn 20:30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Rev 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

Rev 22:8And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell
down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Is there a Unpanishads book? Do all the writers speak of each other, quote each other, and agree with all things written by each other? Do any of the deities speak in them of themselves? I've asked you this before. Do you not know?

And it is all about the Bible being one Book of perfect unity without error, which is why it deserves faith, and does not deserve to be belittled as impossible to believe. Not by any rational intelligent person, anyway.

I challenge anyone to find any grammatical contradiction in the Book

Since you are taking Christian scripture to be an extension of Jewish scripture, this would be a good place to start:
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

It's not Jewish nor Christian Scripture, because no Scripture says it is. The Scriptures themselves written by Hebrews, Jews, and Christians are called Scriptures of truth, the holy Scriptures, and Scriptures given by God. This little correction about naming the words of the Book, is only another example of readers not treating the Bible as fairly as other books. Some people talk about it in a way that it never does.

If you want to pick anything from that website as a personal challenge from yourself, then I'll be glad to look at it. I can say that mistranslations has nothing to do with the Scriptures given themselves, but only has to do with arguments about how to translate them, which is a matter of linguistics. And many of those arguments have to do with personal interpretations of the original words, rather than strict linguistic integrity.

The point being, that those original words are still kept perfectly preserved as first written on earth. I give the Author the glory for ensuring it. Afterall, they are unerring in unity as one Book written by so many, over thousands of years.

Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

The Bible is the spearhead for natural theology, and continues beyond this natural world.

I have to admit that it bugs me a bit when Christians try to claim natural theology as if it were a Christian denomination. Christianity claims to be revealed. Deism is an example of natural theology.

I don't promote natural theology, because it assumes the false narrative that without it, there is only blind faith. The Author of the Bible doesn't even speak of blind faith alone, other than to say it's dead. Which is why I'm not a deist, nor is the Bible deism.

I only point out that any efforts of natural theology to prove the God of the Bible deserves faith, is that such physical proof is spearheaded by the Bible itself, and lasts beyond this natural world.

[RBD]

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

Once again, there is nothing in this link about the Bible grammatically contradicting itself. It is only another interpretation made to claim a contradiction. In this case, it's meant to separate the unerring OT as Scriptures of God, from what they want to believe is a NT written only by errant men.

And as always, there is error in the interpretation itself, so that it is what contradicts other parts of the Bible, not the words of the Bible itself.

Ex:

“For dogs have surrounded me; the assembly of the wicked have encircled me, they pierced my hands and feet.”
Missionaries use this passage to convince the unwitting Jew that right there in his own Tanach is an allusion to the crucifixion of Jesus! What the translators have done is take the phrase ילגרו ידי יראכ, which means, “Like a lion my hands and my feet,” and intentionally mistranslate יראכ to mean “pierced.” The word for pierced in Tanach is רקד. In misappropriating this word to conform to their agenda they have even extracted the letter א in order to read the word as if it were ירכ. Any cheder student knows that the word ירכ means, “to dig,” as we indeed find in (Exodus 21:33), and not “to pierce,”

Moreover, the astute student should express skepticism at being presented this verse as a messianic-type prophecy, for there is nothing to indicate in this chapter of Psalms that King David is relating anything more than his own travails as he is being pursued by his enemies.

Firstly, the whole argument is to claim the Hebrew word for dig cannot be for pierced; however, that does not prevent referring to the act elsewhere as piercing. When a knife is used to pierce a wound, it's called digging out a bullit. Secondly, the interpreter does what he accuses others, by taking the verse out of context. If David is only speaking of his own travails, then when did he and his enemies see all his bones?

Psa 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

And when was David's garment parted by them and his vesture cast by lots? Afterall, David defeated his enemies, while Jesus was nailed to a cross by his enemies.

With this so-called Jewish scholar, as with many active disbelievers in any words of the Book, he shows his blindness to his own manifest incompetence.

Job 5:13He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong.

[Diagoras]

The Bible is physical evidence in pen and paper, of an Author claiming to be God Almighty and Creator.

Evidence of a claim is not the same thing as proof.

The evidence that it is inerrant proves that He can be believed.

The logical fallacy here is that you haven’t proven inerrancy.

By inerrancy, we must agree all the words can be true as written, which includes the Author's declarations about Himself.

Same point applies.

Bible inerrancy was proven to me by reading it objectively with the same standard of literary analysis and critique, that I apply to any book on earth.

It doesn’t follow that one person’s literary standards proves anything about any book. I could easily substitute ‘errancy’ for ‘inerrancy’ in the quoted sentence and make the same claim about the Bible.

For example, Genesis mentions God creating the Sun and Moon as ‘two lights in the sky’. When I apply my standards of precision, clarity and scientific fact, the Bible comes up short.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #66]

Firstly, the whole argument is to claim the Hebrew word for dig cannot be for pierced; however, that does not prevent referring to the act elsewhere as piercing.

"In any case, this rendering contains two fallacies. First, assuming that the root of this Hebrew word is krh, "to dig," then the function of the 'aleph in the word ka-'ari is inexplicable since it is not part of the root. Karah consists only of the Hebrew letters kaph, resh, and he, whereas the word in the Hebrew text, ka-'ari, consists of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod. Second, the verb krh, "to dig," does not have the meaning "to pierce." Karah generally refers to the digging of the soil, and is never applied in the Scriptures to the piercing of the flesh (cf. Genesis 26:25; Exodus 21:33; Numbers 21:18; Jeremiah 18:20, 22; Psalms 7:16, 57:7). There are a number of words that are used in Hebrew for piercing the body: rats'a, "to pierce," "to bore with an awl" (Exodus 21:6); dakar, "to pierce" (Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 13:15); nakar, "to pierce," "to bore," "to perforate" (2 Kings 18:21). This last word is used in a very significant sense in the last verse cited: "It [the reed] will go into his hand and pierce it." Any of these words would be far better suited for use in this passage than one that is generally used to denote digging the soil."
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ike-a-lion


And in critiquing the Bible, why would I include Satan as an alternative when he's a Bible character?

Because Satanists do.

That's on them, not on me.

the interpreter does what he accuses others, by taking the verse out of context. If David is only speaking of his own travails, then when did he and his enemies see all his bones?

Psa 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

And when was David's garment parted by them and his vesture cast by lots? Afterall, David defeated his enemies, while Jesus was nailed to a cross by his enemies.

With this so-called Jewish scholar, as with many active disbelievers in any words of the Book, he shows his blindness to his own manifest incompetence.

"The metaphorical terminology used by the psalmist to express in physical terms his mental anguish is comparable to similar usage found in Jeremiah 23:9. There the prophet exclaims: 'My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine has overcome.'"
(ibid.)


I might add that the account of the soldiers dividing Jesus's garments was quite possibly added to provide an excuse for linking it back to the psalm.