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]

God proves Himself by the existence of the universe He created.

True.

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Rom 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We can also say the fact of men and women having hearts and minds to think, imagine, believe, make law, and speak a constructed language, is proof of being created in the image of our Creator. Men and women are not brute beasts of the field, that only do according to their natural spirit without choice nor words for it. The search for spoken words and languages among the animals is fruitless, because it's not there. Planet of the Apes is a good fictional movie.

I mispeak by saying that the Bible is the only physical evidence of God. More properly it is evidence that can be proven or disproven by it's perfection of unity, or by any errancy.

An objectively intelligent reading of the Bible cannot find any true fault in it, and therefore must conclude that there is one Person writing by the hands of many men over thousands of years.

Psa 45:1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

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.

[RBD]

Ok, thank you. Now, if we look what was actually said in Exodus 6:2-3, it does not mean Yahweh could not have used his name at some point. It says "by My name JEHOVAH I never made Myself known to them". That means, it is possible that he didn't make Himself known by that name. But, it can be that they later got also the name YHWH, after they already knew Him.

This is a possible stretch, and certainly true in that the LORD did not address Abraham personally, until long after being called our of Ur and settling in Canaan. The simple answer remains the same: There is no Scripture until Moses, where it says the LORD makes Himself known by His name Jehovah. And Scripture only does so twice:

Psa 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.


Afterward, He is always made known by His name Jesus.

Mat 1:21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

[RBD]

It is interesting that if you read Genesis 26:23, it says "And he went from there to Beersheba". So it was known the place is Beersheba (well of Shebah). So, apparently in this case, "called it Shebah" is not the same as "named it the well of Shebah", as you seem to think. And the city maybe be called The Well of Sheba because he called the area that, even if it was not him who named it originally.

Good work. Plainly Isaac did not call his well nor the place Beersheba, but was already known by him as Beesheba from his father. And just as obviously the people founding a city there, also called it Beersheba in honor of Abraham.

Gen 26:33 And he called it Shebah: on behalf of which the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.

The point is the that builders of the city name the city. Abraham certainly wasn't alive to name it. Nor is the founding of the city given to know that Isaac was alive.

[RBD]

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.

I disagree this is the only way. Are you familiar with the branch of Natural Theology?

I am not saying the Bible is the only physical proof that God is. I am saying the Bible is the only physical thing that is a matter of proof or disproof, rather than simple belief or unbelief, as it is with nature itself. No one needs to prove that nature works, nor does anyone think to disprove it.

That's an interesting approach but it seems to me proving there are no contradictions in the Bible wouldn't prove the existence of God

It does prove there is a God writing all the words through the hands of many men over thousands of years, and it has proven God to many seeking to disprove it. And, everyone seeking to disprove the Bible, have done so in order to disprove God.

anymore than proving there are contradictions in the Bible would prove the non existence of God.

Errors and faults in the Bible prove it's only written by men, and disproves the God of the Bible is the only true God as the Bible says.

The fact of the Bible being the subject of proof or disproof pertaining to the God of the Bible, proves the Bible is His own provable evidence on earth.

Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

This applies to the Bible written by God, as well as nature made by the same God.

[Bible_Student]

The Bible doesn't claim inerrancy for itself.

Jesus does claim the Bible is inerrant:

 Jesus answered them:
“Is it not written in your Law ...?
35 ... the scripture cannot be nullified".

John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

For a person who considers the Bible as a book inspired by the holy spirit of God, the expressions "the scripture" and "your word" in the mouth of Jesus are unambiguous. We know what he meant.

That's a fine theological position to take

Jesus addressed the Jews who viewed the Hebrew Scriptures as "irrefutable."
He cited a passage from these texts, emphasizing that they could not dispute his words without challenging the undeniable veracity of what was written.

but there are a number of theological of assumptions necessary to read either of those verses as claiming the kind of verbal inerrancy that we're arguing over, not least of which are, perhaps ironically, what exactly are meant by "the scripture" and "your word."

In my opinion, there is only a single concept of what inerrancy signifies.
If I sought an interminable discussion, I would go and debate in a theology institution that accepts individuals from any beliefs, or even those without one, provided they can afford the tuition for such classes. I'll surely have that endless discussion, to the infinite and beyond.
In a forum like this I only focus on the person I'm talking to.

A further irony is that in order to preserve inerrancy, an inerrantist Christian is currently arguing that doesn't actually mean what it says.

The term "Christian" has multiple meanings. You might need to clarify which specific group of Christians you aim to engage in conversation with.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #1]

Are you as willing to prove God if it might turn out that God isn't the God of the Bible?

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to prove God, which is a sign of unbelief in God. I am saying the Bible proves God is, and He is the God of the Bible.

But the question is fair. If the Bible were ever proven to be flawed, then yes I would seek another God, because He would not be the God of the Bible, nor Jesus Christ the Lord.

Whatever spiritual experinces and changes I have in this life by faith, would need to be placed in another God. Of course, I see no other candidates ever spoken by man as being worth believing, much less followed as God.

Gen {3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

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. And as some have said, if God did come in the flesh, He would ceratinly have to be like Jesus Christ. Which is not necessarily a confession of faith. My own confession of faith is first believing there is a God in heaven by proof of the Bible's perfection, and His name is Jesus Christ. And I now know Him by name, that He is the resurrected Lord God Almighty, by doing His words.

Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

[Athetotheist]

[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?

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.

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?

[1213]

....If you can find a use of present or aorist middle voice κτάομαι in any extant Greek literature that refers to someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf,...

I don't claim it means "someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf", as it was Judas who acquired the field with his money.

[Difflugia]

I don't claim it means "someone other than the subject acquiring something on the subject's behalf", as it was Judas who acquired the field with his money.

This either contradicts what you said earlier or you're changing definitions of words to the point that you're no longer speaking the same language that the rest of us are.

[RBD]

I see two things here: proving that a God exists and proving that God has every feature that the Bible attributes to Him.

Yes. Proving that there is a God in heaven, and that He is the God of the Bible. Whatever He says of Himself, creation, angels, and men, and all prophecy is His true word.

Are you saying the only way to prove both of those things is to prove the Bible true in all things?

Proving the Bible is infallible by virture of no proven infallibility, does not prove it is true, but certainly proves it can be true. Whether anyone wants to believe it is true is still a matter of faith, since we are all created with the freewill to believe the truth or a lie.

The challenge is not compel anyone to accept the Bible as the true words of God, but is only to them who say it has error, and therefore cannot be believed, at least not in all things.

It moves any argument about faith, where we exercise our right to believe something or not, into the world of known science, history, math, and literary scholarship.

In science, absence of infallibility proves the theorem, until infallibility is proven. There must be either proven fault within the theorem, such as axiomatic error or inconsitency of theory, or there must be physical evidence to the contrary. In that sense, the Bible is God's own theorem for all things axiomatic.

Therefore, the physical fact of the Bible being on earth, demands the test of science, not just unbelief. Without proven infallibility, the Book itself must at least be accepted as a true theorem yet unproved within it's pages, or by physical evidence contradicting anything written therein. Without such proof, no honest person with moderate intelligence can declare it cannot possibly by true in all things. This is made slef-evident by the fact that many have tried to do so, not just to see for themselves, but specifically to delcare the Bible-theorem disproven.

Without such proof of fallibility, the a person must must acknowledge the Book is inspired by one Spirit over all, or declare the Bible is proof of the infallibility of man without the need of a God. Either way, the Bible itself is still acknowledged infallible.

Why would proving that something is logically coherent (i.e., there is no contradiction) prove that such a thing is actually the case?

Once again, there is no power on earth that can compel anyone to believe anything, because we all have freewill to believe the truth or a lie, which is proven by anyone believing a lie rather than the truth. The Bible reveals we are created that way in God's own image. Since there is no proof of infallibility, then that can be believed as true, and cannot be logically dismissed as impossible.

And as the great detective would say, "When the impossible is ruled out, then what is left must be possible." Until infallibility is ruled out, then it's own infallibility makes it possible. And so, unless we want to argue the Bible proves man is infallible as a God, by writing such an infallible Book on earth, then we must acknowledge there is a perfect God writting it by the hands of fallible men.

2Pe 1:20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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.

Tolkien’s Middle Earth is logically coherent, but that doesn’t mean it is actual reality.

The author never says it is. And it is understood to be mythological fiction. He is not a proven liar by inner literary evidence nor physical contradiction, because it is not a theorem nor historical record put forth for proofing. It's just another book of fantatistical imagination well written.