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.
Proving God by proving the Bible
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #51When I say the city could not be named because of Isaac's well, I meant not solely, since Beersheba is not Shebah. But you want to argue either the cause was wrongly given, or the city was wrongly named? It should have been named Shebah after Isaac's well, and not Beersheba? Or, Isaac's well Sheba could not have been any cause for naming the city Beersheba? Which is why you emphasize the word therefore, as used in the sentence.
You argue that 'therefore' is solely limited to Sheba? The name of the city must be Sheba only, else the passage is incorrect and contradicts itself? The sole reason for naming the city must be Sheba alone? So that naming it Beersheba is an grammatical error in the passage, or the stated cause for the name of the city is false?
And so, as always, an interpretation by definition/translation of a word, must be made in order to prove error in the passage, because there is no self-proven grammatical contradiction made by the words themselves. Several examples would be: "And he called it Shebah: for which cause alone the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day." Or, some other place the Bible says something like "Sheba was the name of the city where Isaac's servants dug a well, because he called it Sheba."
And of course the strict interpretation by definition of therefore, is not the only possible one, especially since the translation of the word is not at all as strict. Several other translations are grammatically correct within the passage: "And he called it Shebah: in addition to, or together with, the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day." Or even more strongly, "And he called it Shebah: notwithstanding, or inspite of, the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day."
The first case speaks of both Abraham and Isaac playing a part in the naming of the city Beersheba. The last case would exclude Isaac from having in part, which I would disagree with them in favor of the first. Afterall, Abraham named the place Beersheba, and the well named Shebah is part of Beersheba.
A final point is that the word 'wherefore' in Gen 21, where the source and name are strictly linked, in the Hebrew is not the same for 'therefore' in Gen 26, where it is more generalized. Naming the place Beersheba in Gen 21 allows for no other cause, both by translation and context, while in Gen 26 both context and translation allow several reasons for also naming the city Beersheba.
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 172 times
- Been thanked: 582 times
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #52From the context of the subsequent quoted biblical passages, this claim to be ‘unproven’ reads much more like, “Don’t believe anything about our god unless you read it in our holy book.”
Dismissing all other forms of evidence for the existence or non-existence of a god like this unfairly skews any debate.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #53While I apreciate the effort to feed me my own words, a statement of unblief is not an argument offered to prove anything. I've argued to show a false reading by comparing your words with the words of the Bible.
A smartly worded statement that the Bible can't possibly be all true, only shows unbelief.
Good correction. The middle voice does allow he himself purchased, or he purchased himself the field, and can accept he purchased for himself the field. The words could be included with italics as in other places of the Bible. However, it's a redundancy that does not change the narrative. It still does not require the purchaser to purchase with his own money in hand, nor personally attend the transaction.
And the middle person certainly does not allow a change of the record, to then say he purchased the field by himself alone. That is the false narrative added to the text by abusive translation. It also must add a narrative, where Judas went back to the priests to collect the money he no longer wanted to touch, so that he could buy the field with his own money without any need for the priests.
In Matthew 27, the record states plainly that the priests bought that field with it, being the money. And it is not the middle voice but active, so that for anothercould also be added in italics.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #54This 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.Diagoras wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:06 pmFrom the context of the subsequent quoted biblical passages, this claim to be ‘unproven’ reads much more like, “Don’t believe anything about our god unless you read it in our holy book.”
Dismissing all other forms of evidence for the existence or non-existence of a god like this unfairly skews any debate.
I will also amend the conclusion, by saying inerrancy at least forbids any blanket declaration that He can't possibly be believed in all things. By objective grammatical and literary analyisis, it must be addmitted that the Bible at least earns believability in all it's words. It also means there is one Author, that is the inerrant writer with so many men's hands, over thousands of years, and from all backgrounds. Or else, it means those men are themselves inerrant, unlike all other people on earth. In either case, the Bible is inerrant without any proof of grammatical error and contradiction. Believing the words remains a matter of choice, but saying no intelligent and reasonable person can possibly believe all the words, is an unproven lie of unbelief alone.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #55For someone that appears to be well read in the Bible, this is an error for those not reading all the Bible. Perhaps your knowledge of the Bible is limited solely to finding fault in it? Others have already responded to this from the Bible, and I'll add some more:
Psa 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
The Author's claim is that all the words of the Book are true and righteous, written by God, and eternal.
The whole point of seeking error in the Bible, is to disprove the Author's claim of true, righteous, divine, eternal inerrancy.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #56This of course reverts back to statements of unbelief, that are neither here nor there. It's the same when saying one's own argument must be true, and any other argument must not be true. I.e. to me I've proven my point, and also to me, you haven't...
When opposing arguments are made, it is then up to the other to prove any error in them, not just disagree and 'declare victory'.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #57As in all efforts to insert an error or contradiction into the Book, the correction for translation begins good and then ends badly with an invented narrative.Difflugia wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 7:29 am I was just browsing through the search results to see the different uses of κτάομαι and found one that I think makes my point extremely well.
In Demosthenes, Against Nicostratus, we find this passage:
The English translation renders it thus:ἐν δὲ τῇ ἐμῇ ἀποδημίᾳ ἀποδιδράσκουσιν αὐτὸν οἰκέται τρεῖς ἐξ ἀγροῦ παρὰ τούτου, οἱ μὲν δύο ὧν ἐγὼ ἔδωκα αὐτῷ, ὁ δὲ εἷς ὧν αὐτὸς ἐκτήσατο.
If we apply that to the texts of Matthew and Acts, readers of Greek would likewise be expected to contrast the purchase of the priests in Matthew from the acquisition in Acts that Judas performed for himself.During my absence three household slaves of Nicostratus ran away from him from his farm, two of those whom I had given him, and one of a number whom he had purchased for himself.
The good correction does show that the same translation can be done for Judas purchasing the field for himself in italics. This practice is done many times elsewhere in the Bible for expanded translation into English. In the Greek, it is understood and therefore redundant.
However, redundancy does not allow for the additional wording about performing the act himself. That is an abuse of translation for a false narrative.
The redundancy does not require the purchaser to buy the field in person at the transaction. Which in itself does not oppose the priests being there with his money to buy it with.
And redundancy certainly does not allow the whole record to change, by suggesting the purchaser bought the field himself in person alone. Especially not with his money in hand, which he cast down in the temple for the priests, and did not return to recover.
The good beginning is that redundantly-speaking, the purchaser purchased for himself, rather than for someone else. That is not the active case of the priests buying the field, which could be italicised for another. The bad ending is changing the narrative to have the purchaser do so by himself alone, which requires inserting a whole new narrative of returning to collect his money back again.
Once again, there is no grammatical error nor contradiction, such as Acts correcting Matthew by saying, "He purchased the field by himself alone..." That is only a false invention by an openly abused liberty of translation.
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #58I have amended the argument from one of my own faith, to one of common understanding under the rules of literary analysis and critique.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 5:36 pm [Replying to RBD in post #26]
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?I am saying the Bible proves God is, and He is the God of the Bible.
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. 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.
And so, the challenge is strictly confined to rebuking anyone, that unreasonably declares it is impossible to believe the Bible as the true God's written words. Objective grammatical and literary critique forbids such an unintelligent statement based upon the physical fact of the Bible itself.
So far as the Bible proving God is, and is the God of the Bible... that is an argument based upon the Bible written by so many people, over so many years, from so many backgrounds in life unerrengly unified into one Book. There can only be two conclusions by such flawlessness: Either the Author of the Bible is who He says He is, the LORD God and Creator of all things. Or, those men are in errant unlike all other people on earth, and so are the gods writing it. As the Catholics would say, the vernerated prophets and apostles.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 5:36 pm [Replying to RBD in post #26]
Once again, the point is to remove the entirety of faith from a simple matter of spiritual choice, to trusting in the words of the books written about God and the gods. 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. There are books written about them, and try to understand them, and even reject them as so much fascinating myth and legend.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?
I personally prefer the pagan gods of Greece and Rome for entertainment.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2025 5:36 pm [Replying to RBD in post #26]
That's not what I'm saying. The Bible says it's the Bible God and no other God. I'm saying, it's far more reasonable as proven by the Bible itself, to believe the God of the Bible, than any other book written on earth. In addition, the more I see the differences between the words of the Bible and other books, I am persuaded even more that the Bible words are from on high, while those of others books are earthy at best.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.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.
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Also, there are some so beneath contempt in comparison to the Bible, so as to be dug from a deep ditch.
Rev 2:24But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, that they speak;
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've heard this, and in this context, the same can be said of the Bible being the Book that He would write. The argument is against anyone irrationally declaring that God the Creator would ever write such an errant book. Which in itself makes no sense, since all that the Bible says about the God and Creator of heaven and earth is to glorify and honor Him above all gods of the earth.
And as some have said, if God did come in the flesh, He would ceratinly have to be like Jesus Christ.
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.
Why not like the Buddha?
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 172 times
- Been thanked: 582 times
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #59Physically proven? Please lay out a case for that.RBD wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:13 am 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.
Please also show how God = Author here, especially when you claim:
It also means there is one Author,
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 533 times
Re: Proving God by proving the Bible
Post #60[Replying to RBD in post #58]
And in critiquing the Bible, why would I include Satan as an alternative when he's a Bible character?
Why not like the Buddha?
That is indeed a circular argument ("the God of the Bible is God because the Bible says that he says so").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.
You're assuming the book's inerrancy.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.
That's probably because not many other books have been used in such a fervent effort to convert the entire world.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.
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 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.
And in critiquing the Bible, why would I include Satan as an alternative when he's a Bible character?
Why not like the Buddha?
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?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.
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate
--Phil Plate