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 #565]

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

This is simply a naked assertion which ignores evidence to the contrary.

This is simply a naked assertion which ignores evidence to the contrary.

This is simply repeating what I said like a kid does to his sister on a long family car trip.

I.e. Naked assertions are naked without the evidence.

Still waiting.

I've presented arguments throughout this thread. Pretending that I haven't doesn't help you.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #566]

That's why the words of the Bible are one word, that if any words fail, then all the word of the Lord fails. And if anyone adds or takes away from any of the Bible words, then the liar fails to show any error therein.

I've noticed that you add words when the holes in the narrative are too big to ignore, like here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42673

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #564]

On "I've never seen any disagreement in those writings":
That simply means you've already resolved every apparent contradiction through interpretation.

I've resolved every contradictory interpretation, through noncontradictory teaching.

There are many apparent contradictions in Scripture through surface reading alone, which right teaching always resolves.

2Ti 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the words truly.

It's only the accused contradictions, that require false interpretation inserted into the text.

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

Scripture makes it's own reasonable case, that no Scripture can be in error based upon some reader's personal interpretation. I.e. the Author claims the common right of all writers to be read by His own words, not by anyone else's interpretation of His words. Especially not by surface readings that are not taken in context of the Author's teaching:

Ex:

Jhn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

The Authors words taken out of context of teaching, makes the Author love the world, but commands His people not to love the world.

The false interpretation inserted apart from Bible teaching, is that the world is always the same thing. Rather than the world of heaven and earth being the habitat of men and women, vs the world of iniquity being the lives of wicked men and women.

A similar error of separating text from doctrine, is made on this sight in the matter of Saul enquiring, and yet not enquiring of the Lord. He did in words, but he didn't in heart. As the old saying goes, He did, but He didn't.

The disagreement isn't in the text -

Correct. None so far over thousands of years of effort to prove any.

it's between readers who don't accept your resolutions.

The debate is over the text, not between the debaters. Whether someone agrees with the noncontradictory teaching is irrelevant to there being one.

You've defined "disagreement" as "what I can't explain away," which makes the claim unfalsifiable.

The definition of contradiction is without any teaching, that would make the claim unproven.

[William]

[Replying to RBD in post #573]

You say no contradiction has ever been proven. But you've defined 'contradiction' as 'what cannot be harmonized by any interpretive means.' That's not a test any text could fail. A flat-Earth advocate can harmonize satellite photos with their model by saying the photos are faked. That doesn't make the model true. It just makes it unfalsifiable. You've done the same with the Bible.

You've written a long post about how to interpret Scripture. But you still haven't told me which books are Scripture. The Ethiopian church has 81 books, including post-resurrection teachings of Jesus. By what non-circular standard do you exclude them? 'They don't claim divine authority' fails - they do. 'They contradict' fails - you haven't shown that. So what's your actual reason?

[RBD]

On "uneducated" and "spitefully disdainful":
Ad hominem. Disagreeing with your conclusion about the writers' unity isn't disdain for their suffering.

Evasion. Asserting unified writers would disagree in person, is not disagreeing with the writers' words, but is disdain for their blood they write them in.

Many ancient texts were written with sincerity and sacrifice. Sincerity isn't inerrancy.

More deflection. Accusing the sincere writers of disagreeing in person, but not on paper, is disdain for their character they write them in.

On "all the words of the Bible are written in red":
A poetic sentiment, not an argument.

A fact without argument.

[RBD]

That would be like saying "God said do this" but "Jesus didn't" (working on the Sabbath) is all good and inerrant because of interpretive rescue.

Is this supposed to be another one?

Jesus not working on the Sabbath is good by the law of the Sabbath. Nowhere does Scripture say Jesus did carpentry or construction work on any Sabbath.

Saying He worked on the Sabbath by healing the deformed, and casting out devils, is once again not interpretive, but rejection of common sense. Which is why it agrees with the lying rulers, that also accused Jesus of defiling the Sabbath, and then had Him crucified for blasphemy.

Oh, what deep ditches we did, when first we begin to blindly accuse...

[RBD]

Enoch does claim divine revelation. The Ethiopian church accepts that claim as authentic. RBD rejects it.

Enoch never claims divine revelation from God Himself, but only from angels.

I reject the presumptive authentication of anyone calling Enoch's words Scripture of God.

Whether they are correctly Enoch's writings, is irrelevant. From what I've read of the book of Enoch, there is no Scriptural problem, but is simply the personal words of a godly man, that knows the Lord. Whether it was Enoch or another in his name.

Jde 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

So, we know Enoch was a prophet of God, and did prophecy of His coming to earth with His saints. But, that does not mean that Enoch write the prophecy. When God includes it in Scripture of truth, then only confirms a spoken prophecy by Enoch. Not any Scripture written by him.

There were other prophets of the LORD, whose words are elsewhere recorded in Scripture, but the there is no record of them writing prophecies, much less of writing Scriptures of God.

The Ethiopian challenge still stands,

It still stands as writings they have. And there's no reason to doubt they are preserved Jewish and Christian writings. But there are volumes of such writings preserved, which does not make them all Scriptures of God.

Luk 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Authenticating any old preserved writings about God and Jesus Christ, even by faithful believers, would authenticate many books as Scripture. Which for some would be the goal of diluting Scripture of truth, with personal writings of believers.

My challenge of Bible inerrancy is only in the common one Book from Genesis to Revelation. Other books and writings are irrelevant deflections of what is Bible, and what is not.

Re the Ethiopia there are teachings From Jesus between his resurrection and ascension that are missing from the Western cannons.

Interesting. How about as a child straightening crooked boards with His touch? Neat and useful hands for carpenters.

Your test #1 (author must claim divine authority) - These Ethiopian texts claim to record Jesus' own post-resurrection teachings.

They are what they claim to be: Jewish and Christian writings. They are not what they do not claim to be: The LORD and Jesus Christ's Scriptures.

You can quote from them as other writings, but whether they agree or not, is only an exercise in reading other writings as compared to Scriptures of God.

Any reason for you rejecting them - would not be the tests.

Any reason for a Bible antagonist pushing them as Scripture, cannot be to preserve Scriptural integrity.

You have inherited that rejection, not discovered it through any tests.

Lying about me doesn't help your case against Scriptural integrity of the common Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

The deeper problem: The Western canon itself doesn't claim completeness. John 21:25 says Jesus did "many other things" not written.

True. Of course Jesus did many things on earth, that were not chosen by Him to be recorded in His Scriptures. Which is another example of the Author's unerring Book, that only those things necessary to reveal His true prophecy and doctrine, is in only one Book, that can be read by all. Not written in so many books, that they overcrowd comprehension:


Jhn 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

And Luke confirms others writing of those things, no doubt some as followers and witnesses of His resurrection. Including them all as Scriptures of God, is unnecessary for charging the commonly known Bible with error. It's only a dodge from the fair challenge.

You said the only way to prove God is to prove the Bible inerrant. But you can't even prove which Bible - which canon - is the inerrant one without circular reasoning. Your proof collapses before it starts.

You say there's no way to prove God by Bible inerrancy. But you still try to prove Bible errancy matters. Including the irrelevant deflection of questioning what is Bible, and what is not.

You're not circular, but just bobbing and weaving to avoid the fact of Bible inerrancy, as well as your demonstrated zeal of it's importance.

[William]

You say Enoch only claims revelation from angels, not God directly. So? Angels in the Bible speak for God. You say Enoch may not have written it. So? Much of Scripture is anonymous or written by others. You say Ethiopian texts don't claim to be Scripture. Luke never claims to be Scripture either. You're not applying tests. You're protecting a canon you inherited. That's not proof. That's prejudice.

Overall your arguments don;t belong in this forum. Such a better positioned in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma.

I have no further interest in debating here with you.

[RBD]

You say Enoch only claims revelation from angels, not God directly.

You say something from your own imagination. You're as sloppy with Bible teaching as you are with the Bible.

You say Enoch may not have written it.

The Bible confirms Enoch preached the Lord's second coming with His saints. Not that he wrote it, or anything else. He may have, and his writings may be passed on under his name. It does not make the book with his name, the Scriptures of God.

So? Much of Scripture is anonymous or written by others.

And all Scripture is inerrantly written by the prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ.

You say Ethiopian texts don't claim to be Scripture. Luke never claims to be Scripture either.

They claim their extra texts are Scripture. They aren't.

Luke does not claim His writings are Scripture. They are.

And the challenge remains the same: Show any error in the Scriptures of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. That's the Book that's perfectly unified without error.

Going to outside books is a diverting sideshow.

You're protecting a canon you inherited.

I'm reading the One Book that defends itself by it's own unerring words.

Overall your arguments don;t belong in this forum. Such a better positioned in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma.

Overall your arguments do belong in the Bible fault-finding forum. And so does answering you. Anyone bringing doubt to Bible integrity belongs here, as well as the ones answers them.

[Carnivalfaces]

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.

It's already been proven the bible is erroneous as it reads. If you think it was actually written differently and in a way it can be proven true and 100% correct but we just don't have it, then your circular in providing an excuse to assert without authority or credibility. Unless you produce this infallible source.