Don't Christians use circular reasoning by trying to prove the Bible by quoting from the Bible?

Question

The "circular reasoning" argument is absurd. That?s like saying you can?t prove that the President lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies, the amazing consistency, and the many scientific statements of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think the bible is non-sense : )

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvGene.html
Chapter 1: plants are first, then man.
Chapter 2: man is first, then plants.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RsvReve.html
Revelations, my favorite book of the bible !
Chapter 13, is the beginning of the beast story, you know 666.

Answer 2

Sure, and the Harry Potter books prove that wizards exist. To use your example, as soon as you look in the White House to see who is there you have broken the circular argument and actually tested the claims. This is totally different from the "The bible is the true word of God because the bible says so, and it is the true word of God so it must be right." circular reasoning. To adapt your example, it is like me writing a book that says "I am a total expert on the Presidency. Everything I write about the President is true. The President lives in a building called the Fuchsia House." And then people using this as proof that the President does not live in the White House. I can even add some extra bits like: "All Presidents have been men. To become President you must have been born a US citizen. The President is elected by an electoral collage." Then, since all these things are true, my statement about where the President lives must be true too. The problem is when we look at the history of the world it disagrees with the bible in many places. So the bible is not 100% accurate and anyone who claims it is is just deluding themselves.

Answer 3

That’s also saying that the author of a story knows how it is going to end. Of course the author knows how the story is going to end! They wrote it. Proving an event at the end of a book by quoting the beginning of the book is circular reasoning! You can’t use your source to prove your source!

Using the different books that make up what is known as the “Bible” doesn’t work either. Between those books you get discrepancies, like event being out of order or not happening at all. When the information your source gives doesn’t match another source, then you have to question its truth.

Answer 4

I've got a book at home on Nostradamus. Now, the first thing in the book that he says is that he will be more widely read after his death than during his lifetime, which is certainly true. I don't, however, use this first truth to then claim that everything else in the book is true. And I certainly don't use Nostradamus' claim to be a seer as proof that he IS a seer. After all, he's not really an unbiased observer, is he?

You cannot prove god. You cannot prove the absence of god. All that matters, in the end, is what you feel in your heart. Go with that and shut up about the rest of it. You'll be much happier.

Answer 5

IMHO I think there's flaw in your logic. It would be more like believing that someone is the President just because they say they are and that proves nothing.

Here's a bit of logic for you....

According to the bible, man is flawed. The bible was written and/or translated by man. Therefore the bible itself is flawed.

Why would an all knowing, all powerful being create a race knowing that it would become flawed then commission that same flawed race to chronicle his teachings knowing, in advance, that it too would become flawed? That makes no sense at all.

Answer 6

Agreed. We must see what the Bible says before we can confirm or deny its accuracy.

For example, we read in Job 26:7 that Jehovah is "Hanging the earth upon nothing." From this we see the Bible is accurate as compared with common beliefs of the time.

Answer 7

You are right on sir... for further proof that the BIBLE is absolute truth, for the skeptics I mean , they can check out Grant R Jeffery's awesome book, " The Signature of GOD". However for the person that does not want the BIBLE to be truth from GOD no amount of evidence will ever be enough; for they are willfully ignorant, blinded by their pride and a desire to continue in sin. And I say that with the uttermost respect.
~GOD BLESS YOU AND LEAD YOU CONTINUALLY~

Answer 8

Yes your arguement is correct, but only if you assume that the source data is accurate. To use circular reasoning to prove an arguement based on inaccurate source data is just wrong. And as the bible as we know it has been translated several times over, was written a long time after christ, and has no original copy...... its safe to say that its inaccurate.

Answer 9

that was part of an answer i gave yesterday and i included that i hate to ask a question and they turn my question into their answer. If i don't believe the things that were written in the bible then why would referencing it mean anything to me. it's like telling me the brothers grim is all seeing and all knowing and then you read me a story out of the book and say see, it said it's real right hear.

Answer 10

I once asked a question on here. I wanted to know why people believed in the Bible (not "prove it to me" or any such thing), but without saying "Because it says so" or "Because God says so".

A number of people got very angry with me for imposing such limitations on the question. (Though I will say, a good number also had very good answers.) For those that got angry, and in answer to your question, I can only guess that they don't know any way to prove it otherwise.

Answer 11

you are the one who is being absurd your statement about the white House makes no logical sense
it is like if i said i am always Right ,why because i said so and i am always right
a circular argument that proves nothing