The charge is sometimes made against biblical apologists that they just use the Bible to prove the Bible. The implication, of course, is that this is circular reasoning and, therefore, erroneous. They want other sources outside the Bible that verify it, not the Bible itself. Once they set the Bible aside as being unable to testify for itself, they can then argue that there is no evidence for the central events that are the foundation of the Christian’s faith — primarily the resurrection and appearances of Jesus after He was confirmed dead. Since such other sources are lacking and the only source we have to use is the Bible itself, the very book that we are supposed to prove in the first place, then our case is said to be non-existent. Therefore, using the Bible to prove the Bible proves nothing, is circular, and should be rejected.

On the surface, that sounds like a pretty hard hit against those who believe the Bible to be true. After all, we would make a similar case against an author who wants to use only his own book to prove his case, and since he is the only one making a particular claim, then his case is built on circular reasoning and therefore unconvincing. It would indeed be circular for someone to say that the proof of his position is that he said so. However, there are some flawed assumptions in this objection that need attention, and much of the problem revolves around a misunderstanding (intentional or not) of the nature and composition of the Bible…

Read the rest of the article on Doy’s website.

---