"Using the Bible to prove the Bible" common miscon

[OpenYourEyes]

Zzyzx claims the following,

Zzyzx from post 1, last 2 lines.

Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories.

This is a common point made by many skeptics. The implication here is that using the Bible to prove the Bible is 'circular reasoning'. Is it really? Lets probe deeper. The Bible is not just any book, but rather it's an 'anthology', that is, a collection of different books from different sources. When someone uses the details from one book within the anthology (ie the Bible) to corroborate the details of another book, that is not necessarily circular reasoning since the books are from different sources.

Zzyzx from post 1, last 2 lines.

The Bible is not considered authoritative or proof of truth in these debates.

Zzyzx from post 3

Kindly review Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines that govern this debate.

Quote:
Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

These Guidelines in the C&A sub-forum (applied also here by mutual agreement) are intended to create a “level playing field� wherein no one's point of view or literature are given preferential treatment. I would not debate in any situation that required that the Bible be accepted as proof of truth.

If Zzyzx's statement implies that the Bible can not be used as evidence in any form then I disagree with him. The Bible should be able to be used as evidence on matters that relate to history, like when it comes to details about people, places, and events. This is in keeping with how historians treat other works of ancient history. And most importantly, it is in keeping with the forum rules as laid out by the owner:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

Debate: Is it circular reasoning to use the Bible (or details from one book) to support the details of another Bible book?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Zzyzx claims the following,

Zzyzx from post 1, last 2 lines.

Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories.

This is a common point made by many skeptics. The implication here is that using the Bible to prove the Bible is 'circular reasoning'. Is it really? Lets probe deeper. The Bible is not just any book, but rather it's an 'anthology', that is, a collection of different books from different sources. When someone uses the details from one book within the anthology (ie the Bible) to corroborate the details of another book, that is not necessarily circular reasoning since the books are different sources.

Zzyzx from post 1, last 2 lines.

The Bible is not considered authoritative or proof of truth in these debates.

Zzyzx from post 3

Kindly review Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines that govern this debate.

Quote:
Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

These Guidelines in the C&A sub-forum (applied also here by mutual agreement) are intended to create a “level playing field� wherein no one's point of view or literature are given preferential treatment. I would not debate in any situation that required that the Bible be accepted as proof of truth.

If Zzyzx's statement implies that the Bible can not be used as evidence in any form then I disagree with him. The Bible should be able to be used as evidence on matters that relate to history, like when it comes to details about people, places, and events. This is in keeping with how historians treat other works of ancient history. And most importantly, it is in keeping with the forum rules as laid out by the owner:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

Debate: Is it circular reasoning to use the Bible (or details from one book) to support the details of the Bible?

The Bible can be used as evidence to sustain a claim. But the Bible is not in and of itself final proof of anything. It's a book with no more intrinsic authority that any other book.

[Elijah John]

Debate: Is it circular reasoning to use the Bible (or details from one book) to support the details of another Bible book?

Not in and of itself. But by that same token, it has to be considered fair game to use one book in the Bible anthology to refute a point made in another Bible book, or even within the same book.

Interesting points you make though.

[Divine Insight]

If Zzyzx's statement implies that the Bible can not be used as evidence in any form then I disagree with him. The Bible should be able to be used as evidence on matters that relate to history, like when it comes to details about people, places, and events. This is in keeping with how historians treat other works of ancient history. And most importantly, it is in keeping with the forum rules as laid out by the owner:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the part of Rule #3 that I've highlighted in red.

Also, what would this be evidence for?

If the Bible happens to contain descriptions of people who have also been verified to have actually existed what would this mean? Would it mean that everything the Bible says about these people is then true? Surely not.

The Hebrews who wrote the Bible were an actual culture. They actually lived and wrote about people, places. and events that actually occurred in their world. This doesn't mean that everything they say about those events is true. The Greeks did the same thing when writing their mythologies. In fact, every culture does this.

Rule #3 simply acknowledges this fact. For example, we could have writings today that claim all manner of superstitious things about Elvis Presley. One can then point to the historical accounts of Elvis Presley and show that these superstitious claims about Elvis Presley line up with known history.

For example Elvis was a rock star who was known popularly as the "King" of Rock and Roll. These superstitions could include many events that the historical Elvis actually did. Including serving in the military, playing major roles in movies, etc.

It could even include the fact that there were many "sightings" of a resurrected Elvis after he had died. Once again MATCHING known history. It's true that such reports were historically claimed.

So since this book contains all of these historical truths about Elvis should we then accept that everything else it might say about Evil is then also true? Especially if it starts making outrageous supernatural claims about how Evil rose from the dead and is living on another planet where those who believe in him will be granted everlasting access to his rock concerts after they die?

Just because a story includes some historical truth is not "evidence" that everything it has to say must then also be true.

Like I say, Greek Myths were often based on Greek historical events too. Does this mean that we should take the Greek Gods to be "real"? Most people I know totally accept the Greek religious scriptures to be nothing more than fictional mythology.

~~~~~~

I would also like to add to this that the Bible can be used to disprove its own claims. Ironically this is not considered to be 'circular'. The reason is simple, if a story contains self-contradictions then it has proved its own fallacy without any need to even look beyond the story.

This is why I say that the Bible can be seen to be false without even looking outside of it. Obviously this could not be the case if we were trying to claim that the Bible is true, but it works very well to show that it's false because it contains self-contradictions.

This is akin to the fact that you can't prove something to be true just because it happens to work in a many cases, but if you can show just ONE exception where it fails that's sufficient to prove that it's false.

It's a similar thing here. If the Bible contains ONE self-contradiction then it has revealed itself to be false. Especially if this is a major contradiction concerning what its God character is supposed to be like.

So ironically the Bible can be used to prove its own fallacy. But it can't be used to prove its own truth. You would need external evidence to prove that its true. But there is no need for external evidence to prove that it's false.

[OnceConvinced]

There are literally hundreds of different Star Wars books written by different authors. A massive anthology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars_books

Can we or should we use one Star Wars book to prove the truth of another Star Wars book?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

Good point OYE.

Quote:
Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories.

Okay... let's try this:

Stories about Rome cannot be used to verify stories about Rome.

But of course any mention of Rome makes the document a "story about Rome".



Is it possible that certain historical documents have, over time, made it into a religious compilation, and that members on this forum don't like religion?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 5 by OnceConvinced]

Obviously a fallacy.


The author of star wars was never claiming to be writing history.


The authors of the gospels were.


Even if both were writing history, we could assess them.





Once more, take all primary sources about Rome, and compile them in a single book. Now, can a history of Rome verify a history of Rome.

[Divine Insight]

Quote:
Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories.

Okay... let's try this:

Stories about Rome cannot be used to verify stories about Rome.

This is a false equivalency.

The Bible is not a place it's a book.

Rome is a place.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

Good point OYE.

Quote:
Bible stories cannot be used to verify Bible stories.

Okay... let's try this:

Stories about Rome cannot be used to verify stories about Rome.

But of course any mention of Rome makes the document a "story about Rome".



Is it possible that certain historical documents have, over time, made it into a religious compilation, and that members on this forum don't like religion?

Excellent points! As for your question, I think that that's very true since we have atheists admitting why they question the details about Jesus more than the details about Plato and Socrates. Among the answers were that Plato and Socrates aren't known for condemning people to Hell, etc. So an anti-religious sentiment is likely a factor, but of course, it's a bad one that leads to people not noticing their double-standards, just as in your point about a compilation of Star Wars writings.

[OpenYourEyes]

The Bible can be used as evidence to sustain a claim. But the Bible is not in and of itself final proof of anything. It's a book with no more intrinsic authority that any other book.

I wouldn't say that it's "proof" but only because historians, nor scientists for that matter, does not deal with proofs. All of the knowledge within both disciplines are tentative. However, the Bible can be enough to serve as historical validation, like of the Apostles, their mission and purpose, etc. I can use my point from the first debate question regarding the Bible being made up of different sources and use one book, which stands as one source, to corroborate another book or source. That's in line with historical standards, particularly, the 'criterion of multiple attestation'.

Here's one article by New Testament scholar, E.P Sanders:

There are, however, tests of authenticity that make it possible to acquire good general information about Jesus’ teachings. One of the most important of these is “multiple attestation�: a passage that appears in two or more independent sources is likely to be authentic. A prime example is the prohibition of divorce, which appears in the letters of Paul and in two different forms in the Synoptic Gospels. The short form, which is focused on remarriage after divorce, is found in Matthew 5:31–32 and Luke 16:18. The long form, which is more absolute in prohibiting divorce, appears in Matthew 19:1–12 and Mark 10:1–12. Paul’s version (1 Corinthians 7:10–11) agrees most closely with the short form. Because of that excellent attestation, it is almost indisputable that Jesus opposed divorce and especially remarriage after divorce, though study of the five passages does not reveal precisely what he said.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Je ... #ref748581