Beware of circular reasoning!

[Carry_Your_Name]

Circular reasoning is a common pitfall we often find ourselves trapped in. It's a logical fallacy that uses a preconceived conclusion of an argument as the basis of that argument to support it. A good example is this one below regarding the existence of God and/or the infallability of the bible -

How do you know there's a God? Because the bible says so! How do you know the bible is true? Because it's inspired by God!

A fundemantal principle in the bible is that you need two or more witnesses to prove a point. In this example above, there's only one witness, which is the bible, it's God's special revelation to us, we've formed a Christian worldview around this special revelation. The problem is, we often take the bible for granted as God's only revelation, and we often assume that other people share the same worldview with us, they understand our lingo, our references and our presupposition, when actually they don't, what some terms mean to us could mean very different thing to them, there's not much common ground. If we only use the bible, especially 2 Tim. 3:16, then we only have one witness, and we're stuck in circular reasoning with no extra evidence to corroborate.

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)
If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.(Matt. 18:16)
This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”(2 Cor. 13:1)
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Heb. 10:28)
I will give power to my two witnesses. (Rev. 11:3)

Jesus was aware of this two witnesses rule and the logical fallacy of circular reasoning during his ministry. When his messiahship was challenged, he quoted some OT verses, but not only that, he also let his works of miracle bear witness:

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. (Jn. 10:25)
If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.(Jn. 10:37-38)

The Pharisees, on the other hand, was circular reasoning when they brought Jesus to Pilate. What crime do you accuse him of? He's evil! How do you know he's evil? Why would I accuse him if he were not evil? They had no independent witness or evidence. Also, they changed the charge from blasphemy to sedition, from a religious offense to a political offense in order for Pilate to hear the case.

Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”(Jn. 18:30)

To make a good, objective argument for the existence of God and/or the infallability of the bible, you need another witness outside of the bible and the Christian community, and that is God's general revelation, it refers to general truths that can be known about God through nature and morality, taught in Rom. 1:20. I believe there's a creator God not because the bible says so, but various scientific evidence such as complex genome, the golden ratio, the fine tuning of gravity, those are intelligent design that by no means can naturally occur. The strongest evidence is the two laws of thermodynamics, which indicates that the universe cannot create and/or maintain itself in a "closed, isolated system", that's absolutely impossible. The most reasonable and plausible explanation is that there's a God outside the system who created the universe and has been maintaining it.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
Good study overall carry_your_name.
I would make the case that using the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning.

The Bible is not one witness The Bible is a collection of books; a bibliography. We have some 40+ authors, who, living at different times throughout 1500-1600 years of history, felt compelled to write down their independent thoughts for the rest of humanity. The main theme is Messiah who will come, and Jesus who is Messiah.

Then the Holy Spirit weaved these thoughts together into the account we have today.

So it is not circular reasoning to use Matthew as proof of what Isaiah wrote; different people, different times. They are two independent witnesses.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hey All,
Good study overall carry_your_name.
I would make the case that using the Bible to prove the Bible is not circular reasoning.

The Bible is not one witness The Bible is a collection of books; a bibliography. We have some 40+ authors, who, living at different times throughout 1500-1600 years of history, felt compelled to write down their independent thoughts for the rest of humanity. The main theme is Messiah who will come, and Jesus who is Messiah.

Then the Holy Spirit weaved these thoughts together into the account we have today.

So it is not circular reasoning to use Matthew as proof of what Isaiah wrote; different people, different times. They are two independent witnesses.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

This depends on your audience. Yes, the bible interprets itself, the 66 books are sufficient, but the bible as a whole doesn't prove its own authenticity. Atheists or believers of other religions won't accept your argument, they'd say both Isaiah and Matthew were biased, all bible book authors were biased, they were all Jews, they all wrote with a pre-conceived conclusion that Jesus is messiah or whatever other message they wanted to deliver. You need a third party with an independent opinion to fill in the role of the second witness, such as Josephus and his historical documentation.

 

[Josef]

This depends on your audience. Yes, the bible interprets itself, the 66 books are sufficient, but the bible as a whole doesn't prove its own authenticity. Atheists or believers of other religions won't accept your argument, they'd say both Isaiah and Matthew were biased, all bible book authors were biased, they were all Jews, they all wrote with a pre-conceived conclusion that Jesus is messiah or whatever other message they wanted to deliver. You need a third party with an independent opinion to fill in the role of the second witness, such as Josephus and his historical documentation.

Hey All,
Atheists, believers of other religions, are not biased? Only believers? Don't let whoever you are debating use that old trick carry_your_name.

It also shows a week argument. If they are attacking you personally, it is because they cannot mount an adequate defense of their position. Use this to your advantage.

The people of three religions value Isaiah as a prophet. For a book to cross religions, like Isaiah does, speaks that those religions value the book as prophecy. When Matthew cites Isaiah in a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, is it bias? Or is it an knowledgement?

Also remember why you are debating. Their objective is to defeat you. Your job is to bring souls to Christ. I always try to make that my focus. Whatever they say against you is unimportant. Their soul is.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hey All,
Atheists, believers of other religions, are not biased? Only believers? Don't let whoever you are debating use that old trick carry_your_name.

It also shows a week argument. If they are attacking you personally, it is because they cannot mount an adequate defense of their position. Use this to your advantage.

The people of three religions value Isaiah as a prophet. For a book to cross religions, like Isaiah does, speaks that those religions value the book as prophecy. When Matthew cites Isaiah in a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, is it bias? Or is it an knowledgement?

Also remember why you are debating. Their objective is to defeat you. Your job is to bring souls to Christ. I always try to make that my focus. Whatever they say against you is unimportant. Their soul is.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

Man, I'm disappointed. With this kind of response, not only will you fail to convince your listener in the mission field, you'll lose your own fellow belivers in the church. There're lots of kids raised in Christian homes and communities, some were educated in Christian schools, yet when they grew up, their faith was "deconstructed", they went total apostate, the torch is not passed to their hands. Why is that? You can blame the devil and his influence through secular media, culture, politics, the devil will take that as your surrender. The real reason is that the torch is being circulated back and forth between your left hand and your right hand, it's never passed down to the next generation.

I'm telling you this is because what you think as a strong argument is extremely weak to others, including those kids. You may take Isaiah and Matthew as two independent books, but they see them as two volumes of the same book under the same influence, it's the same myth passed down from generation to generation, it's still circular reasoning for them. It's a form of circular reasoning called "circular reporting", it goes like this - publication A puts out a piece of false information and publication B reprints it, publication A then cites B as the source of the original information; Or, publications B, C, D all report the same false information originated from publication A with slightly different wording, and they appear to be independent reports, but it's the same fake story circulating within themselves. This is why nobody trusts the news anymore. To play the devil's advocate, the same argument can be raised to challenge the bible's credibility. How do I know these different bible authors were not circular reporting the same myth? Maybe it's not circular reasoning to you, but it is circular reasoning to them.

Now let's assume that your audience do believe the bible is true, authentic and authoritative, it's real history, not fiction, but here's the issue - all the books in the bible are ancient history of Israel in the middle east on the other side of the earth, what does it have to do with my modern day life? Why is it still relevant? I pointed out this problem in the OP, that most folks are biblically illiterate, that includes a lot of parishioners in the church who only know a few bumper sticker verses from the pastor. If you only use the bible to support the bible, and you only speak in "Christianeses", you only lecture on them which theology instead of responding to their questions and doubts, then they'll definitely feel rejection, it's like you're stonewalling them, is it a surprise then that you've lost them? Christianity has to be practiced as a relationship, both vertical with God and horizontal with your peers, not a religion within your own circle. This is why extrabiblical materials and "secualr" evidence are important, you gotta present something that is modern and relevant, something they are familiar with.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hey All,
Atheists, believers of other religions, are not biased? Only believers? Don't let whoever you are debating use that old trick carry_your_name.

It also shows a week argument. If they are attacking you personally, it is because they cannot mount an adequate defense of their position. Use this to your advantage.

The people of three religions value Isaiah as a prophet. For a book to cross religions, like Isaiah does, speaks that those religions value the book as prophecy. When Matthew cites Isaiah in a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, is it bias? Or is it an knowledgement?

Also remember why you are debating. Their objective is to defeat you. Your job is to bring souls to Christ. I always try to make that my focus. Whatever they say against you is unimportant. Their soul is.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

If you still don't get it, then think about the first two witnesses who confessed that Jesus is the Christ. Who's the first witness? Peter, Jesus's closest disciple. When Jesus asked, "who do you say I am," he confirmed Jesus's true identity, "you are the Christ, the son of God." But you know who's the second? Not John, not James, but the centurion who crucified Jesus - "truly this is the son of God!" This centurion is an independent, unbiased witness who testified from a Roman perspective. If it were John or James, then it would be circular reporting, which would be invalid.

 

[BeyondET]

This depends on your audience. Yes, the bible interprets itself, the 66 books are sufficient, but the bible as a whole doesn't prove its own authenticity. Atheists or believers of other religions won't accept your argument, they'd say both Isaiah and Matthew were biased, all bible book authors were biased, they were all Jews, they all wrote with a pre-conceived conclusion that Jesus is messiah or whatever other message they wanted to deliver. You need a third party with an independent opinion to fill in the role of the second witness, such as Josephus and his historical documentation.

That has to do sin, it's in your original post. The whole reason for the witnesses is accountability of the sin. Sorry but it doesn't look like the stuck in secular reasoning is about sin for which the two or more witnesses are needed.

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That has to do sin, it's in your original post. The whole reason for the witnesses is accountability of the sin. Sorry but it doesn't look like the stuck in secular reasoning is about sin for which the two or more witnesses are needed.

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)

Well orgininally this was referring to the legal proceedings in a criminal court, you need two or more witnesses to build a case; but its application has obviously expanded far beyond that, you need two or more independent sources to prove a claim, two or more different perspectives to review a story, you know. As the saying goes, there're two sides of a story. Without at least two witnesses, you can very easily get lost in circular reasoning without realizing it.

 

[BeyondET]

Well orgininally this was referring to the legal proceedings in a criminal court, you need two or more witnesses to build a case; but its application has obviously expanded far beyond that, you need two or more independent sources to prove a claim, two or more different perspectives to review a story, you know. As the saying goes, there're two sides of a story. Without at least two witnesses, you can very easily get lost in circular reasoning without realizing it.

I highlighted the part in the verse. It is for sin when two or more witnesses is needed not legal proceedings or criminal court. Those places could careless about if it's a sin or not.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I highlighted the part in the verse. It is for sin when two or more witnesses is needed not legal proceedings or criminal court. Those places could careless about if it's a sin or not.

I was just telling you that it's not limited to sin. You should check out the other verses where Deut. 19:15 was quoted.

 

[BeyondET]

Noah had no witnesses

 

[BeyondET]

I was just telling you that it's not limited to sin. You should check out the other verses where Deut. 19:15 was quoted.

Iniquity and sin in the bible are interchangeable
So what else is in the verses that shows something other than those two? Anywhere in the other verses

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Iniquity and sin in the bible are interchangeable
So what else is in the verses that shows something other than those two? Anywhere in the other verses

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)

So? I gave an example about Jesus defending his lordship by the two witnesses rule, another example in post #6. Is His lordship sin?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Noah had no witnesses

What did Noah have to prove that requires witnesses?

 

[Tenchi]

Circular reasoning is a common pitfall we often find ourselves trapped in.

??? No, it's not a pitfall in which I find myself trapped commonly. I learned decades ago about this fallacious sort of reasoning and have avoided it carefully ever since.

A fundemantal principle in the bible is that you need two or more witnesses to prove a point.

A "fundamental principle" of what, exactly? There were two witnesses against Christ at his arraignment before Caiaphas, the high priest, in Matthew 26:57-68, but these witnesses were false.

In this example above, there's only one witness, which is the bible, it's God's special revelation to us, we've formed a Christian worldview around this special revelation.

But the nature of the "witness" that is the Bible is an argument in itself for the claims the Bible makes about itself. What nature is that, exactly?

1.) The incredible thematic unity of the Bible, though it was written on three different continents, (Europe, Asia and Africa), in three different languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek), over 1500 years, by forty different authors from widely varying lives (fishermen, cup-bearer to a king, shepherd-become-king, doctor, wealthy landowner, etc.).

2.) The fulfilled prophecies of God's word, numbering in the many hundreds, about nations, cities, and people. The detail of these prophecies and the accuracy of their fulfillment puts all other "prophetic" texts to shame.

3.) The historicity of Scripture revealed again and again by archaeological research to be at an unparalleled level of accuracy.

4.) The survivability of God's word. The Roman Emperor, Diocletian (281-305 A.D), actually believed he'd stamped out Christianity and its detestable sacred text. The Roman Catholic Church managed to suppress the Bible's distribution for centuries. Enlightenment advocates declared the Bible defunct and prophesied its decline into oblivion. And yet, there are more Bibles in the world today than there have ever been.

5.) Effect upon nations and individuals. No sacred text has had the effect upon human history that the Bible has had. Modern democracy, the liberties and rights of the individual in western societies, hospitals and institutions of learning, science - these all owe an enormous debt to Christianity and to the principles, values, ethics and morality framed within the Bible. Millions upon millions of people have come into a life-transforming relationship with their Maker revealed to them in the Bible. His Truth, given to them in Scripture, has purified, strengthened and directed their lives, delivering them from misery and self-destruction.

Thus it is that the nature of the Bible itself serves as witness to its divine origin. Pointing this out, though, isn't to argue in a circle.

The problem is, we often take the bible for granted as God's only revelation, and we often assume that other people share the same worldview with us, they understand our lingo, our references and our presupposition, when actually they don't, what some terms mean to us could mean very different thing to them, there's not much common ground. If we only use the bible, especially 2 Tim. 3:16, then we only have one witness, and we're stuck in circular reasoning with no extra evidence to corroborate.

Circular reasoning isn't the only fallacy of reasoning folks readily fall into. There are also non sequiturs that plague the thinking of many - as you demonstrate in this quotation. It doesn't follow that, because a Christian uses only God's word in defense and explanation of their faith, they're guilty of reasoning circularly. It is possible to give an apologetic for the faith from Scripture alone without falling into circular reasoning. Simply pointing out what I have about the Bible itself argues quite effectively for the Christian's belief in the divine authority of it - no fancy philosophical arguments, no evidence from science, no personal anecdotes required. This isn't to say that such things aren't available and helpful; they are. But they aren't necessary to avoiding circular reasoning when giving a defense of the faith.

God's word, God promises, will not "return unto Him void" (Isaiah 55:11). Because His word issues from Him, communicating His divine Truth, it has a power no other "truth," no mere human word, does. And so, God describes His truth as a "fire," "hammer," and "sword," as life-giving and mind-cleansing "water" and as nourishing "milk" (Jeremiah 23:29; Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Peter 2:2; Psalms 1; Ephesians 5:26) The Bible possesses all these qualities quite apart from whatever number of witnesses we might muster in support of it. And so, if we only speak God's truth in answer to challenges and questions concerning our faith, we know the divine power of it will be at work having a supernatural impact unique to His truth. Again, this doesn't mean natural theology, philosophical arguments, and scientific evidence aren't helpful and shouldn't be used, only that God's word is alone quite enough to accomplish God's purposes in the minds and hearts of lost people.

To make a good, objective argument for the existence of God and/or the infallability of the bible, you need another witness outside of the bible and the Christian community, and that is God's general revelation, it refers to general truths that can be known about God through nature and morality, taught in Rom. 1:20.

Not necessarily. See above. The Bible is a revelation of a Person, God Almighty; the Christian faith is occupied ultimately with Him. But we cannot get from natural theology, from the general revelation of God in nature and our conscience, to the God revealed in the Bible without the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. Too often, though, Christians shy away from the Bible and from Christ, sticking to philosophical and scientific evidences for God instead, and in the process make Him an academic thing, a knowledge proposition and/or perspective that one holds to, rather than a Person to be known and with whom to enjoy daily, intimate communion. No cosmological or teleological argument, no argument from design or philosophy can equal the "living, and powerful, and two-edged sword" that is God's word nor bring us into direct, life-changing interaction with Him, as the Bible can.

So, be careful not to make too much of extra-biblical arguments and evidences for God. They are helpful - to a point. But they must never replace God's special revelation of Himself in His word, the Bible.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

??? No, it's not a pitfall in which I find myself trapped commonly. I learned decades ago about this fallacious sort of reasoning and have avoided it carefully ever since.

At least don’t just quote 2 Tim. 3:16. If that’s all you know, you’re surely circular reasoning, that’ll be the example I gave in the OP.

A "fundamental principle" of what, exactly? There were two witnesses against Christ at his arraignment before Caiaphas, the high priest, in Matthew 26:57-68, but these witnesses were false.

Yes, two witnesses may be both false, that’s why potentially you need more. Besides, the point is, if you only have one witness, that’s surely not enough whether that’s true or false, and that’ll very likely to lead you into circular reasoning.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

But the nature of the "witness" that is the Bible is an argument in itself for the claims the Bible makes about itself. What nature is that, exactly?

1.) The incredible thematic unity of the Bible, though it was written on three different continents, (Europe, Asia and Africa), in three different languages (Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek), over 1500 years, by forty different authors from widely varying lives (fishermen, cup-bearer to a king, shepherd-become-king, doctor, wealthy landowner, etc.).

2.) The fulfilled prophecies of God's word, numbering in the many hundreds, about nations, cities, and people. The detail of these prophecies and the accuracy of their fulfillment puts all other "prophetic" texts to shame.

3.) The historicity of Scripture revealed again and again by archaeological research to be at an unparalleled level of accuracy.

4.) The survivability of God's word. The Roman Emperor, Diocletian (281-305 A.D), actually believed he'd stamped out Christianity and its detestable sacred text. The Roman Catholic Church managed to suppress the Bible's distribution for centuries. Enlightenment advocates declared the Bible defunct and prophesied its decline into oblivion. And yet, there are more Bibles in the world today than there have ever been.

5.) Effect upon nations and individuals. No sacred text has had the effect upon human history that the Bible has had. Modern democracy, the liberties and rights of the individual in western societies, hospitals and institutions of learning, science - these all owe an enormous debt to Christianity and to the principles, values, ethics and morality framed within the Bible. Millions upon millions of people have come into a life-transforming relationship with their Maker revealed to them in the Bible. His Truth, given to them in Scripture, has purified, strengthened and directed their lives, delivering them from misery and self-destruction.

Thus it is that the nature of the Bible itself serves as witness to its divine origin. Pointing this out, though, isn't to argue in a circle.

I raised this concern previously in this thread about this other form of circular reasoning called circular reporting - publication A puts out a piece of false information, then publications B, C, D and so on reprint it. They seem to be independent sources, but there’s only one source which is A. This has plagued today’s news industry and shattered public trust in it because journalists are too lazy to investigate, they just reprint. Now if you have the Bible, they could argue this divine origin is a myth, all 66 books are circular reporting and perpetuating this myth, how do you respond to that? Actually, all of your points are historical records, especially 3) and 4), those are independent extrabiblical evidence. You’re not quoting the Bible to defend the Bible because you know that would be circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning isn't the only fallacy of reasoning folks readily fall into. There are also non sequiturs that plague the thinking of many - as you demonstrate in this quotation. It doesn't follow that, because a Christian uses only God's word in defense and explanation of their faith, they're guilty of reasoning circularly. It is possible to give an apologetic for the faith from Scripture alone without falling into circular reasoning. Simply pointing out what I have about the Bible itself argues quite effectively for the Christian's belief in the divine authority of it - no fancy philosophical arguments, no evidence from science, no personal anecdotes required. This isn't to say that such things aren't available and helpful; they are. But they aren't necessary to avoiding circular reasoning when giving a defense of the faith.

God's word, God promises, will not "return unto Him void" (Isaiah 55:11). Because His word issues from Him, communicating His divine Truth, it has a power no other "truth," no mere human word, does. And so, God describes His truth as a "fire," "hammer," and "sword," as life-giving and mind-cleansing "water" and as nourishing "milk" (Jeremiah 23:29; Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Peter 2:2; Psalms 1; Ephesians 5:26) The Bible possesses all these qualities quite apart from whatever number of witnesses we might muster in support of it. And so, if we only speak God's truth in answer to challenges and questions concerning our faith, we know the divine power of it will be at work having a supernatural impact unique to His truth. Again, this doesn't mean natural theology, philosophical arguments, and scientific evidence aren't helpful and shouldn't be used, only that God's word is alone quite enough to accomplish God's purposes in the minds and hearts of lost people.

That’s not how Jesus defended God’s glory when he was facing questions and challenges from the Pharisees in John 8:13-19.

So the Pharisees said to him, “You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered: “You know neither Me nor My Father.”

And how the Father bears witness? Through works of miracle, which I explained in the OP. The same applies to the disciples in Acts, their words didn’t win hearts and souls, their actions did.

So, be careful not to make too much of extra-biblical arguments and evidences for God. They are helpful - to a point. But they must never replace God's special revelation of Himself in His word, the Bible.

You know, it says in James that we must be doers of God’s words, not just hearers because hearing God’s words alone is NOT enough, if you think that’s enough, you’re playing religion, like numerous people who testified that they grew up in a Christian home, attending church every week, but they never knew Jesus. Pharisees, scribes and lawyers in Jesus’s days were OT experts, they could recite the whole Torah, and yet they were the biggest villains who hated Jesus the most, except Nicodemus. With the Bible alone, you only know ABOUT Jesus; it takes personal experience to really know Him and to follow Him, sometimes it could be the hard way like Job, losing all your treasures, hitting rock bottom, that’s when you finally realize that all you need is Jesus when all you have is Jesus. This experience is the second witness, and natural theology, philosophical arguments, scientific evidence and anecdotal reports, all of those could be part of this experience. Holy Spirit is everywhere, God could use any resources available to you to point you to Jesus.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Circular reasoning is a common pitfall we often find ourselves trapped in. It's a logical fallacy that uses a preconceived conclusion of an argument as the basis of that argument to support it. A good example is this one below regarding the existence of God and/or the infallability of the bible -

How do you know there's a God? Because the bible says so! How do you know the bible is true? Because it's inspired by God!

A fundemantal principle in the bible is that you need two or more witnesses to prove a point. In this example above, there's only one witness, which is the bible, it's God's special revelation to us, we've formed a Christian worldview around this special revelation.

All this is true, but the One Witness is the Holy Spirit and the 2nd witness is the believer with the Spirit within the individual,

he shall testify of me and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. Jn.15:26-27 KJV

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, Rom.8:16 NKJV

The problem is, we often take the bible for granted as God's only revelation, and we often assume that other people share the same worldview with us, they understand our lingo, our references and our presupposition, when actually they don't, what some terms mean to us could mean very different thing to them, there's not much common ground.

I know what you mean by "take the Bible for granted", but in a real way the problem is people don't take the Bible for granted, like a surety.
Jesus said,

f anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. Jn.7:17 NKJV

If we only use the bible, especially 2 Tim. 3:16, then we only have one witness, and we're stuck in circular reasoning with no extra evidence to corroborate.

The evidence is Christ in your life and if people don't believe it,

if you warn the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. Eze.3:19 NKJV

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. (Deut. 19:15)
If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.(Matt. 18:16)
This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”(2 Cor. 13:1)
Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Heb. 10:28)
I will give power to my two witnesses. (Rev. 11:3)

Jesus was aware of this two witnesses rule and the logical fallacy of circular reasoning during his ministry. When his messiahship was challenged, he quoted some OT verses, but not only that, he also let his works of miracle bear witness:

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. (Jn. 10:25)
If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.(Jn. 10:37-38)

The Pharisees, on the other hand, was circular reasoning when they brought Jesus to Pilate. What crime do you accuse him of? He's evil! How do you know he's evil? Why would I accuse him if he were not evil? They had no independent witness or evidence. Also, they changed the charge from blasphemy to sedition, from a religious offense to a political offense in order for Pilate to hear the case.

Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.”(Jn. 18:30)

To make a good, objective argument for the existence of God and/or the infallability of the bible, you need another witness outside of the bible and the Christian community, and that is God's general revelation, it refers to general truths that can be known about God through nature and morality, taught in Rom. 1:20. I believe there's a creator God not because the bible says so, but various scientific evidence such as complex genome, the golden ratio, the fine tuning of gravity, those are intelligent design that by no means can naturally occur. The strongest evidence is the two laws of thermodynamics, which indicates that the universe cannot create and/or maintain itself in a "closed, isolated system", that's absolutely impossible. The most reasonable and plausible explanation is that there's a God outside the system who created the universe and has been maintaining it.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

This is true but all believers individually and collectively are the 2nd witness.

The 2nd faithful witness. That's pretty scary.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I know what you mean by "take the Bible for granted", but in a real way the problem is people don't take the Bible for granted, like a surety.

There’s a type of modern day Pharisees called sensationalists, they limit God’s Holy Spirit to the Bible as the only revelation of God, even though all English translations have errors and inaccuracies, it’s like watching an old grainy black and white movie; they speak a lot of Christianese like Tenchi and they deny any natural revelation or miracles that actually fulfill Bible prophecies, they attribute those to Satan just like the Pharisees did, that’s the unforgivable sin. Be aware of this attitude and don’t be one of them.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

There’s a type of modern day Pharisees called sensationalists, they limit God’s Holy Spirit to the Bible as the only revelation of God, even though all English translations have errors and inaccuracies, it’s like watching an old grainy black and white movie; they speak a lot of Christianese like Tenchi and they deny any natural revelation or miracles that actually fulfill Bible prophecies, they attribute those to Satan just like the Pharisees did, that’s the unforgivable sin. Be aware of this attitude and don’t be one of them.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate your genuine concern, but my point is the Bible with all the translations and inconsistancies is intact. People can still read the NT with confidence about what Jesus said. (Please no scholars that doubt it.....not interested. ?