Article written by:
Michael Patton, who received a master of theology degree in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary in 2001.
It is a discussion of why he feels that the Bible can act as its own proof …….. and why this is not circular reasoning.
I have never heard this argument before: namely, that because the Bible was written by several authors over a long period, anyone using it as proof is acting as a historian.
The struggle with this, is that he is mixing the book as history, the interpretation of what the history meant, and the theology of the book. The Bible as a history book, and the interpretation of what the history meant, and the theology distilled from the book can not be used to prove each other …. Theology is theology, history is history, and interpretation of what was being said, and the significance of what happened, shouldn’t …. at least in my mind, be confused. Many times, evangelicals indulge themselves in many “therefore’s”…. it is this, therefore it must be that….. this is not good scientific research…..
I do give this seminarian a “C” for trying, but like so many biblical evidence folks, the confirmation bias is extremely obvious…….
The only way i have ever had the truth in this book give me eureka moments which are lasting, was after i dropped my fixation on it as “the only Word of God”. Until then, it only fed my human ego some food to temporarily calm my suffering soul, and it did not do as it states it will: give me living bread…. it was not lasting…. But this is truly only in my own vantage point of view, and i do not deny others the comfort of their beliefs.