MATT
> But you might argue that choosing to believe the Bible is infallible
does
> not make it so. In one sense, you are correct; it is obviously a
circular
> argument.
DAR
Thanks for admitting this Matthew. I find that most inerrantists avoid
revealing that they know that the basis of their belief in inerrancy is
based upon an entirely fallacious form of argument.
MATT
Yet, when I see how God blesses me in my life when I try to
> follow Him, and His Holy Word, then I have no doubts of the
authenticity of
> either.
DAR
When I see how my life has been "blessed" without trying to follow a
god, or a book, then I find I have no reason to believe in or assert the
authenticity (or esp. inerrancy) of gods or the books they supposedly
inspire.
Certainly not when the main reason given for believing the authenticity
of the book is "because it says."
cheers,
Darrel.
-------------------
Webster's:
circle 13. Logic a faulty manner of reasoning in which the
premise and conclusion are each in turn used to prove the other
[guilty of arguing in a circle]
Also:
vicious circle 3. Logic a) an argument which is invalid because
its conclusion rests on a premise which itself depends on the
conclusion.