Borrowed from: http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/2014_05_25_archive.html
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)
My dad went to be with the Lord a little more than six months ago. He taught me many things as I was growing up and even into my adult life, but one of the most valuable lessons he taught me was to trust God’s Word in all matters. Even when I can’t make sense of it, God’s Word is true. To the skeptic this may sound as circular reasoning.
Why do you believe in the Bible?
Because it’s true; it’s God’s Word.
How do you know it’s true?
Because it’s the Word of God.
On its face, it may seem like circular reasoning, but it’s really not when one considers the source. Of essence, one must first believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God and that requires a certain amount of faith however small. “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
God is the Creator of all that exists, therefore all of creation is subject to Him. God created by His spoken Word. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light … And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters … and it was so … And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so” (Genesis 1:3, 6-7, 9), etc. Everything that exists came about by the spoken Word of God.
After God created man, He placed him in a special garden and gave him only one rule: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Man was free to eat the fruit of every tree in the garden except for this one. One would think that such a simple command should have been easy enough to obey considering the abundance of other choices they were given, but remarkably this was the very part of God’s Word that was challenged. “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? … Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:1, 4-5). Just in case you weren’t paying attention, Satan, the serpent, first called God’s Word into question. Next he claimed God’s Word was a lie, and finally he claimed that God was keeping the couple from something better. From creation to the present, Satan’s strategy remains the same.
The Bible that we currently have was canonized around the fourth century AD, many of the source texts, especially the Old Testament texts, go back thousands of years. For that reason, the skeptics charge that the originals have been corrupted, and since we do not possess the original autographs, we cannot trust our modern Bibles. “Has God really said?” Next they deny the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible. “God did not create anything; it all started from a Big Bang and after billions of years life emerged from random chemical reactions that evolved over millions of years and eventually resulted in our existence. It was all due to natural processes.” The skeptics can say what they want, but the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong. Finally, following the teachings of the Bible will keep you from being all that you want to be, and from doing whatever you want to do. “What! You don’t want to live your life as a monk (or nun) do you?”
The Bible has withstood all the challenges of the skeptics for centuries. One of the earliest criticisms of the Bible was that it mentioned the nation of the Hittites for which there was no historical record. Then late in the 19th century archeological discoveries revealed that not only did the Hittites exist, but they were a powerful empire. Archeologists continue to discover evidences that confirm the veracity of the Bible. Within the last century, the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts found hidden in the caves of Qumran validate the accuracy of scriptural transmission when compared to the manuscripts previously known. This fact alone testifies to the imperishability of the Word of God: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isaiah 40:8).
Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 25:35). He went further to say, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). What He was saying was that neither the smallest letter nor even the smallest distinguishing nuance of a letter will be lost until all is fulfilled. That is a remarkable claim for any author to make about his book, but Jesus made that claim about His Word. “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11).
So, if God is who He claims to be, then His Word can be trusted completely because He, the Author, says so. I believe the Bible – all of it – because it is God’s Word; and because it is God’s Word, it is true. There is no question. It is settled forever!
Ernie's Musings 
Not sure I understand how this is not circular. Proposition A is true because proposition B is true; proposition B is true because proposition A is true.
Did I miss something?
Hello Mr. Atheist. Thank you for reading my blog. If you read carefully, you will note that I specified that it requires even a “small” amount of faith, and by implication, faith in the “possibility” that God exists. This, I assume, you are lacking; therefore to you it is circular reasoning. But it is NOT circular reasoning, if the source, i.e. God, is true and the claims made are true.
I really did not write this to convince someone who rejects God that His Word is true. That cannot happen because atheists reject God of their own volition, and they offer up a plethora of excuses for their rejection of God, all of which, in my humble opinion, are highly irrational, and it is difficult to engage in a rational discussion with irrational people. You may have the same opinion of us who do believe in God; that’s okay. I understand that. However, there are historical, and scientific evidences that support biblical claims, and a truly open-minded individual who truly is seeking truth will conclude that the Bible is true as is the Author. On the other hand, someone who has willingly shut their mind to God will never see the truth even when it smacks them in the face.
You will please forgive me, if I don’t engage in an online debate with you. You are welcome read all I have written over the years. I am, as much as possible, consistent in my message. And if you care to take the debate off line, I am sure you can find my email on this site somewhere. Again, thank you for contributing.
Actually, what Professor Carrasco says is not technically “circular” though it is consistent, as it analytically combines assumption and description.
Premise 1: Because God Himself is a ready, willing, able communicator (as opposed to someone who doesn’t try to share important information with others ), God chose to give us — and historically has given us — a unique, perspicuous communication in written form: the Holy Bible.
Premise 2: Because God Himself is a true, honest, and accurate Person, His unique, perspicuous communication in written form (i.e., the Holy Bible) is true, accurate, and reliable.
Ernie’s Practical Conclusion: God’s Word is informative and trustworthy.
This is not a circular argument. It does not attempt to “prove” the existence or moral character of the Biblical God. Also, it does not try to “prove” the existence of the Bible itself. Furthermore, it doesn’t aim at proving the many details that provide evidentiary support for both premise 1 and Premise 2. Rather, it summarizes the logic of Ernie’s belief that the Holy Bible is reliable as a gift from God (Jude 1:3-4.).
God is a “ready, willing, able communicator” and this takes shape in the form of a book?
God is “true, honest, and accurate Person” and therefore his book is “true, accurate, and reliable”?
Ok, so premise 2, the truth, honest, accuracy bit, isn’t circular?
Also, god is an “accurate person” in your second premise. God is a person and is also accurate?
How do you know that god is all these things you suppose he is? How do you know he has these characteristics? If I may answer this as I think you would (if I follow your logic):
God is true and honest and is an accurate person because the book he either wrote/inspired says he is. If he is true and honest and reliable and he is the author of the book in question, then the book in question is true, honest and reliable.
Did I get that right?
As far as the perspicuousness of god, that my friend, is probably outside the confines of this communicational thread. There are a handful of points that both you and Carrasco make that are quite, extraordinary, yet I don’t bring them up. But this point we are discussing, the attempt for you and Carrasco to square your “circle”, has not been made clear; regardless of your perspicuousness. In fact, I would argue, that your perspicuousness shrouds the truth and reality.
I am hoping you will be able to enlighten me. As I am ok being wrong and do not believe I have all the answers. I am open to being wrong and can say that I was wrong and change my mind.
Mr. Atheist, in my first response to you, I pointed out that there is a certain amount of “faith,” however small that faith is, that is required. You are lacking that faith, therefore no amount of argumentation will convince you otherwise. I know that. I understand that, and I will not even try. However, if you could at least allow for the remotest possibility that an omniscient, omnipotent God could exist, then the logic would fall into place. But until you can allow for that, I really don’t expect you to understand. There is a verse in the Bible that explains why that is: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Romans 1:28). A “reprobate mind” is one that is incapable of understanding reason. I don’t know if Dr. Johnson will reply, but seriously, I doubt if he can convince you either.
The more efficient way to reply is to insert below, using a different color, but there is no different color, so I’ll use ALL CAPS to indicate my responses:
“God is a “ready, willing, able communicator” and this takes shape in the form of a book? YES, YOU HAVE THAT CORRECT. IN FACT, THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE ALL-TIME MOST PUBLISHED & MOST-TRANSLATED BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, AS WELL IT SHOULD BE.
God is “true, honest, and accurate Person” and therefore his book is “true, accurate, and reliable”? BINGO! YOU ARE CORRECT AGAIN. IN FACT, GOD’S CHARACTER AND POWER AND OTHER TRAITS ARE SHOWN BY HIS CREATION, AS IS EXPLAINED BY ROMANS CHAPTER 1. NOTICE: I SAID IT IS EXPLAINED BY ROMANS CHAPTER 1 — IT WAS ALREADY TRUE BEFORE ROMANS CHAPTER 1 WAS WRITTEN, BUT ROMANS CHAPTER 1 EXPLAINS THAT REALITY IN USER-FRIENDLY TERMS FOR US. Ok, so premise 2, the truth, honest, accuracy bit, isn’t circular? NOT AT ALL. GOD USES 5 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF TRUTH WITNESSES, AND THEY CORROBORATE EACH OTHER (WHICH IS DIFFERENT, FORENSICALLY SPEAKING, THAN BEING “CIRCULAR”). SEE MY SUMMARY OF THIS AT http://www.icr.org/article/7097 . Also, god [sic] is an “accurate person” in your second premise. God is a person and is also accurate? YES, & YES AGAIN. THAT IS WHY GOD MAKES A GOOD TRIAL WITNESS (FORENSICALLY SPEAKING) — HE IS ACCURATE IN HIS COMMUNICATIONS. WHEN GOD SAYS ALL OF CREATION WAS MADE IN 6 DAYS HE IS ACCURATE — IT WAS 6, NOT 3 OR 9 OR 5 BILLION.
How do you know that god [sic] is all these things you suppose he is? FOR A QUICK SUMMARY, SEE MY ABOVE-CITED ARTICLE, POSTED AT http://www.icr.org/article/7097 . HOWEVER, REALIZE THAT “5 CATEGORIES” IS NOT THE SAME AS “5 INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES” — BECAUSE OUR ERYTHROCYTES ALONE COMPRISE LITERALLY QUINTILLIONS OF WITNESSES THAT PROVE GOD’S WISDOM AND BIOENGINEERING POWER AS THE CREATOR OF OUR HUMAN BODIES, AS I SUMMARIZE IN http://www.icr.org/article/6045 . How do you know he [SIC] has these characteristics? [ALREADY ANSWERED ABOVE] If I may answer this as I think you would (if I follow your logic): God is true and honest and is an accurate person because the book he [SIC] either wrote/inspired says he [SIC, et seq.] is. [STRAW-MAN FALLACY — I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS MISCHARACTERIZATION ABOVE.] If he is true and honest and reliable and he is the author of the book in question, then the book in question is true, honest and reliable. [THIS IS CLOSER TO BEING ACCURATE EXCEPT IT IGNORES THE REALITY THAT THE HOLY BIBLE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES REALITY IN A WAY THAT IS NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE OR OTHERWISE EXPLAINABLE — SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOW THE HOLY BIBLE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES EMBRYONIC DEVELEOPMENT OF HUMAN BABIES, IN PSALM 139, WHICH WAS WRITTEN ABOUT 3000 YEARS AGO, LONG BEFORE WE HAD THE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY & UNDERSTANDING OF DNA, ETC., TO OBSERVE HOW HUMAN BODIES ARE MADE BIOCHEMICALLY IN THE WOMB — SEE: http://www.icr.org/article/6918 — AND, WHILE ON THE TOPIC OF HUMAN DNA, CONSIDER HOW IT PROVES THAT ITS CREATOR IS AN INFORMATION-CODING COMMUNICATOR FAR BEYOND WHAT HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF, AS SHOWN IN MY SCIENCE ARTICLE: http://www.icr.org/article/5930 . IN FACT, EVEN THE CHINESE LANGUAGE ITSLEF IS A TESTIMONY TO THE HISTORIC MEMORY OF GENESIS-REPORTED EVENTS — SEE MY ARTICLE AT: http://www.icr.org/article/8643 .
Did I get that right? NO, BUT FOR PART OF IT YOU WERE AT LEAST IN THE RIGHT BALLPARK. [SEE ABOVE.] As far as the perspicuousness of god [sic], that my friend, is probably outside the confines of this communicational thread. There are a handful of points that both you and Carrasco make that are quite, extraordinary, yet I don’t bring them up. But this point we are discussing, the attempt for you and Carrasco to square your “circle” [WRONG AGAIN — AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, ESPECIALLY BY THE FORENSIC EVIDENCES PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLES THAT I HAVE CITED ABOVE], has not been made clear; {ACTUALLY THE CLARITY IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE BEYOND-GENUINE-DISPUTE STANDARDS OF RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH IS THE RULE USED FOR PROCESSING ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURTS NOWADAYS — A SET OF PROOF NORMS THAT YOU APPEAR TO BE UNFAMILIAR WITH, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAY HEREIN] regardless of your perspicuousness. In fact, I would argue [ARBITRARILY — WITHOUT ANY LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR DOING SO], that your perspicuousness shrouds the truth and reality. THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS TRUTH RECOGNITION, WHICH PRESUPOSES THAT THERE IS A REAL TRUTH TO BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED — SEE MY ARTICLES AT: http://www.icr.org/article/7310 & AT: http://www.icr.org/article/7866 . I am hoping you will be able to enlighten me. [OH NO, — I CAN’T POSSIBLE DO THAT, ACCORDING TO ROMANS CHAPTER 1 — ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN DO THAT, IF HE CHOOSES TO SHOW MERCY BY PROVIDING ENLIGHTENMENT — BECAUSE THERE COMES A TIME WHEN GOD RESPONDS TO REJECTION WITH REJECTION. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT “GOD HATES THE SIN YET LOVES THE SINNER” IS IT ALSO TRUE THAT THE SINNERS WHO CONTINUALLY REJECT CHRIST, IN THIS EARTHLY LIFE, GO TO HELL — IN OTHER WORDS, IT’S NOT JUST “SIN” THAT GOES TO HELL IT’S “SINNERS”, SPECIFICALLY, UNFORGIVEN SINNERS WHO REJECTED THE GIFT OF SALVATION IN CHRIST.] As I am ok being wrong and do not believe I have all the answers. I am open to being wrong and can say that I was wrong and change my mind. [NICE THOUGHTS — BUT BEING WRONG SOMETIMES HAS SERIOUS DISADAVANTAGES & CONSEQUENCES — SOME THINGS, LIKE WHAT IS THE BEST BARGAIN ON CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM (OR WHETHER LUTEFISK IS A GOOD FOOD TO EAT), ARE NOT A “BIG DEAL” IF SOMEONE IS WRONG ABOUT THEM — BUT BEING WRONG ABOUT JESUS IS THE WORST WRONG THAT A HUMAN CAN BE GUILTY OF. “BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED.” (ACTS 16:31)
Reply
Comments
There is quite a bit to unpack with those last responses.
It seems you are both saying that in order for me to understand how the logic being used isn’t “circular” I must suspend my disbelief and believe (just a little). I have to concede that there is a power or force or energy or something beyond my current understanding in order to fully understand that this is not a circular argument? OK.
I can’t help but think of Einstein. Einstein had a problem with his theory of relativity and how to counter the forces of gravity. He needed to introduce something, a constant, that would make his theory work more elegantly. The theory of relativity “required” a leap of faith and that leap of faith required the inclusion of a value in order for the theory to work out as proposed.
Makes sense. You must insert something to fit what you expect to find and what you “think” you’ve observed. Einstein believed that we lived in a static universe and needed to counter the gravity with the idea of an anti-gravity force; he created the cosmological constant. Of course his limited observation of the universe led him to think that the universe was static. The only way to attempt to explain this would be to create a constant that countered the gravity and, in doing so, he was able to explain to a certain extent and show to a certain extent that the universe was static.
A few years later it, with the aid of Hubble, it was discoverd that the universe was NOT static. The universe was expanding. Whoa. Einstein would call this the “biggest blunder” of his life.
The cosmological constant is still around. String theorists and quantum mechanics still use a version of the cosmological constant to explain the unexplainable (as of this writing); it is merely used as a placeholder. A placeholder that will inevitably prove itself to be an incorrect assumption and cease to be of any real value. It will be laid to rest on a shelf somewhere as a reminder that we can learn and we can grow and we can reach beyond our understanding. Using the cosmological constant might be a flaw but it is a flaw that propels us to new understandings and new frontiers. Einstein was wrong.
Both of you are using your version of the “cosmological constant”. Your cosmological constant is god.
Both of you want me to insert god into the equation or it won’t work. You are asking me to believe that 2+2=5. In order for me to “know” I must add an imaginery value to this equation (just as Einstein did) in order for it to be true. Without it? It just won’t make sense. Einstein gave up the notion once the observations didn’t make sense with the expectation. 2+2=4. Not 5. Instead of changing your equation you want me to insert something that doesn’t make sense in order for it to work? Your equation is broken but works only if you use something that “fixes” it? Am I right?
All of this reminds me of Laplace’s famous quote:
“Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.”
Mr. Atheist, that is just about the size of it, you need to begin with a “constant” and that constant is God. And no, we are not expecting you to believe that 2+2=5. That would be false, and God by His nature is truth.
The problem is that you accept that 2+2=4, but you have no idea where 2 came from in the first place. We have a fundamental disjuncture here in that we have opposing presuppositions. Your presupposition is that there is no God, and that all that we observe somehow just magically happened; ours is that God exists, and He created and set the universe in order. I will never see it your way, not necessarily because of my stubbornness or narrow-mindedness, but simply because a universe as complex as we see, from the largest star to the smallest subatomic particle known to man, coming into a highly organized existence from absolutely nothing, without any kind of guidance whatsoever is just utterly ridiculous to me. But, an omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent God creating by His spoken Word is reasonable to me. I’m sorry you can’t see that, but knocking this back and forth will get neither of us anywhere, and frankly, I have better things to do. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. In closing, let me leave you with a word from a man I greatly admire:
— Henry M. Morris III
Thanks, Ernie. Actually, Laplace (regardless of whether he was a deist or a “true” atheist) was quite foolish in his deistic disregard for the authoritatively relevant Bible, so now he continues to pay the price for his folly (Psalm 14:1). The main thing that I would say, now, is that “Mr. Atheist” obviously did NOT take the time to read and analyze the URL-linked apologetics articles provided in my earlier posting. Thus, there is no need to add any more, unless and until he meaningfully analyzes and then responds to what I have already provided therein. (Acts 13:51)
I can only add that saying about a duck. You know the one? Sounds like and walks like…
I was not and am not “baiting you” into a debate. Far from it. I would only advise you to remove the sections about this NOT being circular. It is unnecessary. For example:
I would remove:
“To the skeptic this may sound as circular reasoning.”
“On its face, it may seem like circular reasoning, but it’s really not when one considers the source.”
Removing those two sentences removes my argument. You can make all the claims you like about everything else. I think it is a tad too much to pretend that it is NOT circular when in fact it is. Keep the rest. I am only giving you constructive criticism. It takes away from your larger argument. You want to appear to have sound arguments, right?
I’m not looking for a debate. I am attempting to help.
Thank you for your input, Mr. Atheist.
Anytime.
Ernie, great blog post. There is a scripture that has carried me through trials and tragedies. But like you responded to the above comment understanding requires faith in our God…then He does the rest. Deuteronomy 29:29 states: “The secret things belong to the Lord, the things revealed belong to you and to your children forever…” After the sudden death of our daughter years ago, I hammered the heavens with my cries of “Why God? Why?”
We were studying the Book of Deuteronomy at the time. The morning I opened to this verse, the words leaped off the page and into my heart. And I heard “Do you trust Me?” I’d love to tell you I replied with gusto “Of course, I trust You.” But with my weak, mustard seed sized faith I whimpered “Yes, Lord. I trust you.”
And if anyone cares to read my personal experiences with learning those secret things are indeed safe in the hands of the Father, click the link and find out the jillion ways our eternal God and His Son, my Lord Jesus Christ have answered my questions and prayers: http://dianegates.wordpress.com/
Thank you, DiAne. That reminds me of another verse, “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 25:29).