Proving the Bible

Jamin Hubner at Real Apologetics has written another very fine article which may be found here.


2 Comments

Mitchell LeBlanc

The first portion of the paper seems to just outline for fellow Christians why they need not ask for proof. I do find one quotation particularly telling though:

“… even though the Christian can’t cite deeper grounds than personal faith for believing in the Bible’s authority, the alternative position has no better justification for not believing in the Bible’s authority.”

Though specifically cited from a portion dealing with Islam, doesn’t this sum up the entire article? The proof of the Bible being suggested doesn’t seem to be rightly called proof at all.

“Only the Trinitarian God can provide a basis for the laws, facts, and laws of logic through which we determine the very essence of “validity.””

This is really the entire issue isn’t it? We can agree that all of our worldviews have fundamental assumptions and I’m sure that we can agree that not all assumptions are created equal. That is, not all assumptions are coherent. If the Christian’s primary assumptions are shown to be incorrect doesn’t that render the Bible false, by proxy?

Perhaps it was not the intended scope of the paper, so I am not intending to fault Hubner, but doesn’t the real importance lie in demonstrating that the above quotation to be true?

Mitchell LeBlanc

Sorry, ‘is true’* rather than “to be true”…


Leave a Comment