A pamphlet was given to me by an organization that I highly respect (but will not name for political reasons), title "The Authority of the Bible" by John R. W. Stott. I suggest reading it, it's quite good in many respects, provided you are already a Christian who believes in the bible.
The first heading introduces the concept of authority and why we need it, but the second outlines his argument for the authority of scripture:
"What is the major reason why evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word written, inspired by his Spirit and authoritative over their lives? ... [he goes over reasons we don't use] ... No. The overriding reason for accepting the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We are convinced that he came from heaven and spoke from God. He said so: 'No one knows the father except the son' (Mt 11:27). ...[he quotes more scripture]... So we are prepared to believe what he taught for the simple reason that is he who taught it." (Pg. 6)
Did you catch it? Right there in the middle. "The overriding reason for accepting....scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We are convinced he...spoke from God. He said so:" and then he quotes scripture. Circular reasoning. We accept scripture because Jesus did. We accept Jesus because scripture says Jesus is from God (and therefore credible). Circular reasoning.
Let me give you a similar example I borrowed from a logic book, but with a different topic.
We accept Mein Kampf because Hitler did (he wrote it). We accept Hitler because Mein Kampf says Hitler is (his message is) from God. [Mein Kampf frequently says the Aryans are made in Gods image, certain common workers are Godless, etc pg 310, ]. Now, we obviously don't accept Hitler. But the argument is in the same form. Anytime you argue using two things that support each other and nothing else, it is circular reasoning.
To be fair, towards the end in pg 24, Stott addresses the accusation of circular reasoning, He says his reasoning is linear, "...in a line (historical document evoke our faith in Jesus, who then gives us a doctrine of Scripture)." (pg. 24). The problem is getting historical documents to evoke faith. The Iliad is a historical document, but we don't believe that Achilles was really blessed by the Gods. God may be able to convince you of faith in Jesus by first reading scripture, and confirm it though miracles and work in your own heart, but a historical document does not elicit faith purely by existing.
Now, I totally believe in the divinity and message of Jesus. He's pretty awesome. I also believe in the total inerrancy of the bible as it was originally written (and modern translations are pretty much completely faithful to the originals). But, I get my faith elsewhere. Below are a few reasons I have for believing Jesus and scripture:
1) The bible is quite easily the most accurate and well preserved historical document ever written (purely from an archaeological, secular standpoint). A number of objections have arisen, whole lists of them on atheistic websites, none of which I have failed to find a solution for. Archaeological finds continue to confirm the bible, the tomb of James, the brother of Jesus, census records, cities, royal records, etc, to the point that archaeologists now use the bible to find buried cities. 'oh, the bible says Capernum is about 50 miles west of... and next to...' Then they go dig and find it. (I made up the example).
2) The bible has 66 books written by many different authors over roughly a 1400 year time span. Yet it is amazingly internally consistent.
3) The three days after their charismatic leader is public tortured and killed, while hiding afraid in an upper room, the tomb appears empty and they proceed to publicly proclaim his resurrection, speak in languages they don't know, heal miraculously, and all save John are killed for their beliefs. The psychological fortitude or dementia required to overcome such loss, disarm or bribe 16 Roman soldiers (fishermen who haven't worked in 3 years outnumbered vs. soldiers who face the death penalty if they are caught), and proceed to all, without one of them breaking and letting the story out, die brutally for their lies, is simply inconceivable. That the Romans would not have produced the body and squashed an annoying cult, that no word would have leaked out, that 500 people could simultaneously hallucinate or be coordinated to tell non-contradicting stories of seeing Jesus.... The equivalent is that 12 fan or friends of Elvis claimed he rose 3 days after his death. If the evidence wasn't in their favor, no one would believe them.
4) I personally have performed what I cannot convince myself is anything other than a miracle. Two pastors and my Mom have both told stories of undeniable miracles as well. (Undeniable is spinal columns straightening, people near death suddenly becoming completely healthy, etc.)
5) I have experienced too many coincidences by what appears to be the Holy Spirit. Too many times I have experienced stimulus which is decidedly not a placebo effect or emotional experience. I am reminded of things or have thoughts which are not my own. Friends have expressed words of knowledge (they know things they couldn't without spiritual intervention or a crazy accurate intuition).
6) The entire conceptual model of Gods plan for us is both amazingly interdependent and non-contradictory, dimensionally complex to a dizzying degree and insanely simple (they kind of go hand-in-hand), supremely commonsense and practically useful in the real world, and finally emotionally/mentally healing and robust in ways no other philosophy can provide.
7) In science I have encountered roughly 5 unavoidable lines of reasoning that demand a supernatural presence in the universe, and roughly 10 more that provide strong suggestion.
8) I have not yet found another religion or belief system which is not inherently empty and would logically suggest the suicide, utter despair and meaninglessness, decidedly amoral behavior of it's followers or some combination of the three.
I could say more, but this post was not designed as proof for God.
"The Authority of the Bible" is not a bad book. It was nice to see how Jesus trusted the authority of the OT scriptures and the strong authority of the apostles who wrote the NT. But scripture cannot be proved through simple circular reasoning and faith in Jesus cannot come just through reading some historical documents.
