Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The book is the claim, not the evidence.

(throws bullshit flag) That's a dumb meaningless meme. You could say that about any document ever produced, including the Declaration of Independence or Napoleon's letters to Josephine.

Nonsense. Firstly, the DoI acknowledges its self-reference ("we hold these truths to be self-evident" ring a bell, anyone?). It doesn't claim to be anything more than a claim (to wit, of grievances against an English king). Secondly, personal letters are expressions of emotion, typically, not statements of fact, which is what most Christians purport the Bible to be. And if they do contain claims of factuality, it is entirely appropriate for the respondent to ask, "Where's your source?". Thirdly, there are literally hundreds of thousands of books which footnote, you know, sources. Those sources are actually outside points of reference which support any particular claims laid in said book. Footnotes are notable by their absence in your holy book.

The Bible claims that Yahweh created the Universe, that Jesus is both himself and his son, and so on. Pointing to that book in order to support that book's claims is the epitome of circularity.

Try moar.