Why believe the bible?

[RoadRunner79]

The best thing I've heard recently (from this forum, sorry, can't remember who said it) is that the Bible can either be the claim or the evidence. It can't be both otherwise you rely on circular logic. I've started using that one recently and the theists don't know how to respond.

If it's evidence then we can evaluate it along with all the other evidence and discard most of it as being inconsistent with what we know.

If it's a claim then as in the OP, what evidence is there to back it up? As far as I can tell, there is barely anything. Again, we can discard it.

I think that is a false dichotomy. First it is important to remember that the Bible is not a single thing, but a collection of writings with a number of authors, over many generations. However even with a single writing, I don’t think it is nescessary to classify it as either a claim or the evidence. They may contain both. If making a distinction, I would describe a claim as the conclusion. If asked how they came to that conclusion, then one could give evidence (and reasons) for why they think that claim is true. The claim is not directly observed, but follows from the evidence and reason. In a writing, we may have a claim, and also support that claim with observation and our thinking to why that is true. It doesn’t need to be either a claim or evidence; it can contain both.

In a writing, one can share the information observed, as evidence for their claim. As well, the evidence may be the claim. I seen a certain man take this women’s purse. The claim is that he stole her purse, and the evidence is that you observed it occur.

If this is not what you mean, then please clarify what you mean by claim, and evidence. And why you think they are exclusive in a writing.