"How Do We Know The Bible Is True?"

Jason suggested in his blog that everyone should read a book that is outside their belief system.  Doing so challenges what you believe and encourages growth.  Well, my mom gave me a book for Christmas called How Do We Know The Bible Is True? by John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs.  I can honestly say that, in the spirit of opening an avenue of discussion with my mom, I read the book with an open mind.  It was difficult to maintain that mindset, however.  My comments in the margins got snarkier as the book went on.  Here's an overview of the book and my thoughts on it:
On the first page of the book, before we even get to chapter 1, I come across this little gem:  (in the context of listing other religions' holy books) "Buddhism has The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path."  No.  Those are teachings, not holy books.  That would be like saying that The Ten Commandments is a holy book.  If the authors are going to say something, they should at least do a bit of research, especially considering that one of the authors wrote a book called Comparing Christianity with World Religions.  This doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.
Chapter 1 (How Did We Get The Bible?):  This is a brief history of the Bible, what's in it, how many books there are, etc.  They claim that the Bible has historical accuracy, eyewitness accuracy, and prophetic accuracy.  However, the only proof that they provide is quotes from the Bible.  Sorry, but you can't say "this book is true because it says it's true!"  Logical fallacy #1.  Then, they talk about the reasoning behind the choices of which books were included in the Bible and which ones were cast aside.  This is supposed to strengthen the argument that the Bible is true.  However, most of these "tests" are about making sure the books are consistent with previous teachings and books, or have some kind of intangible quality (eg. Does the book ring with the sense of "The Lord says..."?) None of the tests have anything to do with whether or not the content of the books is actually true.  Fantastic.
Snarky summary of chapter 1: The Bible is true because it says it's true and a lot of important people believe it's true!
Chapter 2 (Isn't The Bible Full Of Myths And Legends?):  They define a myth as a fantastical story that has a kernel of truth.  They then list stories in the Bible that seem like myths.  They then state that these stories can't possibly be myths because the Bible is God's Word(tm).  Proof that it's God's Word(tm)?  You guessed it: Bible quotes.  They then state that there are over 200 stories of a massive flood, citing The Epic of Gilgamesh.  Leaving aside the fact that they cited a mythological epic poem as historical fact, they seem to believe that if a large number of people believe that something is true, that means that it is true.  Did we learn nothing from the persecution of Galileo and countless other scientists?  The chapter ends with a chart of well-known miracles of Jesus, as if that's supposed to convince me of something.
Snarky summary of chapter 2: There are a whole bunch of stories in the Bible that are hard to accept and impossible to prove, but the Bible says that it's God's Word(tm), so therefore everything is true!
Chapter 3 (What About Those 'Lost Books' Of The Bible?): Ah, yes, The Da Vinci Code.  Why am I not surprised that they cite a silly fiction book as a strong, well-known argument against the Bible?  Anyway, they state that the four books of the gospel are the only good ones because a) they were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and b) there are a lot of copies of the manuscripts that were made a short while after the original was written.  There is a chart of other literary works (eg. The Iliad by Homer) with fewer copies and much more time between the copy and the original.  However, they completely disregard the fact that neither of these two things has anything to do with the veracity of the books, or that no one reads The Iliad as infallible historical fact.  There is then a chart of New Testament quotes from early church leaders, as though the idea that a bunch of guys quoted the book 2000 years ago makes it 100% factual.  The authors then claim that independent non-Christian authors "mention details regarding facts found in the New Testamant".  Oh good, some actual factual evidence!  Oh wait..their "evidence" is a mention of a group called "Christians" and that they followed someone called "Christ".  If there had been independent mention of any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, for instance, that would be "details regarding facts found in the New Testament".  Well, considering the fact that I'm questioning the truth of the Bible and not the existence of Christians, I remain unconvinced.
Snarky summary of chapter 3: The gospels are true because we have lots of copies close to the original date of authorship and early church leaders quoted them.  Oh, and it's more accurate than The Iliad, which must mean it's valid historical fact.  Also, the 'lost gospels' are bullshit.
Chapter 4 (What About All Of The Contradictions?): They claim that the main cause of atheism is the contradictions in the Bible.  I'm not even going to touch that one.  They claim that the Bible is inerrant/inspired because it says that it is inerrant/inspired.  I'm really getting tired of this logical fallacy.  They claim that the best way to deal with contradictions in the Bible is by closely examining both sides.  Finally, something in this book that makes sense.  This chapter is mostly about how to deal with minor discrepancies in the texts.  I was mostly fine with this chapter until the very end, when they claimed that since some contradictions can be solved, the whole book is true.
Snarky summary of chapter 4: Some contradictions can be cast aside, therefore the whole book is inerrant Truth(tm).
Chapter 5 (Why Do Christians Believe The Bible Is Perfect?): Again, just because a bunch of people believe that a book is true, that does not make it true.  I don't think the authors understand this concept.  Anyway, this chapter is basically a whole bunch of circular arguments.  For example: "Jesus Christ is the One who claims to be God and proved His claim by rising from the dead.  It is on His authority as God of the universe that we are sure the Bible is the Word of God."  So, basically they are saying 'the Bible claims Jesus is God.  Jesus claims the Bible is true.  So, logically, since Jesus is God, the Bible is true!'  No.  Logic does not work like that.  They also keep using the word "evidence" as though they have already given it.  I don't think that word means what they think it means.  They also don't understand the idea of burden of proof, as shown by this quote: "The proper way to interpret the Bible involves a respect for the text as given until proven otherwise."  Again, no.  Since you're the one making the claims, you're the one that has the burden of proof.  If I was to say "there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars", it would be my responsibility to prove my claim, not yours to prove I am wrong (thanks Bertrand Russell).  They also claim that the Jesus story fulfills all of the prophecies made in the Old Testament, and that is proof that the Bible is true.  I'm not even going to go into the fact that the writers of the gospels both knew what the prophecies said and had a reason to make it seem as though they had been fulfilled.  But guys, "The son of God will come.  See that guy?  He's the son of God." does not count as a fulfilled prophecy, nor does it count as historical fact or scientific proof.  There is absolutely no proof or corroboration by other historical documents.  There is a chart at the end of the chapter called "24 Prophecies Fulfilled in the 24 Hours Before Jesus' Death".  However, this list is unimpressive because it's full of things like "beaten and spat upon", "wounded and bruised", and "people ridiculed him".  These are things that were true for every person ever publicly humiliated and put to death.
Snarky summary of chapter 5: The Bible claims that it is inerrant, therefore it is inerrant.  Also, it claims that prophecies have been fulfilled, therefore it is inerrant, and also 100% historically accurate.
Chapter 6 (How Do We Know The Words Haven't Been Changed?): This chapter is about how many of the copies of the New Testament matched each other except for minor "typo-like" errors.  The authors go into the reasons for these kind of errors, none of which are particularly note-worthy or interesting to me.
Snarky summary of chapter 6: Most of the discrepancies in the Bible are minor and "typo-like", therefore the Bible is factual, historical Truth(tm).


Wow.  That was a lot longer (and more bitter) than I was expecting it to be.  I guess I was hoping for a book that would challenge my ideas and my intellect instead of a book full of logical fallacies and circular reasoning.