Although the Word of God is implied in the bible, we do not attain to the Word of God directly from the inferences we take from the bible. We attain to the Word of God by testing the inferences we take from the bible.
There may be gold in them there hills, but a lot has to happen between taking it out of the ground and wearing it like a crown.
"Because the bible says", amounts to nothing more or less than, 'because I infer from the bible'. The have met many people who consider the fact that they can show me where in the bible they took their inference to be evidence in favor of their inference.
To the best of my understanding, people have taken more contradictory inferences (many self-contradictory) from the bible than from any other literary source. Proving that one has taken their inference from the bible makes that inference statistically less likely to be what is actually implied than if it was taken from another literary source. Consequently, I disavow all doctrine. Doctrine is comprised of ideas held in common that are no longer subject to testing. I have no ideas that I am unwilling to test, especially the ideas that I take from the bible.
"Because the bible says." can only be employed by those who have not outgrown their first impression of what the bible says.
Do those interences prove the bible is supernatural or do they only prove that the writers have some wise advise, the bible makes you feel good, and the writers knew of historical events at the time.
"Proof" is the product of testing. The closest we can get to proof positive is experimental repeatability. The bible is not supernatural. That is why we do not attain to the supernatural directly by the inferences we take from it. We attain to the supernatural by testing the inferences we take from the bible. We approach certainty by the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing.
