Do you mean should we believe that what's in your autobiography is a more accurate picture of you than what Frank says about you? If so, I would suspend belief until I knew more. People often portray themselves in a very positive light in autobiography, and neighbors often know what someone is really like in certain situations.
what I am saying is that Frank will know some things, I will know others, together we will have a much clearer picture of truth. But, with Frank alone, we simply can't be sure.
Here is an example, in the analogy Frank has lived next to me for 2 years. But in the autobiography I talk about things that happened long before I ever met Frank. What then if Frank says, when she was young she broke her leg riding a horse. would he really know that? of course not, that was before we met. However, if Frank says, a year ago, their son died. And the autobiography tells about our son who died a year ago, then Frank collaborates the book, right? Likewise, if the Bible is the claimed authority in this case, that is the autobiography and Frank (the believer) contradicts the story or proclaims to know something not in the book, why wouldn't we think that is delusion? However, if Frank confirms what is in the book, wouldn't that add credibility to the story?
The quandary that every single true believer faces is how to live a life that testifies to the truth they know within. Like the neighbor, the true believer understands that how he lives his life testifies to the truth of Christ, yet, we are flesh and blood and thus a quandary. This is where the HS comes in, but I digress. If all you do is listen to the believer and base all your understanding of God on what man says, we have no reason to believe what you say, however, if the believer confirms the book, credibility is added to the claim.
Yes, if we take Frank's word we're taking his perception of God; but why would we? And no, we wouldn't be claiming the autobiography doesn't exist, we'd be saying we favour Frank's word over it.
But for God, the 'autobiography' (assuming you were making an analogy to scripture) was actually ghosted by a number of authors who claim, or on whose behalf it is claimed, that what they wrote was influenced or directed by God. This makes it hearsay - so by some measures Frank's first-hand version should carry more weight
But in both cases I'd apply Hitchen's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
but see, that is just it, the analogy assumes that both are working together not in opposition to one another. Just because Frank might say something that isn't quite true doesn't make the autobiography false. Likewise when Franks testimony lines up with the autobiography we can't say 100% but there is a level of credibility that we didn't have before.
I guess it's common practice for celebrities to have their autobiographies ghosted, but not posthumously by a number of authors (aren't those biographies, or hagiographies?).
WEll, that is a whole nother discussion, but the understanding from scripture is that God inspired the authors and since they are hauntingly similar to one another that is kind of like Frank confirming the story.
