it even makes sense why they couldn't: in effect, they treat the bible as god ("bible-believing", "what the bible says", etc.). it's an attenuated form of idolatry which is book-based. they do only treat it as an idol, though, because they also twist the text to reflect what they themselves think. they have simply been taught that anything is only true "if it's in the bible", so whenever they want to assert something (which corresponds to deep psychology, in a way), they quote some loosely similar-sounding bible-story and say that "that's now proven". we've all seen it; people don't quote "scripture" (a superstitious term for "writing") as they would quote a regular text, or a technical manual, or a novel, but always in this "sanctimonious" way. the bible itself essentially and operationally forbids man from knowing himself. man still wants to know himself or at least have some value of his endorsed, so he makes everything fit into the "bible-shaped cage". however, people will be surprised to know: jesus didn't write the bible and jesus didn't endorse or preach the bible. nobody knew what "the bible" was in jesus's time. he hardly could have asked his listeners to "believe the bible", though some did have the existing (now ot) writings, which they also treated with superstitious, totemistic reverence, which humans in general do, to come back to the original point, because, i would argue, writing, to our minds, feels like the voice of god: you treat it internally as speech, but since it's a passive medium which you can't persuade or intimidate, it feels as if you were speaking to someone who had infinite force - even though you're really arguing with an oddly-shaped rock, basically. the human mind is silly like that, but it's a universal human tendency, not specific to christians.
Hungary