the laws of logic (however many you stipulate) are self verifying. What you all are failing to realize is that this does not make sense without the God of the bible, Jesus Christ. That is your brains which are material manifesting immaterial laws. Your finite brains manifesting infinite laws. Your changing brains manifesting unchanging laws of logic. This is what we expcet within Christian understanding. This is absolutely impossible within your framework. The fact that you are having so much trouble understanding the dilemma is instructive.
I am not stating that people don't use the laws of logic and can't name them, they must because God made them in his image, and he 'put wisdom in the inward parts'. God says let us reason together. You are taking credit for your minds ability to use logic. Also the existence of logic you take advantage of but reject the source of logic- Jesus Christ.
You still haven't said anything that proves this. Saying someone is wise, doesn't mean they are the 'source of logic'. In fact, it's pretty insane if you look at the fact that Jesus died for others... regardless of social martyrdom where's the logic in all that? If he would use the laws of logic, he would have made sure to stick around a LOT longer, helping all in need of help.
The Bible definitely is no authority on logic and it is indeed funny that you've decided to switch words to 'understanding and wisdom'. From a biological and psychological point of view, the last few sentences I've quoted from you are totally wrong. Laws of logic are universal, there's no need to even have read the Bible to understand logic. There's no dilemma except your odd reasoning here of how knowledge of the Bible would give 'advanced' access to logic or something. Quite ridiculous.
Plus you appear to be hugging a false dilemma that if there isn't a cut and paste wikipedia article in the bible then you have the obligation to suspend all deductive abilities you posess.
Wikipedia doesn't contain much truth, instead it contains what the majority of people believe to be true. Quite similar to your Bible actually, so I do not see the problem. Especially because Wikipedia is a tad more reliable than the Bible, being written a lot more recent, having access to a lot of sources and so on,
Again sorry for being blunt, but I guess you are ignorant of how the Bible came to be. Look at a Wikipedia kind of book, but instead it's edibility was frozen at some point in time or only possible by religious leaders of great authority/influence,
Cheers
