Adding perspective to analysis: some notes on Nested Logic.

Unfortunately, English is not efficient in expressing Nested Logic. English
speakers (I cannot speak for other languages) are not made accustomed to
nested concepts through the use of the language. Many are thrown when sets
and logic are part of the same question.

Nested Logic could be described as a combination of Boolean Algebra and Set
Theory. It is through nested logic that we can determine that:

"History is not a subset of Religion"
"Therefore the deduction of historical conclusions drawn from religious
sources is always invalid regardless the degree of concurrence with
historical conclusion drawn from historical sources"

This is proven by the behaviour of the following program:

Public Sub History ()
    Call Religion
End Sub

Public Sub Religion()
    Call History
    Call XXX
End Sub

If you initiate the program by calling Religion, this subroutine will then
call History, and History will conclude, but will not necessarily conclude
Religion - even though they both end with the same statement: "End Sub".
Religion will then call XXX regardless, and then independently conclude.
Both conclusions even if identical, are separate and independent.

Welcome to elementary Nested Logic. You have seen an example to the first or
second degree depending on your definitions. Programmers routinely program
to several degrees of nesting or "depth" (Some of us to dozens of degrees of
depth) with some quite common relationships including recursion:

Public Sub XXX
    X = Inputbox("Enter A Value.", "What is X?")
    If X = 0 OR X = "" then Call XXX
End Sub

There is a correct way that works and an incorrect way that does not work.
Ultimately, the logical proof of the practical results and subsequently
derived programming constraints are identical in structure to that
demonstrating:
    A) You cannot get apples from an orange tree,
         nor oranges from an apple tree.
        (Mutual exclusion)
    B) You cannot get an opaque primary colour from any
         combination of opaque secondary colours, but any
         opaque secondary colour can be derived from the
         correct combination of opaque primary colours.
        (Hierarchical exclusion)
    C) You cannot get history from religion or religion from
        science, etc.

The individual elements and ideas of a text, must necessarily be a subset of the objectives and values defined by the text. Therefore the strength of an interpretation is directly proportional to its conformity to the purpose, objectives, and/or values of the text - and not to the qualifications nor authority of the interpreter, nor to any logic constructed without reference to the interpretations correct place in the information hierarchy.