March WT: Dumb That Takes Your Breath Away? (page 2)

Blue Grass

It doesn't matter when they were written, they are both part of the Bible.

Apparently you don't know what a compilation is so there really is no need for me to argue with you.

DaCheech

the bible could not be inspired by a true god.

it is the bloodiest book i know.

genocide that would make the hitler genocide tame.

and full of contradictions.

i DONT read the book of bible stories to my children it would scare them

WTWizard

"1 + 1 = 3."

How do we know it's true? I said so.

How do we know I am not lying? Because I said I am not lie, even adding that I cannot lie.

This is just as reasonable as using the Bible itself to prove that the Bible is inspired of God and beneficial. The above statements are all lies--made to illustrate that the Bible lies and then tells us that it cannot lie.

dgp

Marked for later.

Mall Cop

We do not have any originals only copies of copies of copies and so on. It becomes a leap of faith that what is recorded is out of God's mouth and not man's history of himself.

The leap is for believers. Non- believers will not take that leap.

Blueblades

neverendingjourney

Herodotus's Histories is an accurate account of the Greco-Persian wars.

How do we know this is the case? Because I said so, and I was born hundreds of years after he was. So there!

JWoods

We do not have any originals only copies of copies of copies and so on. It becomes a leap of faith that what is recorded is out of God's mouth and not man's history of himself.

A true skeptic would say that even if the original copies existed, it would still be a leap of faith.

Would you believe all the fables of Virgil's Aenied in literal detail just because you really truly had the original copy?

Farkel

:Apparently you don't know what a compilation is so there really is no need for me to argue with you

When the Bible says "all scripture is inspired by God", to which part of the Bible was it referring?

Farkel

Mad Sweeney

I have to agree that the reasoning is fallacious but not strictly circular. It was a poor choice of words, nothing more, and it doesn't diminish the fact that it's a fallacy.

Using Paul or Jesus to support Daniel/Isaiah would be like Neil Gaiman claiming Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" was a true story. It isn't circular reasoning but it is incredibly unsound.

Finally-Free

I am perfect because I say so. Why doesn't anyone believe me? There must be something very wrong with them.

W

March WT: Dumb That Takes Your Breath Away?

Share this