Logical fallacies in the Bible?

[Minimalist]

Neat info Min. I'm not sure what this has to do with fallacies in the Bible though. If I was trying to show that there are fallacies in the bible to a Christian, I don't see how discussing the real developmental history of the bible helps my case because the believer will almost never accept it. For the sake of argument (trying to show fallacies in the bible), it's best to assume the bible came the basic way the Christian thinks the bible came to be.

You don't need "logical" fallacies if the facts are bullshit to begin with. Something, I fear, which xtians can simply not understand.

Your last sentence is yet another example of a "factual fallacy" or, at best, a very flawed premise.

http://www.leveltruth.com/articles/pamph...tament.pdf

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman presents persuasive evidence that the story
of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:12) and the last twelve verses
of Mark were not in the original gospels, but added by later scribes.[19]
Furthermore, these examples “represent just two out of thousands of
places in which the manuscripts of the New Testament came to be changed
by scribes.”[20]
In fact, entire books of the Bible were forged.[21] This doesn’t mean their
content is necessarily wrong, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s right. So
which books were forged? Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and
2 Timothy, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude—a whopping nine of the twentyseven
New Testament books and epistles—are to one degree or another
suspect.

And, of course to these forgeries must be added the 4 gospels themselves which are anonymous at best and pseudoepigraphical at worst.