archangle Wrote:we would first have to start with proving the bible "true" literally. That can't be the case, so using the bible to disprove the bible is as dumb as proving the bible with the bible.
Wrong. I've assumed the Bible to be true, and from there one would expect things to be internally consistent within this assumed world-view, but the OP shows otherwise. That's a valid argument because I'm saying assuming p,q => ~(if p then q). The argument would be invalid if the assumptions are correct and the conclusion is false.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
