'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Because people here put everything into question. Even the very existence of Jesus.But anyhow, Bluescat, the original post wanted to disprove the bible by assuming it is true, nd then showing that it is inconsistent with itself. It is therefore completely adequate that calypsis shows that it is using oher parts of the bible as reference.Wanting to descredit the Bible by taking Matheu 16:27-28 as the true words of Jesus, only to go around and doubt the biblical answer as genuine won't convince anyone about it but your own self.It would be like saying: ''The bible says that John the Baptist would open the way to the messiah, but in fact he never did''. And when someone replied ''Well in christianity, Jesus is the messiah and so he did in fact open the way for him'' only for you to reply ''Oh, but I don't think Jesus is the messiah''. The conversation could even go on and yo ube asked ''why don't you believe that jesus is the messiah'' and you would answer ''Because the bible is inconsistent, as with my earlier example of John The Baptist''The reality is, as to show a book is inconsistent, you have to assume all of it is true and show how it is, not take away the parts that would be the answers to the dilemnas.It is the simplest and easiest thing to do to reveal inconsistencies in a book where you take away parts ... Hell, you can probably do it with every single book on earth.

I know what circular reasoning is, but you will have to explain to me how presupposing the bible to be true only to show that it is inconsistent with itself is circular reasoning.Because that is exactly what the OP is doing, and it then becomes perfectly legitimate to defend a given worldview from aspects within that worldview, as to show that it is consistent with itself.This would be circular reasoning if it was to show that it is true. This is not the case here, since all calypsis was doing was showing that it was consistent. These are vastly different concepts, and atheists usually mix them up quite easily when biblical innerancy, presuppositions, biblical axioms, etc. are being discussed. I hope my little explanation has helped you to grasp the difference between truthfulness and self-consistency, as this is very elementary philosophy.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Did you read what I wrote, or is this an intentional strawman ? Never did I adress the issue if it was the word of God or not, neither did I commit the blatant 'circular reasoning strawman' your are exposing here.Here is, however, what I did say. Quoting myself in my previous post: Showing self-consistency is not the same as showing truthfulness. You seem to be mixing them up. I used the first concept in the the part you quoted from me, and you replied adressing the second ...

I agree that what Hooah described (you can't prove your source ... with your source) is circular reasoning. There is no issue on this.The problem was that he accused me of this, when all I did was to assume the Bible to be true, to show that it is self-consistent, and not to 'prove' it to be true.