Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

Mark T wrote:
 
> "lynx" <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>   
>>> .... Not to mention the irony of asserting for the Bible something it 
>>> doesn't assert for itself...
>>>       
>> How can the bible assert anything for 'itself', dumbass! when the bible
is 
>> a compilation of various books. It cannot refer to itself.
>>     
>
>
> BUT ...
>
> Fundamentalists believe it DOES refer to iteself and quote the forgery I

> Timothy 3: 16 as "proof".
>
> "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, 
> correcting and training in righteousness,"
>
> They erroneously believe that the "all scripture" includes the New
Testament 
> that hadn't been finalised at the time of writing.
>
> I Timothy was written 100 -150 CE when Paul was dead.
>
> 2 Peter was written 100 - 160 CE when Peter was dead.
>
>
>   
 
So what is the definition of 'scripture'? Dependant on that, that verse 
could also refer to yet unwritten or unpublished works.


-- 
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde