As Justanotheratheist said, a fine sample of circular reasoning. "The book said that the book was authoritative so it must be true." 2 Timothy 3:16 seems relevant.
There's also the denial that it's human tradition, compiled and selected, translated with doctrinal bias, etc. Then that this is reinterpreted today with parts often misinterpreted or taken out of context, and that are rarely relevant today. That the development of the original as well as the current interpretative traditions all add/suppress, relevant: Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:19.
So, what's the "real original" and what of it was "really inspired"? Considering that it's a book of claims, including extraordinary ones, that claims must be distinguished from facts, they are unlikely to all be correct.
Good comment by SteelyDanorak too, the language redefinition for self-deception. In reality, evidence has a very specific meaning, which is not "claim from a self-claimed authority".
Why was the poster so eager to affirm his statement on an off-topic gaming forum? It suggests the need to condition, likely because it is a doubtful dogma.
