Do I really have to go back and show how many times I have been asked, when I ask about the bodily assumption of Mary, to show where it says it didn’t happen? The lack of Biblical refutation of a doctrine is often used as evidence that the doctrine “could well have been true” and am told “tradition” trumps scripture in those instances.
I'm not even going to try to straighten out that paragraph to make it comprehensible, but I will show what you have to "go back and show" to NOT be a liar.
You have to show where you were told Biblical silence constitutes a positive evidence (as opposed to a negative evidence) for the Assumption of Mary.
You have to show where the Bible states anything that isn't expressly permitted by the Bible is expressly forbidden by the Bible.
You have to show where anything not expressly validated by the Bible is expressly INvalidated by the Bible.
An finally, you have to show where the Bible defines the contents of the Bible and makes it the supreme authoriry for faith and practice of the Chistian religion.