Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ford Prefect

Is The Bible A Reliable Source?

Recommended Posts

If it were a matter of government or science, it would not be accepted as a reliable source because it can not be proven. So when it's used in arguments, why should I accept that as reliable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first world empire - Egypt took place during Exodus. I'm pretty sure they had an established Government. So if I was writing a paper about ancient Egypt I could not use the Bible as a source for the paper, but I could use the Encyclopedia? You are starting to sound very Communist in your views on what books are true and what books are false.

 

Is the Bible a reliable source for what? And to whom?

 

To a person who believes the Bible to be true, then yes. If the person believes the Bible to be false, then no. I think that much is obvious. Beyond that, this debate will only boil down to God vs Atheism all over again.

 

Amen! (See post #2.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first world empire - Egypt took place during Exodus. I'm pretty sure they had an established Government. So if I was writing a paper about ancient Egypt I could not use the Bible as a source for the paper, but I could use the Encyclopedia? You are starting to sound very Communist in your views on what books are true and what books are false.

 

Is the Bible a reliable source for what? And to whom?

 

To a person who believes the Bible to be true, then yes. If the person believes the Bible to be false, then no. I think that much is obvious. Beyond that, this debate will only boil down to God vs Atheism all over again.

 

Amen! (See post #2.)

You expect me to believe it rained frogs and that the Nile Turned to blood, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.... for the third time... I DO NOTEXPECT YOU TO BELIEVE ANYTHING!

I do expect respect that if I believe it is true (which I do), even though you may think I am crazy or wrong. That I have a right to say or use what ever I want as evidence of that truth.

 

I don't put a limit on your debate why do I get a limit on mine? Because I'm religious? How pregidous is that?

Edited by MBarnes128

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the Bible a reliable source for what? And to whom?

 

To a person who believes the Bible to be true, then yes. If the person believes the Bible to be false, then no. I think that much is obvious. Beyond that, this debate will only boil down to God vs Atheism all over again.

Exactly. What are you using the Bible as a source as to support? The Bible can be a somewhat reliable source for history, anthropology, sociology and other such topics. Biblical places and events can be reasonably (though tacitly) proven through archeology. If one is using the Bible to try to justify events that will happen (i.e The Messiah or Apocalypse), then we might say "No", because such an event is a hypothesis that is yet to be proven.

Given the fact that much of what is recorded in the bible happened 2000 to 5000 years ago, it is very hard to prove its viability, and in the same respect makes it easier to prove it. Time obscures things, thus with such a fog clouded over events, one will perceive what one wants to get out of the source in question. To the true believer any ordained scripture is infallible. To the skeptic, any scripture is ripe for criticism and disbelief.

 

The Bible and indeed any religious text that reported events or happenings, are the prime example of the perspectivism and phenomenalism of "truth".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate will soon end into another religeous 1. Im for wat Lord Vega says. I say this topic should be closed to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever wondered why people debate things like the ancient roman historical works, saying both that they are not true and that they are, but when it comes down to the bible, religous people just step in and say its right with no debate?

 

Perhaps they should step down and let other people debate it and come to their own conclusions rather than interrupting it like they always do? If this were any other book apart from a religous book, there would be RATIONAL dabate, both for and against. but because it is religous, its more like "Hmm, is the bible reliable?" "YES it is so end of i dont care its right lalalalalalalalaaa...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just no... man, i gotta post more then 2 words rite?

 

In the debate topic you have to post something a little better then just no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bible can be used a reliable source only in a few situations where the details in it have actually been confirmed, for example a lot of the details about the Israeli kingdoms and the babylonian conquers and things like that are reliable details.

For other things the bible should not be accepted as a reliable source. Even more than that, in Judaism the bible is the core of the religion but in fact most of it is interpretations of the bible so even in an argument about religion the bible should not be taken at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me its me source of answers, Its been in my family and the Families of my friends, Has helped to solve several problems in my life and it still those from centuries it has helped Millions of people.

 

And stop playing your "WAAH YOUR ATHEIST" card because I'm not even fully atheist.

 

This not a Magic or Yugi-oh game its a debate no one is playing cards on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's no other source even close to the history in the bible. it may be a little biased (or a lot) but it's by far our best source for much of the history it covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone ever wondered why people debate things like the ancient roman historical works, saying both that they are not true and that they are, but when it comes down to the bible, religous people just step in and say its right with no debate?

 

Perhaps they should step down and let other people debate it and come to their own conclusions rather than interrupting it like they always do? If this were any other book apart from a religous book, there would be RATIONAL dabate, both for and against. but because it is religous, its more like "Hmm, is the bible reliable?" "YES it is so end of i dont care its right lalalalalalalalaaa...."

I agree! For like the ump-teenth time, the bible is only a reliable source to SOME people. When backing something up, you need a source that EVERYONE or most people can trust. To a lot of people, bible=wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree! For like the ump-teenth time, the bible is only a reliable source to SOME people. When backing something up, you need a source that EVERYONE or most people can trust. To a lot of people, bible=wikipedia.

 

Ok, the Atheist Manefesto is only a reliable source to SOME people. When backing something up, you need a source that EVERYOE or most people can trust. To a lot of people, Atheism=wikipedia.

 

Why is the Bible unexceptable? You can't say it's unreliable becasue non believers say it is not true! Non-believers say the Bible isn't true because maybe it scares them to think there is something out there that is challenging what they believe. No one can say what is true or not that is Communism, you can't ban something just because it opposes what the all powerful Rock Out Loud says! I can't go around saying you can never use the Atheis Manefesto, because it goes against what I believe is true. If that book defends what you say then use it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I would say that as a source I wouldn't trust it.

 

The old testemant are pretty much myths handed down to explain and justify actions. It was also used as the book of law, governing what everyone could and couldn't do.

 

The new testemant was compiled by Constantine(?) a good few hundred years after the death of Jesus.

 

As a loose historical source it ain't too bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree! For like the ump-teenth time, the bible is only a reliable source to SOME people. When backing something up, you need a source that EVERYONE or most people can trust. To a lot of people, bible=wikipedia.

 

Ok, the Atheist Manefesto is only a reliable source to SOME people. When backing something up, you need a source that EVERYOE or most people can trust. To a lot of people, Atheism=wikipedia.

 

Why is the Bible unexceptable? You can't say it's unreliable becasue non believers say it is not true! Non-believers say the Bible isn't true because maybe it scares them to think there is something out there that is challenging what they believe. No one can say what is true or not that is Communism, you can't ban something just because it opposes what the all powerful Rock Out Loud says! I can't go around saying you can never use the Atheis Manefesto, because it goes against what I believe is true. If that book defends what you say then use it!

I don't even know what the Atheist Manefesto is. I've never actually said I was an atheist in this thread; you just assumed because I don't believe in your all holy bible, I am. Wow. and "Non-believers say the Bible isn't true because maybe it scares them to think there is something out there that is challenging what they believe." No. And I've never fully said the bible isn't true. I said it wasn't a reliable source. Sure, some things on Wikipedia are true, but I'm not going to trust them until I get proof from a RELIABLE source. You keep twisting things I say. And I can turn around your little statement and say that Catholics don't believe the Atheist Manefesto[i looked it up on google] is true because it scares them to think that there ISNT something out there.

And stop being arrogant by saying things like "ou can't ban something just because it opposes what the all powerful Rock Out Loud says! ". I could say You can't trust something becasue the all powerful MBarnes128 says its true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not!

 

The bible has been edited by man (humans).

 

Proof is all the contradictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not!

 

The bible has been edited by man (humans).

 

Proof is all the contradictions.

 

*Mohammed himself was illiterate, scribes wrote down Muhammad's utterances during trances he was thrown into by spirit visitations. These statements were then compiled into book from after Muhammad's death. By the reigh of the third caliph, Othman (c.AD 657), there were so many different texts available that, due to the confusion, Othman ordered one official version to be amassed and approved and all other previous texts condemned and burned.

 

looks like the Koran ws edited by a man also, it's not true either.

 

* P. 1 Have you ever wondered what people believed as truth before mohammed and the Qur'an? - Brad Strand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not!

 

The bible has been edited by man (humans).

 

Proof is all the contradictions.

 

*Mohammed himself was illiterate, scribes wrote down Muhammad's utterances during trances he was thrown into by spirit visitations. These statements were then compiled into book from after Muhammad's death. By the reigh of the third caliph, Othman (c.AD 657), there were so many different texts available that, due to the confusion, Othman ordered one official version to be amassed and approved and all other previous texts condemned and burned.

 

looks like the Koran ws edited by a man also, it's not true either.

 

* P. 1 Have you ever wondered what people believed as truth before mohammed and the Qur'an? - Brad Strand

Damn! Each time a Muslim speaks about something you msut drag Islam into the conversation!

 

Anyhow I'll still answer.

 

True that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was illeterate, but the Muslims that he allowed to write the Quran were certain, trusted Muslims. Think about it, during the Prophets time the Muslim memorized the Quran once it was revealed, ok. SO if lets say a Muslim wrote the wrong Quran wrong, then dont you think the other Muslims that had memorised it would have told the Prophet(SAW)?

 

The Calipha Othman(RA), picked the Quran text that was the truth. The others were made after the Prophet(SAW) passed away.(Mostly written by the Jews in Arabia). SO the Calipa Osman(RA) choose that the correct Quran(the one revealed from the Prophet) to be written officially so other people don't fake Qurans and so no one gets confused. Got it?

 

I don't understand your second point(?)

 

If you would like a much detailed answer read:

 

 

Thank you for your challenging question.

 

In fact, there are different ways to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, which has always been true and has never been subjected to change or distortion. These proofs can be classified into three types: the way the Qur'an was transmitted throughout the centuries, some challenging verses within the Qur'an itself, and the periodic, modern-day discoveries in the universe that were first mentioned in the Qur'an more than fourteen centuries ago.

 

Unlike the Bible and Old Testament that have been subject to innumerable translations, doubtful and spurious transmissions, and corruptions at the hands of clerics up till now (with the “gender sensitive” versions coming out these days), the Qur'an was transmitted to us in an unprecedented and unique manner according to rigorous rules of transmission. The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) via the angel Gabriel, and the Prophet subsequently memorized the whole scripture.

 

Thousands of the Companions of the Prophet learned the Qur'an directly from the Prophet (pbuh). They memorized it and were known in Islamic history as huffaadh (the memorizers and preservers of the Qur'an). Moreover, a number of Companions wrote it down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and it was compiled in its entirety immediately after his death.

 

The following generation of Muslims learned the Qur’an directly from the Companions. Thus the chain of teaching and learning through direct contact continued systematically, methodically, and meticulously until the present age.

 

Additionally, several of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) were appointed as scribes to record the words of the revelation directly from the Prophet himself on parchment, leather, or whatever else was available. The most famous of these scribes was Zayd ibn Thabit, who also memorized the entire Qur’an, and he formed with the others a community of huffaadh that can be compared to academic societies of our present time.

 

We know the Qur’an was recorded in totality during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) and the different surahs (chapters) personally arranged by him. Many copies of the text were used for study and teaching, even in Mecca before the Hijrah, the migration to Medina.

 

The entire Qur’an was written down during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, and trusting the fact that many scholars knew it by heart, it was not collected in one volume. It was personally arranged by him, and the Muslims memorized it in the same order. The companion Uthman reported that whenever a new verse was revealed, the Prophet would immediately call a scribe to record it. He would instruct the person to put the specific verse or verses in a particular chapter.

 

Furthermore, every year during the month of Ramadan, the Prophet would recite the whole Qur’an from beginning to end in its present-day arrangement, and everyday people could hear it from his own lips in the mosque. Its sequence is no mystery. Many of the Companions not only memorized it completely, they also wrote it down and even added commentary (tafseer) on their own personal copies. When the Prophet passed away, the whole Qur’an was already written down, but it was not yet compiled in book form.

 

During the rule of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, there was a rebellion among some distant Arab tribes that resulted in a series of fierce battles. In one particular battle, a number Companions who had memorized the Qur’an were killed. The Companion Omar worried that the knowledge of the Qur’an was in danger, thus he convinced Abu Bakr that the Qur’an should be compiled into book form as a means of preserving it once and for all.

 

Zayd bin Thabit was entrusted with this important task. Zayd followed strict methods in his compilation and had dozens of other huffaadh recheck his work to ensure its accuracy. Abu Bakr, who had also committed the entire Qur’an to memory, approved of the final product. After Abu Bakr passed away, the copy was passed to the Caliph ‘Omar, and then Uthman.

 

However as the Muslim world expanded into lands where the people spoke Arabic as a second language, the new Muslims had a difficult time learning the correct pronunciation of the text. The Caliph Uthman consulted other Companions, and they agreed that official copies of the Qur’an should be inscribed using only the pronunciation of the Quraysh tribe, the Arabic dialect that the Prophet spoke.

 

Zayd bin Thabit was again given this assignment, and three other huffaadh were assigned to help him in the task. Together, the four scribes borrowed the original, complete copy of the Qur’an, duplicated it manually many times over, and then distributed them to all of the major Muslim cities within the empire. Two of these copies still exist today: one is in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent.

 

One must keep in mind that in traditional learning in the Arab world, transmission was based upon an oral tradition as well as a written one; the Arabs (and later all Muslims) excelled in accurately reporting scripture, poetry, aphorisms, etc. through the generations without change. Similarly, the chain of huffaadh was never broken, and thus the Qur'an today has reached us in two forms: the memorized version transmitted through the scholarly chain, and the written version based upon the Companions’ initial recording.

 

If the Qur’an had been changed, there would be huge discrepancies between these two today, as the Qur’an has reached isolated (and sometimes illiterate) communities through the memorized form of transmission without the written form to correct it. No such discrepancies have ever been recorded or reported. In other words, isolated village A in African Mali and isolated village B in Afghanistan will both produce contemporary huffaadh reciting the same words of the Qur’an, though they did not learn from a similar printing of the scripture nor has there ever been a concerted international effort to rectify would-be discrepancies.

 

Allah has said in the Qur’an that He alone will protect His book, and indeed He has kept His promise. The Qur’an that we read today contains the same exact words that were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 1400 years ago. This is quite a miracle, especially when you consider that no other group of people can say that their book has not been subject to change by the time it reached the present generation.

 

Only the Qur’an has survived through the centuries unchanged, and the language in which it was revealed, classical Arabic, still enjoys practical usage around the world. While classic English of the 14th century can be understand by very few native English speakers, the Qur’an can be understood by the vast majority of Arabic-speaking Muslims. When compared to other scriptures, the Qur’an is unique in these two respects.

 

Furthermore, from the prolific arts that have accompanied Qur’anic learning and transmission, we can learn of the auspiciousness and honor with which the Muslims have traditionally held the Qur’an. The visual arts of calligraphy and binding, and the vocal art of recitation represent examples of such arts, and from them we can see that veracity of transmission would be understood as a fundamental aspect of Qur’anic reverence.

 

As regards the proofs within the Qur'an itself, they can be found in the following Qur’anic challenges:

 

Surah 4, verse 82:

 

*{Do they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy.}*

 

 

 

Surah 17, verse 88:

*{Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.}*

 

 

 

And Surah 2, verse 23:

*{And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.}*

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^

This CLEARLY explains that the QUran was never edited and is the same as it was during the Prophet's (SAW) time, so if you still have a question about it, don't ask it if it's answered in the article because I'll just quote the answer out of the article.

 

*Credits for the article goes to Le Caire since he had told me about it(he didn't write it, he just told me about it)*

Edited by warhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as ancient history goes, yeah the parts the deal with verifiable events hold credibility if the events are backed by some other source. But cannot be used as standalone source, other such texts (e.g the Iliad) are not enough to claim something happened without any other evidence.

 

And how the hell did we get onto debating about teh mozlems?

Edited by mystery_phill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as ancient history goes, yeah the parts the deal with verifiable events hold credibility if the events are backed by some other source. But cannot be used as standalone source, other such texts (e.g the Iliad) are not enough to claim something happened without any other evidence.

 

And how the hell did we get onto debating about teh mozlems?

 

Mbarnes, dragged Islam in the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.