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

Is The Bible A Reliable Source?

Recommended Posts

If someone had research that was only backed by the Bible, would you believe it?

 

 

Personally, no. If something is telling me that someone can change water into wine, I wouldn't believe them. So I don't see why I should believe a book that tells me so. Being old doesn't give it authority; in that case my grandma would be right about everything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't believe in it then no, if you do then yes.

Can you prove it, not to athiests.

 

And now let round 5,768 of believers vs non belivers commence:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a biased book written by early Christians 2000 years ago. You might as well ask me to believe that the world is flat too.

 

 

tl;dr No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't believe in it then no, if you do then yes.

Can you prove it, not to athiests.

 

And now let round 5,768 of believers vs non belivers commence:

There's a topic for that. I'm just saying that it's a biased source and should not be accepted as reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, because biblical research can also be backed by athiestic non biblical books.

Well then I don't think a bible should be accepted as a man source. Would you accept the Vedas as totally true and believable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No because I believe the Bible. If someone used the Vedas as a reference for something I wouldn't say, "You can't use the Vedas becaseu I don't believe in it so therefore it's not reliable." Just because YOU don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not reliable or true. I don't go around saying that evolution is not true because I don't believe what Darwin says. I don't believe evolution is correct because I don't believe in it. Is it wrong? No one knows..... yet :aware:

 

I might have contridicted myself I cant tell my brain hurts it's late but I'm sure someone will let me know soon.

Edited by MBarnes128

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No because I believe the Bible. If someone used the Vedas as a reference for something I wouldn't say, "You can't use the Vedas becaseu I don't believe in it so therefore it's not reliable." Just because YOU don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not reliable or true. I don't go around saying that evolution is not true because I don't believe what Darwin says. I don't believe evolution is correct because I don't believe in it. Is it wrong? No one knows..... yet :aware:

 

I might have contridicted myself I cant tell my brain hurts it's late but I'm sure someone will let me know soon.

Using the Bible as a source is biased though. Not everyone is Christian. there are also different variations of the bible that don't include certain books. Are those books less reliable than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone is Athiest, not using the Bible is biased to me. Do Christians not count? I don't know of a Bible that doesn't contain books. I know the Catholic Bible has added books. But I'm not opening that can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not everyone is Athiest, not using the Bible is biased to me. Do Christians not count? I don't know of a Bible that doesn't contain books. I know the Catholic Bible has added books. But I'm not opening that can of worms.

Not everyone is Christian either. That's why it's biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVERYTHING IS BIASED, why pick the Bible? Why is it the only thing, in your opinion, that is biased? Or do you mean YOU think it's biased and everyone should not believe it because YOU say it's biased...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EVERYTHING IS BIASED, why pick the Bible? Why is it the only thing, in your opinion, that is biased? Or do you mean YOU think it's biased and everyone should not believe it because YOU say it's biased...?

Uh, no. I just don't think religious beliefs should be reputable sources. And it's not just me. I go to a "Catholic" school in which you are forced to take religion. Yes, it is a Catholic school, but on the entrance exam, you put your religion on there and you don't have to be Catholic to get in. My objection is in religion where they say that everything that is in the bible is right; and it's not just me that it bothers. The other topic brought this point up again, that just because it's in the bible doesn't mean that it's true, Do you expect me to believe that God really just said "Let there be light" and lo and behold, there it was? I'm no Einstein, but I'm not mentally retarded, nor do I believe in fairy tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to believe in anything you don't want to.

A Catholic school does not have the right to "force" religion on you any more than a philosphy professor has the right to "force" athiesm on you.

I don't pull topics out of thin air and use only the Bible to support things. I don't go to computer programing class and say Ctrl+Alt+Delete isn't true because it's not in the Bible. On the other hand, if there is a topic that is Biblically related you bet your buns that I'm going to use it if I need to express/defend my pov!

My objection is in religion where they say that everything that is in the bible is right; and it's not just me that it bothers.

You don't have to believe it, but you can't say it's wrong because someone else does! It can't be disproven until then it's fair game just like athiestic views. I can't say they are wrong because no one knows if there is or isn't a God. Tuff tooties if it bothers you. A lot of things bother me but I can't tell someone that they are wrong because I'm bothered by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to believe in anything you don't want to.

A Catholic school does not have the right to "force" religion on you any more than a philosphy professor has the right to "force" athiesm on you.

I don't pull topics out of thin air and use only the Bible to support things. I don't go to computer programing class and say Ctrl+Alt+Delete isn't true because it's not in the Bible. On the other hand, if there is a topic that is Biblically related you bet your buns that I'm going to use it if I need to express/defend my pov!

My objection is in religion where they say that everything that is in the bible is right; and it's not just me that it bothers.

You don't have to believe it, but you can't say it's wrong because someone else does! It can't be disproven until then it's fair game just like athiestic views. I can't say they are wrong because no one knows if there is or isn't a God. Tuff tooties if it bothers you. A lot of things bother me but I can't tell someone that they are wrong because I'm bothered by it.

Exactly. If no one knows whether or not there's a god, why should religious sources be trusted? Even though they can't be disproven, they still can't be proven. And it's not like Habius Corpus where it's true until proven false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though I am Christian...I don't believe the Bible by itself is good for finding information about everything. I guess it would depend on what the research was about too though. I guess the Bible can help a little, but it can't be 100% purely the Bible only. I may be wrong, but the Bible has a lot of symbolism in it and things that are not to be taken literally. Like the story of Jonah and the Whale...he didn't literally get eaten by a whale, what he actually did was basically go alone into an Empire to make it repent I think.

 

For the water into wine miracle...I personally am leaning towards believing its the real deal. I don't think Jesus just used the ordinary method of making wine. The reason why I believe this is because he wasn't making everyones wine. There were other people who made wine and could have pointed out that his methods were not divine at all. As far as I know, no one who knew how to make wine accused Jesus of being a fraud. I am pretty sure the enemies of Jesus would have taken the opportunity to soil his reputation as a miracle worker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even though I am Christian...I don't believe the Bible by itself is good for finding information about everything. I guess it would depend on what the research was about too though. I guess the Bible can help a little, but it can't be 100% purely the Bible only. I may be wrong, but the Bible has a lot of symbolism in it and things that are not to be taken literally. Like the story of Jonah and the Whale...he didn't literally get eaten by a whale, what he actually did was basically go alone into an Empire to make it repent I think.

 

For the water into wine miracle...I personally am leaning towards believing its the real deal. I don't think Jesus just used the ordinary method of making wine. The reason why I believe this is because he wasn't making everyones wine. There were other people who made wine and could have pointed out that his methods were not divine at all. As far as I know, no one who knew how to make wine accused Jesus of being a fraud. I am pretty sure the enemies of Jesus would have taken the opportunity to soil his reputation as a miracle worker.

I agree with the first paragraph I suppose. And I respect your beliefs that he was a miracle worker, I just don't really believe that myself, and you have to admit that from someone who doesn't believe in miracles that sounds a little silly; thus making anything that supports it seem a little unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If u want to find out something about a Ford then Ford manual is what u need. Same thing for any religeon. If u want something about it then get their Holy Books. But u shouldn't really really on them only. A intelligent person should also look at history and theology for further help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. If no one knows whether or not there's a god, why should religious sources be trusted? Even though they can't be disproven, they still can't be proven. And it's not like Habius Corpus where it's true until proven false.

 

Because people who don't believe are the only ones who find objection to it. I can use the Bible as a source for something relevant if I am speaking to a Christian, but if I'm speaking to an atheist I can't? Seems like the problem is on your end of the stick in my opinion. If you wanted to support your belief then use what ever book you want! Use A Brief History of Time! Doesn't matter what book you use or don't use, if someone doesn't what to believe you they won't.

And it's not like Habius Corpus where it's true until proven false

How so everything else is? Oh but wait it's about religion..... that means automatic no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. If no one knows whether or not there's a god, why should religious sources be trusted? Even though they can't be disproven, they still can't be proven. And it's not like Habius Corpus where it's true until proven false.

 

Because people who don't believe are the only ones who find objection to it. I can use the Bible as a source for something relevant if I am speaking to a Christian, but if I'm speaking to an atheist I can't? Seems like the problem is on your end of the stick in my opinion. If you wanted to support your belief then use what ever book you want! Use A Brief History of Time! Doesn't matter what book you use or don't use, if someone doesn't what to believe you they won't.

And it's not like Habius Corpus where it's true until proven false

How so everything else is? Oh but wait it's about religion..... that means automatic no.

So some random hacks wrote a few books, claimed they were religious, and I'm expected to just believe it? The first gospel wasn't even written until several decades after Jesus' death, how am I supposed to trust that the stories of Jesus weren't exaggerated in the re-telling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So some random hacks wrote a few books, claimed they were religious, and I'm expected to just believe it? The first gospel wasn't even written until several decades after Jesus' death, how am I supposed to trust that the stories of Jesus weren't exaggerated in the re-telling?

 

Do you truley want to know it sound rehitorical? I've posted why Christians give vilidity to the Bible (and guess what I ues the BIBLE, because I can) you can read it if you want but I'm not going to argue whether the Bible is divine or not with you becaues it will be futile. Unless you are really going to pay attention to the answer, then I will share. I just want to point out that it seems if someone is not a believer, they want to change the rules, when what a believer says hits too close to home.

 

1.) If you are goig to defend God you can't ues the Bible..... ok then you breathe with out using your mouth or nose.

2.) Everything elses can be true until proven false except God....

 

It just boiles down to "Prove God with out Proving God." If I play by your rules then we will keep going in circles, because you keep changing them to look right.

Edited by MBarnes128

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So some random hacks wrote a few books, claimed they were religious, and I'm expected to just believe it? The first gospel wasn't even written until several decades after Jesus' death, how am I supposed to trust that the stories of Jesus weren't exaggerated in the re-telling?

 

Do you truley want to know it sound rehitorical? I've posted why Christians give vilidity to the Bible (and guess what I ues the BIBLE, because I can) you can read it if you want but I'm not going to argue whether the Bible is divine or not with you becaues it will be futile. Unless you are really going to pay attention to the answer, then I will share. I just want to point out that it seems if someone is not a believer, they want to change the rules, when what a believer says hits too close to home.

 

1.) If you are goig to defend God you can't ues the Bible..... ok then you breathe with out using your mouth or nose.

2.) Everything elses can be true until proven false except God....

 

It just boiles down to "Prove God with out Proving God." If I play by your rules then we will keep going in circles, because you keep changing them to look right.

No. Science isn't like that. In science if you can't prove something, then it's not believed. Religion is like a science to me. And stop playing your "WAAH YOUR ATHEIST" card because I'm not even fully atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians like myself believe in the bible as a non-biased source because it was written by prophets of god. Which means that god himself wrote it, just through other people.

 

So you can think its non biased because you don't belive in the same god we do, but we believe that he is god so we live by what it says in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians like myself believe in the bible as a non-biased source because it was written by prophets of god. Which means that god himself wrote it, just through other people.

 

So you can think its non biased because you don't belive in the same god we do, but we believe that he is god so we live by what it says in it.

Agnostics like MYself don't believe in the bible, so to US it is a biased source. So I just think that if you're going to back things up, use the least biased/most accepted source possible; not just amongst your religion. During the Renaissance they had all those lovely revolutions when they received the shock that they could believe Faith and Reason. This isn't any different, it's mixing Faith[bible] and reason[science]. The bible holds a lot of symbolism. I don't know if this is correct or not, but my religion teacher has told us that the church just uses the story of Adam and Eve as symbolism, but it accepts the fact that that's not how it actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not whining? All I can do is present to you the facts that I have for believing what I do. It's up to you to take those facts I give you and make a assumption based on those. I can't make you believe and you can't make me not believe. I will use what ever I want to defend my faith until I die if you chose not to accept the form in which I use, then don't. I believe 100% of the entire Bible and it is only an unreliable source to you. So don't read my paper. I suggest you stop riding the fence and figure out what you 100% believe in so you can take a proper stance.

 

 

So I just think that if you're going to back things up, use the least biased/most accepted source possible

 

Which is what? Please tell the whole world what is the only acceptable book everwritten in human history that one can use as a 100% non biased source so we can end this.

 

 

 

The bible holds a lot of symbolism. I don't know if this is correct or not, but my religion teacher has told us that the church just uses the story of Adam and Eve as symbolism, but it accepts the fact that that's not how it actually happened.

 

It is wrong. (But I'm waiting on what source I can use to back it up.)

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.

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.