The Bible: A Valid Source?

[dallas1125]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

 

[outhouse]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

its only appropriate for them because they have no facts or proof so they bible gets waved with vigor.

is fiction in my opinion a valid source? NO

Most people who use the bible do not know the first thing about it, its real history or how it was composed and very few now how to interpret it correctly.

I have met a few I thought were on the ball but then they throw out the bible against modern science and when they do that its fiction is magnified tenfold

 

[Father Heathen]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

It is kinda silly and pointless to cite something when the other person would obviously doubt its credibility as a source.

 

[Riverwolf]

It depends on the subject of the debate.

If you're debating Jewish or Christian doctrine or theology, then it makes perfect sense to cite the Bible. On the other hand, if you're debating general ethics, for example, then unless you're going to provide commentary on the one or two verses cited, then it's best not to.

And then, if you're debating how the world works, no Scripture is a valid source.

 

[Twilight Hue]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

I would say in a Christian to Christian exchange the Bible is fine enough to use by way its regarded. In an exchange with those who do not recognize the Bible for the validity of its content other than its historical value as an ancient manuscript, its pretty pointless to use its contents by way of claiming its authority as something substantial that is to be recognised among all the participants. Perhaps engaging Biblical dialogue through a certain perspective in way of it's schematics the Bible could be used to a limited degree, but only in the scope of what it entails.

 

[dallas1125]

It is kinda silly and pointless to cite something when the other person would obviously doubt its credibility as a source.

Why do YEC's keep trying to use it? This is what truly baffles me...

 

[Father Heathen]

Why do YEC's keep trying to use it? This is what truly baffles me...

Because they're cognitively incapable of perceiving anything in a non-biblical context.

 

[dallas1125]

I would say in a Christian to Christian exchange the Bible is fine enough to use by way its regarded. In an exchange with those who do not recognize the Bible for the validity of its content other than its historical value as an ancient manuscript, its pretty pointless to use its contents by way of claiming its authority as something substantial that is to be recognised among all the participants. Perhaps engaging Biblical dialogue through a certain perspective in way of it's schematics the Bible could be used to a limited degree, but only in the scope of what it entails.

This is how I use the bible. If im talking to an atheist, I will use sources he finds valid.

Maybe the problem is that YEC's see the bible as valid but science as false. Then those "evolutionist conspirators" only see science as a source and the bible as not.

 

[micrurus]

I personaly dont have much problems with people using the bible in most ways, you can debate about the bible itself in alot of different ways.
but if you are going to use the bible to back up scientific claims, there is not much possibility that i will take you seriously at all.

 

[McBell]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

It depends entirely upon what is being debated.
If you are debating what the Bible says, then yes, the Bible is a valid source.

If you are debating the speed of light, not so much.

its only appropriate for them because they have no facts or proof so they bible gets waved with vigor.

is fiction in my opinion a valid source? NO

One would be interested in what source you would use when debating the population of Middle Earth...

Most people who use the bible do not know the first thing about it, its real history or how it was composed and very few now how to interpret it correctly.

Based upon my personal experiences, I agree.

I have met a few I thought were on the ball but then they throw out the bible against modern science and when they do that its fiction is magnified tenfold

Again, it would depend upon what exactly is being debated.
For example, if you are debating the Biblical world wide flood...

 

[McBell]

Maybe the problem is that YEC's see the bible as valid but science as false. Then those "evolutionist conspirators" only see science as a source and the bible as not.

Seems to me that the problem YEC have is they are under the false impression that proving evolution wrong means that creation has to be true.

 

[dallas1125]

Again, it would depend upon what exactly is being debated.
For example, if you are debating the Biblical world wide flood...

Funny, I decided to post this because of a certain thread and the flood....

 

[dallas1125]

Seems to me that the problem YEC have is they are under the false impression that proving evolution wrong means that creation has to be true.

Most likely. Ive noticed something though. YEC's never answer a question...

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The problem with biblical literalism is that you have to take the WHOLE bible in its ENTIRETY as literal.

Not just the parts you like.

Not many literalists are willing to do that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is how I use the bible. If im talking to an atheist, I will use sources he finds valid.

Maybe the problem is that YEC's see the bible as valid but science as false. Then those "evolutionist conspirators" only see science as a source and the bible as not.

Well the Bible is a good source in way it provides a window of sorts peering into a culture thousands of years old from the standpoint of how the early Christian faith was expressed. I can take that aspect as an authority in the way and manner that Christianity is practiced. Revisions and alterations notwithstanding of which can cloud this unique view further.

Sourcing from science is unquestionable although at the time this too can become politically charged, yet intense peer review keeps science pretty much on the level at least in regards to its conclusions as to what the facts are. Scientific theories includes such facts but obviously still have loose ends up for continued discussing and testing. While the Bible is factual in the manners of the early practice of Judaism (OT) and Christianity (NT), it does very little in arguing against what science has discovered and confirmed since the early times the Bible was written.
The reason for this is that science "evolves" so to speak and is consequently updated in light of new discoveries while the Bible remains static and capsulised, as this essentially is a religious book reflecting a snapshot of events and it's alleged people who had lived at that time and thus preserved in it's text. The Bible is simply not designed to reflect upgrades in the way that science does in its journals.

What "evolves" in Christianity is the emotional and modern manner that Christianity is practiced in comparison to the way it was practiced then. The Bible itself still remains essentially the same.

The issues IMO that arise it that science deals with established fact and records and upgrades them to reflect what is subsequently discovered and confirmed, and Religious practices such as Christianity does not upgrade their religious text in itself but rather in the manner in how the religion itself is practiced through it's variation and diversity.

To me this translates to putting a square peg into a round hole as Christianity is not science and science is not a religion. However both remain valid in scope but not in comparison as being equal disciplines at par which is what a number of people are trying and attempting to do. It cannot work that way.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It depends on what the debate is about, but generally, no, the Bible cannot be used as a valid source to bolster one's argument; no religious scripture can.

 

[outhouse]

One would be interested in what source you would use when debating the population of Middle Earth...

I would not debate the middle earth your point is taken though, when debating myth one needs to know the myth.

Again, it would depend upon what exactly is being debated.
For example, if you are debating the Biblical world wide flood...
__________________

I have a problem with anyone who debates the said below with only the bible for proof [and more]

flood
parting of the sea
creation
noahs age
adams age
garden of eden
job
babal


since the book is mostly fiction I would not have a problem if one wanted to discus the above as fiction or the point the fable was really getting at, or translation.

when one uses the above to fight science its just embarrassing to humanity

 

[Copernicus]

When in debate, is it appropriate to use the bible as an authoritative source? I try to refrain from using the bible when I am debating those who do not find it as a valid source.

First of all, there is no one Bible. The Protestant and Catholic Bibles are not exactly the same, and there are different translations with different interpretations of the text. Generally speaking, it is appropriate to use the Bible as an authoritative source of what is in the Bible (e.g. the King James version). Different religious sects debate the significance of biblical passages all the time, and it is fair game for them to wave Bibles at each other.

Is it appropriate for theists to use the bible as a source when talking/debating with an atheist?

That really depends on how the theist uses it. If the debate is over what the Bible says, then yes. For example, one could have a debate over whether the Bible makes a specific prophecy and whether or not it came true. On the other hand, quite a few theists are so used to quoting scripture to each other in religious debates that they seem incapable of communicating a point without quoting scripture. Atheists see the Bible as a mixture of historical records and religious folklore, so quotes from scripture do not have the same effect on them as they do on believers. I am always put off when someone starts throwing out Bible passages in the middle of a debate, as if the arcane biblical language were somehow more comprehensible than a simple paraphrase in modern English.

reach:

 

[dallas1125]

First of all, there is no one Bible. The Protestant and Catholic Bibles are not exactly the same, and there are different translations with different interpretations of the text. Generally speaking, it is appropriate to use the Bible as an authoritative source of what is in the Bible (e.g. the King James version). Different religious sects debate the significance of biblical passages all the time, and it is fair game for them to wave Bibles at each other.


That really depends on how the theist uses it. If the debate is over what the Bible says, then yes. For example, one could have a debate over whether the Bible makes a specific prophecy and whether or not it came true. On the other hand, quite a few theists are so used to quoting scripture to each other in religious debates that they seem incapable of communicating a point without quoting scripture. Atheists see the Bible as a mixture of historical records and religious folklore, so quotes from scripture do not have the same effect on them as they do on believers. I am always put off when someone starts throwing out Bible passages in the middle of a debate, as if the arcane biblical language were somehow more comprehensible than a simple paraphrase in modern English.

reach:

All of you raise good points but I am really interested in what a fundamentalist has to say.

 

[Falvlun]

The problem with biblical literalism is that you have to take the WHOLE bible in its ENTIRETY as literal.

Not just the parts you like.

Not many literalists are willing to do that.

Not necessarily: I see no problem in maintaining that some things are literal and some are metaphorical. The trick is to consistantly apply the criteria of what makes suchandsuch passage literal and what makes another metaphorical. And, as pointed out, the criteria can't be "I like this" and "I don't like that".

It depends on what the debate is about, but generally, no, the Bible cannot be used as a valid source to bolster one's argument; no religious scripture can.

Religious scripture can be used to show the "superiority" of a particular religion, in matters such as prophecy, knowledge, morals, etc. So, what I'm saying is, that scripture could be used as evidence that a particular religion is better to follow than another. Tell me you wouldn't be pretty impressed if a verified ancient text predicted "And lo, on the eleventh day of the month of Sept, two mighty towers shall fall!"