[img139]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-mjteWBV_QFIX0cEMGL5QiFldRxkLpKVvaCl-3YKl0pzPCuZd[/img139][img139]http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/images/leviticus.jpg[/img139][img139]http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/images/ftbposter.jpg[/img139]
[img139]http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/260x260/9362337.jpg[/img139][img139]http://www.websophist.com/Gun_TotingBibleThumperMO.jpg[/img139]
Relevant Quotes.
What is the Bible?
Pretty much everyone has heard of the Bible. Pretty much everyone has some idea of what it is. You might be surprised to know that for a lot of people, a lot of the things they've heard about it are absolutely not true.
The Bible is not just one book. It is a collection of 66 books. They were written over 1500, or so, years. They were written in 8 or more countries. They were written by many authors, most of which we agree on, some of which we still debate. Rather than just being a stuffy, musty book chock full of outdated "thou shalt not"s and "so and so, beget so and so"s, the books of the Bible discuss poetry, history, geography, romance, theology, culture and many more subjects. The main theme of which is the Fall of Man, Jesus, and the Final Restoration.
Regardless of whether or not you personally accept it, the Bible itself claims to be inspired of God, penned by man.
The accusations at hand.
As you can see from the quotes in the beginning, many people do not believe the Bible has any legitimate bearing in modern debates. They believe this for various, well intentioned, thoughtful reasons. Here are a few.
A brief defense.
It's old / outdated. I do not deny that the last books of the Bible were written circa 70 AD, and the earliest books were written circa 1450-ish BC. That makes them between 2000-ish and 3500-ish years old. That's pdang old. While I can understand where the "it was written for a different day and age" argument is coming from, I'd have to respectfully disagree with it. I see the Bible's seasoned age as a credit to its worth. Many religious texts have come and gone throughout history. The Bible is still around, and has been the best selling book in all of history, because it's doing something right. It's full of timeless truths that, while you may personally disagree with them, millions upon millions of people throughout history and around the world have agreed with regardless of the "day and age" they currently live(d) in.
I cannot see any reason why the Bible's age could be used to disqualify it from any debate where it has something to say, today.
It's original message has been lost via transmission, translation, and outright deception. The printing press wasn't invented until 1440 AD. Obviously before that point the individual books of the Bible were copied by hand. As anyone knows, this does open the transmission of the Bible to obvious errors. Thankfully though, copying the Bible wasn't just some boring menial chore, like say copying notes in Science Class at school would be for us. It was the sole text for many millions of people throughout history and around the world. They treated its transmission with the utmost care.
Concerning there being some kind of problem with the number of translations of the Bible, I would have to respectfully suggest that those who adhere to it look into the subject a little more. When I was young I wasn't sure which translation of the Bible was the "quote-unquote-right-one". One of my first resources was a Parallel Bible. It literally had 4 of the most common translations of the Bible all in columns right next to each other so you could very easily scan side to side and compare every single word of every single scripture. While reading through it I quickly came to the conclusion that any differences between translations tend to be matters of the translator's taste. The vast, VAST majority of the time there is no serious difference between any of the most common translations out there. They all say the same thing. Sometimes with different words. But generally with the exact same meaning.
Concerning there being some kind of hidden deception behind the Bible we hold in our hands today, I would have to point out two things. Firstly, how incredibly hard that would be to pull off. Secondly, how we have absolutely no evidence of that. Just looking at the New Testament for example, we have 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies. If some person, even a person of great influence like the pope were to conceive a plot to alter the text of the Bible for his own twisted means, and he set hundreds of scribes to it, there would still be thousands of copies before him, and thousands of copies being written elsewhere. We have no evidence of this at all.
Because the issues of transmission, translation, and deception have in fact not significantly altered or obfuscated the true meaning of the original authors, I cannot see why these could be viewed as hindrances to the Bible into any debate that it has something to contribute, today.
It's not peer-reviewed / subject to update.I can understand how a person who views the Bible as a simple "work of man" could reasonably raise the charge that because it's not peer reviewed or subject to update as new information and discoveries come about, it is not a legitimate source for debates today. If the Bible truly is just a collection of men's thoughts, then yes, it is absolutely outdated.
While you do have the right to believe that for various reasons, millions upon millions of others do believe the Bible when it says it was inspired of God for various reasons. The fact that one person doesn't believe it doesn't "automatically" discount what it has to offer to any debate any more than the fact that another person doesn't believe what the APA or any other source has to say.
If the Bible is what it says it is, it has no need to bee peer-reviewed or subject to update. If the God of the Universe really is the author, what peer would review it? Who could update it? The real problem probably has more to do with people rejecting its claims than it not being peer reviewed or updated with modern times. It makes no sense that a Book that claims to be the pure, divine word of God would be subject to critique.
I do not see how the fact that the Bible has not been updated (since 70ish AD) and was never peer-reviewed should hinder its entrance as evidence in any debate, today.
It's full of morally disagreeable dictates. You absolutely do have the right to disagree with the claims, and commands, of the Bible. Millions upon millions of people throughout history and around the world have. As far as I can tell though, that doesn't disqualify a source from a debate. I, and millions of others, disagree with the APA's current decision that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't automatically disqualify the APA's position from current debates. Why would disagreeing with the Bible's contents disqualify what it has to say from debates these days?
Disagreeing with a source is no reason to disqualify it from a debate, today.
Science has proven its claims to be false. With all due respect, this is a severely misinformed position. While the general picture that modern science paints of the origin of the universe and all the diversity of life in it does contradict the common, mainstream Christian understanding of the details of Genesis, there is no scientific finding that directly and without question or objection says "Here! This one specific verse is wrong because of findings X, Y, and Z!" Equally, many other secular sources have countering studies that disagree with them. There are few, if in fact any, studies, papers, and positions that have no objections anywhere.
Just because the modern scientific consensus does not agree with some of the beliefs of modern, mainstream Christianity, that alone doesn't mean that the Bible itself, not the beliefs of the community, should be brushed aside in any debate, today.
None of its claims are observable or testable. Admittedly, the Bible is not a science text book. It is not filled with detailed and organized instructions on how to replicate results. A good portion of it requires simple faith on the part of readers to accept its claims. But not all of it. While admittedly subjective, many times the God of the Bible says "try me", "test me", "see if I don't do what I said I would do". Churches are a good example that it's claims are reproducible. I can absolutely believe you when you say "I tried it and it didn't work for me", but we tried it and it did work. You can't say that we didn't read what it said to do, do it, and get the results it said it would give. Many widely accepted studies have countering studies where different results were found.
The claims of the Bible are just as testable, observable, reproducible, and yes subjective as any other study (especially psychological studies), and should not be witheld as evidence in a debate just because it didn't work for a group of people.
It is full of contradictions. With all the respect I can muster, I would have to strongly disagree with this. I can understand how a quick, surface reading of some handful of scriptures can lead one to imagine that X verse plainly contradicts Y verse. However, a simple google search will yield pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of apologetic responses to every single claim of contradiction that has ever been leveled in all of history. Are their scriptures that many people honestly believe contradict each other? Of course. Is there a thoughtful and honest response to every single last one of those claims? You becha meester.
I fail to see how claims of contradiction, when countered by apologetic responses, could possibly bar the Bible from modern debate.
My personal conclusion.
TL;DR
In conclusion, I am wholeheartedly convinced that the Bible is just as good a source as any other when it comes to a debate where it has something to say. Obviously, there are times when the Bible has no relevance to the conversation (quantum theory, mathematical theory, Ancient Chinese History, etc), but because its such a large collection of writings, it does cover many subjects. When it has something to add to a debate, i cannot see any reason why it should be outright rejected. I can understand how any individual could reject its authority, or its claims, or even one's personal interpretation of its words, but I fail to see why anyone would look down upon someone for using it as a source in a modern debate.
Invitation.
So what are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Why? I'd love to hear what you think! The point of this thread isn't to convince you of the authority of the Bible. I personally don't think that it's possible to "argue someone into believing the Bible". The point of this thread is to discuss whether or not the Bible has any relevance in modern debates, or whether it's just a stuffy, musty, outdated old book that has nothing to add anymore. This is not the gay thread, and this is not an opportunity for you to flame or troll.
[img139]http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/260x260/9362337.jpg[/img139][img139]http://www.websophist.com/Gun_TotingBibleThumperMO.jpg[/img139]
Relevant Quotes.
Your position (IE homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so) is intellectually void and not worth using in a debate because it can't further be expanded upon.
It [the Bible] is not right to use [in a debate] as everyone isn't christain.
Which frankly (as has been covered several times by several people in this thread) is a weak argument in a debate. If your argument is "god says so!", then there is no further debate. There's no more source that can back it up. No more writings or studies that can be introduced. That is your sole reason for believing that LGBT people are inherently "wrong", then there's not much room for debate otherwise.
Because, well, the bible is an old book. Saying that something is deemed wrong based on that isn't really a valid reason. The Bible isn't a fact. I know you personally choose to believe in it, and that's fine. But when someone uses it as a fact in a debate, I think you really shouldn't :/ It was written a long time ago, and people back then weren't very educated.
If you're only reason against homosexuality is "The Bible says so", it's a poor argument.
What is the Bible?
Pretty much everyone has heard of the Bible. Pretty much everyone has some idea of what it is. You might be surprised to know that for a lot of people, a lot of the things they've heard about it are absolutely not true.
The Bible is not just one book. It is a collection of 66 books. They were written over 1500, or so, years. They were written in 8 or more countries. They were written by many authors, most of which we agree on, some of which we still debate. Rather than just being a stuffy, musty book chock full of outdated "thou shalt not"s and "so and so, beget so and so"s, the books of the Bible discuss poetry, history, geography, romance, theology, culture and many more subjects. The main theme of which is the Fall of Man, Jesus, and the Final Restoration.
Regardless of whether or not you personally accept it, the Bible itself claims to be inspired of God, penned by man.
It was not written by God, or Jesus, in the sense that God did not actually pen the words on the paper. It does, however, claim to be inspired by God.II Peter 1:20-21 said:Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
The accusations at hand.
As you can see from the quotes in the beginning, many people do not believe the Bible has any legitimate bearing in modern debates. They believe this for various, well intentioned, thoughtful reasons. Here are a few.
- It's old / outdated.
- It's original message has been lost via transmission, translation, and outright deception.
- It's not peer-reviewed / subject to update.
- It's full of morally disagreeable dictates.
- Science has proven its claims to be false.
- None of its claims are observable or testable.
- It is full of contradictions.
A brief defense.
It's old / outdated. I do not deny that the last books of the Bible were written circa 70 AD, and the earliest books were written circa 1450-ish BC. That makes them between 2000-ish and 3500-ish years old. That's pdang old. While I can understand where the "it was written for a different day and age" argument is coming from, I'd have to respectfully disagree with it. I see the Bible's seasoned age as a credit to its worth. Many religious texts have come and gone throughout history. The Bible is still around, and has been the best selling book in all of history, because it's doing something right. It's full of timeless truths that, while you may personally disagree with them, millions upon millions of people throughout history and around the world have agreed with regardless of the "day and age" they currently live(d) in.
I cannot see any reason why the Bible's age could be used to disqualify it from any debate where it has something to say, today.
It's original message has been lost via transmission, translation, and outright deception. The printing press wasn't invented until 1440 AD. Obviously before that point the individual books of the Bible were copied by hand. As anyone knows, this does open the transmission of the Bible to obvious errors. Thankfully though, copying the Bible wasn't just some boring menial chore, like say copying notes in Science Class at school would be for us. It was the sole text for many millions of people throughout history and around the world. They treated its transmission with the utmost care.
source Scribes have been doing this since all the way back in Jeremiah. Just one great example of just how well this worked is the book Isaiah. A complete copy that has been dated to 335-ish BC (1100 years older than the more common and widely used Leningrad Codex). Even though 1100 years of painfully slow hand copying separated this copy and the Leningrad codex, there are zero significant differences between the Dead Sea copy and the Leningrad copy. The only differences were minor grammatical and linguistic changes that would be expected to happen over the course of 1000+ years as language tends to change. While I can obviously understand the skepticism that many have, over the transmission of the Bible over thousands of years by flawed men, we have countless examples like this. They did an exceptionally good job of handing down their sacred scriptures, by hand from one generation to the next.the scroll may contain no errors whatsoever. While some mistakes may be corrected by scraping off the ink of a letter made in error and rewriting it, if a mistake is made in writing any of the names of God, no correction may be made because God's name may not be erased. The entire sheet of parchment must be buried or placed in a genizah, and the scribe must begin that section of the Torah again. Once the sheets of parchment are completed, the scribe checks them each three times with the help of someone else who uses a Tikkun (a specially prepared printed text).
Concerning there being some kind of problem with the number of translations of the Bible, I would have to respectfully suggest that those who adhere to it look into the subject a little more. When I was young I wasn't sure which translation of the Bible was the "quote-unquote-right-one". One of my first resources was a Parallel Bible. It literally had 4 of the most common translations of the Bible all in columns right next to each other so you could very easily scan side to side and compare every single word of every single scripture. While reading through it I quickly came to the conclusion that any differences between translations tend to be matters of the translator's taste. The vast, VAST majority of the time there is no serious difference between any of the most common translations out there. They all say the same thing. Sometimes with different words. But generally with the exact same meaning.
Concerning there being some kind of hidden deception behind the Bible we hold in our hands today, I would have to point out two things. Firstly, how incredibly hard that would be to pull off. Secondly, how we have absolutely no evidence of that. Just looking at the New Testament for example, we have 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies. If some person, even a person of great influence like the pope were to conceive a plot to alter the text of the Bible for his own twisted means, and he set hundreds of scribes to it, there would still be thousands of copies before him, and thousands of copies being written elsewhere. We have no evidence of this at all.
Because the issues of transmission, translation, and deception have in fact not significantly altered or obfuscated the true meaning of the original authors, I cannot see why these could be viewed as hindrances to the Bible into any debate that it has something to contribute, today.
It's not peer-reviewed / subject to update.I can understand how a person who views the Bible as a simple "work of man" could reasonably raise the charge that because it's not peer reviewed or subject to update as new information and discoveries come about, it is not a legitimate source for debates today. If the Bible truly is just a collection of men's thoughts, then yes, it is absolutely outdated.
While you do have the right to believe that for various reasons, millions upon millions of others do believe the Bible when it says it was inspired of God for various reasons. The fact that one person doesn't believe it doesn't "automatically" discount what it has to offer to any debate any more than the fact that another person doesn't believe what the APA or any other source has to say.
If the Bible is what it says it is, it has no need to bee peer-reviewed or subject to update. If the God of the Universe really is the author, what peer would review it? Who could update it? The real problem probably has more to do with people rejecting its claims than it not being peer reviewed or updated with modern times. It makes no sense that a Book that claims to be the pure, divine word of God would be subject to critique.
I do not see how the fact that the Bible has not been updated (since 70ish AD) and was never peer-reviewed should hinder its entrance as evidence in any debate, today.
It's full of morally disagreeable dictates. You absolutely do have the right to disagree with the claims, and commands, of the Bible. Millions upon millions of people throughout history and around the world have. As far as I can tell though, that doesn't disqualify a source from a debate. I, and millions of others, disagree with the APA's current decision that homosexuality is a choice. That doesn't automatically disqualify the APA's position from current debates. Why would disagreeing with the Bible's contents disqualify what it has to say from debates these days?
Disagreeing with a source is no reason to disqualify it from a debate, today.
Science has proven its claims to be false. With all due respect, this is a severely misinformed position. While the general picture that modern science paints of the origin of the universe and all the diversity of life in it does contradict the common, mainstream Christian understanding of the details of Genesis, there is no scientific finding that directly and without question or objection says "Here! This one specific verse is wrong because of findings X, Y, and Z!" Equally, many other secular sources have countering studies that disagree with them. There are few, if in fact any, studies, papers, and positions that have no objections anywhere.
Just because the modern scientific consensus does not agree with some of the beliefs of modern, mainstream Christianity, that alone doesn't mean that the Bible itself, not the beliefs of the community, should be brushed aside in any debate, today.
None of its claims are observable or testable. Admittedly, the Bible is not a science text book. It is not filled with detailed and organized instructions on how to replicate results. A good portion of it requires simple faith on the part of readers to accept its claims. But not all of it. While admittedly subjective, many times the God of the Bible says "try me", "test me", "see if I don't do what I said I would do". Churches are a good example that it's claims are reproducible. I can absolutely believe you when you say "I tried it and it didn't work for me", but we tried it and it did work. You can't say that we didn't read what it said to do, do it, and get the results it said it would give. Many widely accepted studies have countering studies where different results were found.
The claims of the Bible are just as testable, observable, reproducible, and yes subjective as any other study (especially psychological studies), and should not be witheld as evidence in a debate just because it didn't work for a group of people.
It is full of contradictions. With all the respect I can muster, I would have to strongly disagree with this. I can understand how a quick, surface reading of some handful of scriptures can lead one to imagine that X verse plainly contradicts Y verse. However, a simple google search will yield pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of apologetic responses to every single claim of contradiction that has ever been leveled in all of history. Are their scriptures that many people honestly believe contradict each other? Of course. Is there a thoughtful and honest response to every single last one of those claims? You becha meester.
I fail to see how claims of contradiction, when countered by apologetic responses, could possibly bar the Bible from modern debate.
My personal conclusion.
TL;DR
In conclusion, I am wholeheartedly convinced that the Bible is just as good a source as any other when it comes to a debate where it has something to say. Obviously, there are times when the Bible has no relevance to the conversation (quantum theory, mathematical theory, Ancient Chinese History, etc), but because its such a large collection of writings, it does cover many subjects. When it has something to add to a debate, i cannot see any reason why it should be outright rejected. I can understand how any individual could reject its authority, or its claims, or even one's personal interpretation of its words, but I fail to see why anyone would look down upon someone for using it as a source in a modern debate.
Invitation.
So what are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree? Why? I'd love to hear what you think! The point of this thread isn't to convince you of the authority of the Bible. I personally don't think that it's possible to "argue someone into believing the Bible". The point of this thread is to discuss whether or not the Bible has any relevance in modern debates, or whether it's just a stuffy, musty, outdated old book that has nothing to add anymore. This is not the gay thread, and this is not an opportunity for you to flame or troll.
Last edited by a moderator: