What makes the Bible a credible source??

[Psinner]

Hi all. My name is Paul......and I'm an atheist :|

First I guess I should say a few things about me since Im new and all....
Im 22 years old. I joined the Air Force after high school and am currently assigned to the Dover AFB explosive ordnance disposal flight in Delaware. I just got back from Iraq in January. Politically...I'm fairly right wing on foreign policy (I wasn't until Iraq....now I have a different perspective after seeing what I've seen) and more left on domestic.

I recently decided to join this site in an effort to gather information from Atheist/Theist arguments. So far, I have been rather tolerant of theists; after anouncing by disbelief in God, I assure them that I understand the need for religion, arguing that without a majority of the population believing in a higher power, there could be mass suicides, etc....However, I do not believe any of this would happen and usually just say something to stop a winded speech about how exactly God changed their lives. Occasionally, I will joke around with some catholics that I work with and get into some heated discussions about the existance of God. In ALL--- I repeat ALL--- cases in which I've argued with a theist about the existence of a God, his "proof" ALWAYS comes from the bible. So......

I figured, maybee instead of trying to disprove the existance of God, I should disprove the credibility of the bible. What exactly makes the bible a credible source to argue with?? What kind of grade should a professor give you on a research paper in which you used the bible as the main source of information?? Id appreciate any kind of literature links, or information you all could give me on this.

THANKS!!!!

[HMS Beagle]

Welcome, Psinner.
There was an interesting thread earlier this month (labeledd Proof that God exists, under the Does God Exist? forum) which linked to a brilliantly researched article called False Testament, which essentially fact-checks the Bible, and it comes up real short of reality. See http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_(Harpers).htm

[Psinner]

Thanks for the reply...
I totally agree with you. Most of the people I argue with do just as you said--leave the bible open for interpretation. Perhaps my biggest fault is that I am completely incapable of stopping when it gets to that point. In every instance, the argument ends in a stale mate. The only thing I hate worse than a loss is a tie because nothing gets accomplished. I wish it wan't so damn fun though. Clearly, I need to get more information on this sort of thing. I never really took the time to shape and anticipate arguments because when I decided that mere idea of a creator was complete bullshit, I had no desire to investigate further. But as I become more mature, I realize the government is saturated with religion.---In god we trust---...the truth so help you god--etc. Everyday it comes closer to our doorsteps, and I want no part of it. So I guess its time I get me an Edumacation and start speaking out against this shit!!

[fortytwo]

Sometimes I hear Christians say that the New Testament replaced the Old Testament, because all the smiting is hard to reconcile with a "loving" God. When they say things like that, I like to use this verse on them:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)

Who said this? Well, Jesus, of course! It was in the Sermon on the Mount. The Law means the silly rules, mostly in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, that say you can't boil a kid in its mother's milk, you can't wear clothes made of two different types of thread, etc.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Christ also said "The law says, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say if a man strikes you, turn the other cheek..."

So, pretty much he said he wasn't going to change things, then he went and told people which things he was going to change.

Thus, depending on which statement you give precedence, either intrepretation (NT replacing or not replacing the OT) is biblically supported.

[threethirtysix]

It is true, there are a lot of obvious questions in the bible. In just about every verse there is a problem which the commentators need to deal with. Although, there does seem to be some shortages in the bible, we must accept however that there is some brilliance there too, albeit human.

[threethirtysix]

If however, we accept that the bible has brilliance to it, obviously, it was not written by a dellusional nut. Therefore, if it was not written by a mentally unstable person, then why are there so many contradictions?

The answer is obvious. Obviously it was meant to have the commentaries explain it. How else could someone brilliant enough to convince half the world that this is the word of the almighty make so many obvious errors right next to eachother. Therefore, if it was meant to have commentary, it could then be the word of the almighty indeed.

[Little Earth Stamper]

If however, we accept that the bible has brilliance to it, obviously, it was not written by a dellusional nut. Therefore, if it was not written by a mentally unstable person, then why are there so many contradictions?
Frankly, I think that the mentally unstable can often create brilliant art.

The answer is obvious. Obviously it was meant to have the commentaries explain it. How else could someone brilliant enough to convince half the world that this is the word of the almighty make so many obvious errors right next to eachother. Therefore, if it was meant to have commentary, it could then be the word of the almighty indeed.
The essential problem with that is the multiplicity of commentaries and interpretations. Protestants and Catholics don't like each other too much, but they both like the bible.

The practical result of not making Christ's teachings complete in and of themselves has been that numerous churches have arose and fought with each other, and a number of people who think they are Christian are not, because they have not resolved the contradictions in correct.

Morover, this position has a hint of blasphemy, in that it makes the bible essentially a secondary source. The true test of whether someone is a Christian is based not on what Christ said, but on what some guy said about what John & co. wrote about what Christ said. Some guy should probably not be a more important figure in Christianity then Christ.

[ocmpoma]

PSinner -

May I suggest two things for your perusal:
1) This (http://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/2005/05/logical_fallacy.html) entry at the blog Law Evolution, which details when one can appeal to authority and which kind of authority, etc. Basically, in many cases, appealing to the Bible is a logical fallacy because of circular reasoning or because of appealing to inappropriate authority. Not that this recommendation helps much with your attempt to show that the Bible itself is not credible. However:
2) The book The Bible Unearthed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684869136/qid=1116873490/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1007353-1708731), which is basically the OT vs. Archaeology. Guess who wins. Of course, it is clear that archaeology is the correct authority to appeal to in the case of pre-historic and early historic records for the region in question.

[baric]

I think the main problem with using the Bible as an authoritative source is that people forget that it is really a collection of books, written at different times by different authors to different audiences for different purposes.

This is why you can find so many internal contradictions in the Bible. You need to prioritize which books have priority over others.

For Christians, the New Testament should always take precedence over the Old Testament when resolving conflicts. And direct quotes from Jesus should take the highest precedence.

Otherwise, they are not really "Christians"

[Tenspace]

I think the main problem with using the Bible as an authoritative source is that people forget that it is really a collection of books, written at different times by different authors to different audiences for different purposes.
I wish most people knew that, or understood it to be fact, or at least accepted it. But not when I (we) live in a country where the President doesn't even get it. Of course, to publicize that simple fact would loosen the hold that organized religion has on its bleating masses.

Ten