• To use, yes.

    To accept no. Seeing that they have no real evidence to show, the only source they have to support their claim is the bible. Seeing that scripture is the closest thing to evidence they have, it would be irrational not to use it. Thing is, seeing that none of the claimed supernatural action described in the bible have been confirmed by outside sources, it is illogical to accept it as evidence. I am not saying that the bible does not have any factual information in it, as some people and places did/do exist. Problem it, that does not validate tales of supernatural events. For instance, the Harry Potter books often make reference to King's Cross Station. The place actually exist in London. Does that validate claims that you can hop aboard a special train that takes you to a real wizard school? Of course not.

  • Don't use History books to prove history?

    The bible as we know it now was not all compiled together as we have it today, but accounts of history written down by men and women claiming to be inspired by God. If you understand that much you're ahead of most people. The bible has been used to show ancient cultures like the canaanites are the amorites were actual civilizations or cities like Jericho and A.I. Were actual places. In the old and new testament people and places have been discovered. So yes historically you can prove the bible by using the bible.

  • We can use the Bible as evidence depending on the situation.

    No one here or anywhere has the power or right to prove the Bible incorrect or false or wrong. Morally, the Bible can be used as a guide. As evidence to God's mark and how He wants us to act. We can use it to find happiness and peace. A peace only found in the solitude of God. However I do not believe we should let the Bible rule our lives, letting it dictate what it right and wrong. God gave us free will for a reason and It wasn't to submit this gift of free will to the Bible. The bible should never be used as twisted words against humanity condemning certain individuals becuase of their

  • Yes it is

    The bible has been proven to be historically and scientific accurate 101%.
    The bible has been proven to be historically and scientific accurate 101%.
    The bible has been proven to be historically and scientific accurate 101%.
    The bible has been proven to be historically and scientific accurate 101%.
    The bible has been proven to be historically and scientific accurate 101%.

  • It would be irrational not to use the Bible as evidence.

    People have the ability and capacity to evaluate evidences in the world. However, we don't have the ability and capacity in determining all things due to our finiteness and sinful natures. If a person in their own ultimate standard in determining truth, then they could never conclude what is true with any level of absolute certainty, for absolute certainty requires absolute knowledge, which only God has.

  • Logically, why not?

    To say that one cannot use the Bible as evidence for God is equivalent to saying ''prove to me that Emperor Augustus existed- but you cannot use first hand historical data from the time". The Bible is said to be the record of God's revelation. If one is to completely disregard this then there is little record. It is utterly preposterous to say one cannot use the Bible as evidence for God. If one argues that one cannot use the Bible then how can one trust any history at all!?

  • In Most Situations

    Many people only regard the Bible (The Old and New Testament, and the Apocrypha for some) as the "holy book" of Christianity.

    While this is true, the Bible has also proven itself to be very factual and full of historical knowledge. Much of the historical knowledge contained in the Bible has also been backed up by other ancient documents, and so far the Bible has not been proven to have any significant contradictions with other historical sources from the same time period. The slight contradictions that do occur were most likely due to errors in translating or copying the Bible throughout history.

    Because of its extremely high accuracy in historical matters, it stands to reason that the Bible could and should be used to support history.

    The only controversy occurs when people try to argue that because the historical information is accurate, all the claims in the Bible must therefore be true (which is up to personal opinion and faith).

    The Bible can also be used as evidence when speaking in purely religious circles because they do not care as much about the historical content as they do the theological implications of the book itself.

  • Depends on the Context:

    The question posted is: Is it rational to use the Bible as evidence? However, the question does not pose the context for which it is being used as evidence.

    In terms of studying and examining history, the Bible should be included as evidence. We tend to think of the Bible as a singular book. However, it is best considered an anthology. Each of the books being primary documents from the period in which they were written. Whether you think the information is accurate or not doesn't matter. The texts still reveal information about the world perspective of a group of people at a particular time. In similar contrast, the tales of Homer and the plays of Shakespeare are used by historians to examine social and cultural underpinnings of the times. Historians are not asking themselves whether or not Romeo and Juliet are real people, they are asking the question of what does the play tell us about the period in which it was written. As such, the play itself is evidence for an argument.

    Additionally, in terms of evaluating the character and nature of God, the theocracy of Israel, or the foundations and beliefs of the Christian faith, the Bible would again be evidence. And again, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it. These are among some of the things that the books of the Bible speak on. One cannot intelligently speak about the beliefs of a religion without referencing that religion's sacred texts as evidence.

    As to proving the existence of God, the Bible is also evidence in so much as other ancient documents are used as evidence to support the existence of individuals such as Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. Even in these situations, we wish that we had more evidence. Again, here it is important to remind ourselves that the Bible is not a singular document but an analogy. In this anthology, there are several accounts of individuals personally interacting with God. The accounts are spread out both temporally and geographically.

    On the whole, it is rational to use the Bible as evidence so long as it is being used in manner consistent with the type of evidence it is. However, that does not assume that it will be convincing evidence to one hearing it. For example, one can dismiss the evidence pertaining to Alexander the Great and relegate him to the status of mythology. In like manner, people can dismiss the evidence for God in the books of the Bible and relegate him to the status of mythology or superstition.

    Just a side thought. I noticed in reading people's responses that many people didn't really answer the question being asked. It is one question to as if it is rational to use the Bible as evidence. It is a wholly different question to ask if you believe the evidence is convincing. Beware when pathos is steering your ship.

  • No, the bible CANNOT be its own proof.

    Alright, let's start by taking religious belief and feelings out of it; we will and should use strictly facts and truth.


    1) We know and accept that in order for something to be true, it must pass from theory to law by way of scientific method.

    2) In order to be law by way of "Truths 1", you must complete three tasks; these are generalizations and not the full details. You must first prove your theory to be unquestionably true in repeated experiments, different or duplicated. Next, you must prove where your theory would be wrong. Lastly you must have acceptance from the huge majority of the scientific community. A cup is only a cup when it can hold liquid; a cup is NOT a cup when you remove a face so it no longer holds liquid; it is agreed upon.

    3) It has been shown by scientists, archaeologists, and historians that although people like Jesus and Moses have existed and were real, walking talking people; speaking factually, they had no magical super powers. Even the plagues have been shown to be connected through cause and effect to be natural occurrences and not divine intervention.

    4) Theologians and historians have studied all relevant religions (leaving out money grab stupidity like Scientology). Their findings have shown that religions are intertwined, stories and teachings are shared between all of them. Even going back before words like "God" and "Allah" existed, all of the religions describe the same "People from the sky" as well as the same teachings from these sky people.

    5) Although we can scientifically prove religious texts to be wrong or exaggerated, along with parts being true as well as the human alterations for selfish reasons, this does not mean "God(s)" are real as religion teaches us they are; all powerful magical beings.

    6) Not a single piece of "Heaven", "God", "Angels", etc. have been proven as true...Not a single piece.

    7) Per scientific method, one cannot prove oneself to be either true or false. If I write a new math textbook for schools which teaches that 1+1 now equals 38 and I go on record saying it is true, this does not now mean it is true, change the history books.

  • The Bible is not factual.

    One cannot use the Bible as evidence because the Bible is not historically accurate; only a very small portion of it is. From an atheist perspective, to me, the rest is completely made up. Above all, it is important to use evidence that is credible and veritable, and the Bible does not fit the bill.

  • When would the bible ever contain evidence?

    The bible's good book and all. Sure, give it a good review online. But how can it be used as evidence?
    In court? That would be very creepy, if it had legal help (On page 386- "Oh yeah, just thought I should mention that Zachary Treeman is innocent")
    In an argument? Unless it's religious, no.
    There's just no real situation the bible can be used for evidence (unless of course someone's dusting for fingerprints. At that point, it's probably evidence.)

  • Nah dude why would it?

    Lmao, all these people are trying to prove the Bible itself wrong, which is literally impossible (you can't prove anything wrong). All you have to do is say something can't justify itself. If there's a piece of paper and on it is written, "This was written by Obama," is the paper then written by Obama? No. It only says it is. It might be, but you can't be sure.

  • The Bible is yet another book

    It is not rational to say that something is true just because a particular book says so. This approach is self-contradictory (I can find two books that state the opposite. Which one is correct?). And there is nothing special about the Bible. It was not written by a prophet and it was not dictated by God. It is just a piece of literature, as any other book.

  • 2000 year old book.

    It's a 2000 year old book, written by a bunch of delusional people about a delusional person who thought he was the son of a likely fake god. On top of that, there has been countless predictions in the bible that turned out to be false and general bullshit. The bible is not a good source for anything.

  • Let us not be robots and be intelligent Christians.

    In short: you cannot beliefs of Christ and the bible to someone who doesn't believe in it, or the people who wrote it. You can use some historical evidence, and scientifical fact to support your argument. You just cannot use cause the bible says so, that is just plain ignorant lol

  • Nothing is evidence for it's self

    I'm sorry to have to resort to such a cliche but seriously, this is a valid point.

    Q1).Is the bible evidence for god, heaven and everything that exists within it?

    Q2).Is the Harry Potter saga evidence of Voldemort, Hogwarts and everything that exists within it?

    If you answered yes to number 1 but not number 2 then you've proven why the bible cannot be used as evidence for it's own claims.

  • It's rational but

    I think at moments it's rational, but it's not always effective.
    You can agree with something from the bible, but disagree with everything else. But you can't say you agree with the bible, but only agree with one thing it says. You do not get to pick and choose what parts of the bible you agree or disagree with. You either believe the whole thing or you don't. Otherwise, i see it as a contradiction.

  • Mutually Irreconcilable Systems of Thought

    I'll keep it short: the very DEFINITION of faith is belief without evidence. From what I understand, it's supposed to be a test to the affirmation of God's existence, deliberately done without evidence as a test for the believer (as Christians say).

    I'm not bashing theists or atheists, all I'm saying is that the concepts of evidence don't apply with the Bible because belief without evidence is what people call faith.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.