Is the Bible a creditable source?
Posted by: PreferNotToBeLabeledDefinition of "creditable" = (of a performance, effort, or action) deserving public acknowledgment and praise but not necessarily outstanding or successful. [NO NAME-CALLING! KEEP IT RESPECTFUL!]
Vote
49 Total Votes
Loveshismom: What evidence is that exactly?
KaileyFox: "If someone's using it against you in an argument, then yes, it is credible." How so? Can I use Harry Potter books as an argument about the truth of the world? If I am using it against someone in an argument, does it make it a creditable source?
*deep breathing*
Archaeologists have found something in Turkey's mountains that might be Noah's ark.
"might"
That was disproven a while ago. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
Labarum: The books of the New Testament were not written until at the earliest of 60 CE, the Bible was not put together for many years after that.
KaileyFox would do anything to make her beliefs seem valid when they aren't.
Briantheliberal: I think almost everyone knows that by now. Doesn't mean we can't have fun pointing it out.
So are you saying that since the new testament says that the roman's ruled over Judea during the turn of the era, it must not be true?
Labarum: Unreliable sources can have some truth in them. Harry Potter mentions London, London is real, so is Harry Potter real?
Omw to London
@SNP1:
"How so?"
Gee, I don't know, as in if someone is trying to prove to me that God condones rape /in the Bible/ then I can use it as a credible source to refute that...? Yes, if someone said "In the Harry Potter Books, J. K. Rowling says Harry is a vampire," you could use it as a credible source to prove that wrong because it's the book in question. /It is the source in these points/
@Brian:
So mature, passive-aggressively attacking me in the comments... And on top of that, you use an ad hominem...
I meant Credible instead of creditable. My bad, but I think you all understood it the right way anyway.
KaileyFox, all you do is use ad hominem attacks, but it's only acceptable when you do it.
"all you do is use ad hominem attacks, but it's only acceptable when you do it."
1. Show me an example. Give some evidence for your claims for once.
2. Your argument of "if you do this, then that means I can do it right back to you" is ridiculous. Even if I have used an ad hominem on you, you using one right back doesn't suddenly make the argument right. Get that through your head.
"all you do is use ad hominem attacks, but it's only acceptable when you do it."
1. Show me an example. Give some evidence for your claims for once.
2. Your argument of "if you do this, then that means I can do it right back to you" is ridiculous. Even if I have used an ad hominem on you, you using one right back doesn't suddenly make the argument right. Get it?
Credible.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 