# Resolved: The Bible is an authoritative source when discussing Biblical topics... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2011, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136 "2011-03-27T12:06:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/61 "2011-03-27T22:25:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > No…_What I said_ was that it was evident _to me_ that someone professing to be a Christian should know the bible. > > It seems almost surreal to me that that would be in question. _To me_, it seems evident that if I choose to be a follower of Christ (or Gandhi, or Confucius or Mr. Rogers) that it is incumbent on me to know just what he taught. Now I’m aware that there are some—perhaps many----who live in blissful ignorance of the bible and hold the position that the church informs the bible, and not that the bible informs the church. If they are self-identified as Christians then that’s fine. I’m not vetting anyone. > > That is a separate thread. > > I would add that that discussion is a valid one, and one I’d be prepared to participate in. But that question is _upstream_ of any “What does the bible say…” type thread. Other worthy discussions include > > 1. Are translations accurate rendering of the source language? > 2. Does the canonical bible unfairly exclude other writings? (The Gnostics, Thomas et al) > 3. Are there material differences between translations? > > And several others. > > Downstream there are valid discussions to be had as well. The problem as I see it is that when you use one of these answers in a “What does the bible say…” it isn’t just irrelevant to the question posed to you, and not germane to the discussion at hand, it looks distinctly like you’re ducking. In other words, I can’t count how many times someone has actually used the bible and then found it somehow all gibberish when asked to back up his claim. > > I mean, if the underlying assumptions are faulty in your view, politely stay out of the thread. Most certainly there will be a thread where you can impress us with your knowledge. It looks mighty fishy when the bible is good enough to pound your virtual chest, and somehow an error riddled book of fables when asked to put up or shut up. I’m just a guy asking questions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/62 "2011-03-27T22:38:35Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > What’s interesting, is that those arguing that the Bible is an authoritative source are looking outside the Bible to find out what it means. There is a dispute about what hell, fire, and eternal mean so you need to go back and try and figure out what those words meant at that time by looking at extra-Biblical sources. A subjective task at its best. But even when we look at the earlies texts, they themselves are a transcription and translation of earlier oral stories. So we need to understand what the _original_ words meant, and those are lost. The original words are not lost. We have the source texts from which the English translations are made. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/63 "2011-03-27T23:22:11Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Now I’m aware that there are some—perhaps many----who live in blissful ignorance of the bible and hold the position that the church informs the bible, and not that the bible informs the church. If they are self-identified as Christians then that’s fine. I’m not vetting anyone. Does this not suggest though that the oft-asked question “What do Christians believe about X?”, and the (logical) answer “This is what the bible says about X” may not be as tightly coupled as perhaps they could be? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/64 "2011-03-27T23:28:07Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Does this not suggest though that the oft-asked question “What do Christians believe about X?”, and the (logical) answer “This is what the bible says about X” may not be as tightly coupled as perhaps they could be? _ **Absolutely.** _ ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/65 "2011-03-27T23:35:01Z")
Just to add: I do however agree with **FriarTed** in the OP. If the question really is “What does the bible say about X?” then a reply of “It’s all just made up stuff. Neener, neener” does not seem a productive or reasonable response. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/66 "2011-03-27T23:43:25Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Just to add: I do however agree with **FriarTed** in the OP. If the question really is “What does the bible say about X?” then a reply of “It’s all just made up stuff. Neener, neener” does not seem a productive or reasonable response. I agree with **FriarTed** as well. And…I think it is bad form to enter a thread with “It’s all just made up stuff. Neener, neener”. It’s particularly bad when you’ve previously used the bible in your response. Then it simply looks like you’re running for cover. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/67 "2011-03-27T23:53:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The original words are not lost. We have the source texts from which the English translations are made. The original source texts? Really? Not copies of copies of transcriptions of oral tradition? It’s a miracle. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/68 "2011-03-27T23:55:05Z")
Yes, **FriarTed’s** essential point is correct. Questions about doctrine and/or the Bible do have internally factual answers without regard to whether those doctrines or Bible are exteranlly true. I think that sometimes the way a questions phrased can be tricky or mislead readers into thinking they’re being asked historical or scientic questions when they’re not. For instance, “how many people were on Noah’s Ark?” could seem like the questioner is asking a historical question instead of a story question and draw a “no fucking body because there was no ark” type of answer, but generally, I think people can use their common sense. It’s also possible to answer it by just quoting a relevant Bible verse, and saying “this is what Genesis says.” Sometimes it does get a little silly with the neener-ing. I mean, people ask Star Wars or LOTR questions (“what kind of creature was Gollum?” “What kind of alien was Yoda?”) without explicitly saying they don’t think those are true stories and people get it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/69 "2011-03-28T00:06:02Z")
> [@sh1bu1](#): > > The original source texts? Really? Not copies of copies of transcriptions of oral tradition? It’s a miracle. Those copies of copies _are_ the source texts. We do not have autograph manuscripts, no, nor do we have preserved transcriptions of any prior oral traditions, but those prior traditions are not the Bible. While the Bible may contain some embedded oral traditions, most of it was composed or edited as written text. And the oldest copies of that written text is, in itself, the basis for what we call the Bible, and are the source texts for English translations. We don’t have to guess at what the English translations are translating _from_. However corrupted they may hypothetically be from the autographs makes no difference as to how well we can simply translate them. Now, because there are so many variant manscripts (and the vast majority of variations are trivial copy errors - ancient “typos” if you will) with no perfect, definitive version, it is true that it’s not really possible to define a truly “authoritative” version, but that’s a different question from whether we can know what the manuscripts we _do_ have say in their original languages. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/70 "2011-03-28T00:32:17Z")
The problem with the OP is that anything could be a “Biblical topic” for those who want it to be a Biblical topic. Heck, I saw an article today about how some people are worried because people worship sports instead of God. Ta dah. Biblical topic. If you don’t go into the discussion believing the Bible is true, it’s impossible to accept it as an authority for belief in X. It can be why someone believes X but it can’t be why I should believe X myself. (For the record, I have read it. Cover to cover. And studied it. Of course, it was the Catholic version studied in a Jesuit school, so I’m guessing that wouldn’t count somehow.) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/71 "2011-03-28T02:00:09Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > It seems evident to me that if one wishes to be a Christian it is necessary to know what the bible says. Would this not seem to count out those notable Christian figures of around 0 BC, including Jesus and the Apostles? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/72 "2011-03-28T02:23:09Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Resolved: The Bible is an authoritative source when discussing Biblical topics… The Bible is NOT an authoritative source of anything. It contradicts itself. It is subject to interpretation. It is subject to translation. Both translation and interpretation are subject to society concepts at the time it was written. It is even subject to inclusion and exclusion of books according to religious differences. About the only thing you can say is that _some sentences are the same in different copies_ (we don’t have an “original”) – assuming scholars agree. _What it means_ is something quite different. I don’t take issue with anyone who says, “The Bible, in verse X:Y, says (quote) ‘I am the Lord thy God’.” I do take issue if you say, “The Lord is our God because He said so in verse X:Y.” See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/73 "2011-03-28T02:32:10Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The Bible is NOT an authoritative source of anything. It contradicts itself. It is subject to interpretation. It is subject to translation. Both translation and interpretation are subject to society concepts at the time it was written. It is even subject to inclusion and exclusion of books according to religious differences. > > About the only thing you can say is that _some sentences are the same in different copies_ (we don’t have an “original”) – assuming scholars agree. _What it means_ is something quite different. > > I don’t take issue with anyone who says, “The Bible, in verse X:Y, says (quote) ‘I am the Lord thy God’.” > > I do take issue if you say, “The Lord is our God because He said so in verse X:Y.” See the difference? Have you read the bible cover to cover? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/74 "2011-03-28T02:38:37Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Would this not seem to count out those notable Christian figures of around 0 BC, including Jesus and the Apostles? Well, no. Because the basic premise is the same. Jesus was a Jew, (as were the Apostles) worshiping as a Jew. That the Jews knew their holy writings, and that that they were central to almost every facet of Jewish life (they were a theocracy after all) is well established. Rather than ‘counting them out’, they would serve as poster children for knowing the what the holy writings say/said. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/75 "2011-03-28T02:39:42Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The Bible is NOT an authoritative source of anything. It contradicts itself. It is subject to interpretation. It is subject to translation. Both translation and interpretation are subject to society concepts at the time it was written. It is even subject to inclusion and exclusion of books according to religious differences. > > About the only thing you can say is that _some sentences are the same in different copies_ (we don’t have an “original”) – assuming scholars agree. _What it means_ is something quite different. > > I don’t take issue with anyone who says, “The Bible, in verse X:Y, says (quote) ‘I am the Lord thy God’.” > > I do take issue if you say, “The Lord is our God because He said so in verse X:Y.” See the difference? I see the difference. I also see you likely didn’t read the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/76 "2011-03-28T02:53:25Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Well, no. > > Because the basic premise is the same. Jesus was a Jew, (as were the Apostles) worshiping as a Jew. That the Jews knew their holy writings, and that that they were central to almost every facet of Jewish life (they were a theocracy after all) is well established. > > Rather than ‘counting them out’, they would serve as poster children for knowing the what the holy writings say/said. So you wouldn’t consider Jesus and the Apostles to be Christians? That seems to pose some problems; how do you define “Christian” such that they aren’t? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/77 "2011-03-28T03:01:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So you wouldn’t consider Jesus and the Apostles to be Christians? That seems to pose some problems; how do you define “Christian” such that they aren’t? Aw c’mon. I’ve seen too many of your posts to conclude anything but you’re looking to prank me. Fess’ up. 😉 There was no such thing as “Christianity” at that time. The Messiah was a Jewish belief, and those Jews who came to believe Jesus was the Messiah were practicing what they considered to be Judaism. Thats all kind of irrelevant though isn’t it? My point, then and now, is that if you’re going to subscribe to a belief system it seems evident to me that you’d have a thorough understanding of the tenets/writing/doctrines. Clearly Jesus and his posse knew the holy writings and were well acquainted with Judaism. Does your reading indicate otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/78 "2011-03-28T03:14:39Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Aw c’mon. I’ve seen too many of your posts to conclude anything but you’re looking to prank me. Fess’ up. 😉 > > There was no such thing as “Christianity” at that time. The Messiah was a Jewish belief, and those Jews who came to believe Jesus was the Messiah were practicing what they considered to be Judaism. So the difference lies in what you believe you believe? Is the Messiah no longer a Jewish belief? > [@](#): > > Thats all kind of irrelevant though isn’t it? My point, then and now, is that if you’re going to subscribe to a belief system it seems evident to me that you’d have a thorough understanding of the tenets/writing/doctrines. > > Clearly Jesus and his posse knew the holy writings and were well acquainted with Judaism. Does your reading indicate otherwise? My point is that a thorough understanding of the contents of the tenets/writing/doctrines would seem to be necessary,too. But pointing to those particular people was an attempt to show that that knowledge that exists in one form doesn’t imply that that knowledge can only be granted through that form. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/79 "2011-03-28T03:43:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So you wouldn’t consider Jesus and the Apostles to be Christians? That seems to pose some problems; how do you define “Christian” such that they aren’t? They would have been extremely surprised to hear themselves called anything but Jews, and that includes Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136/80 "2011-03-28T03:50:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I see the difference. I also see you likely didn’t read the OP. I most certainly did, and I am responding to it directly and exactly. If you feel otherwise, perhaps each of us is interpreting the OP differently. See how that works? > [@](#): > > Have you read the bible cover to cover? Yes, I have. And I rely on opinions from experts with vastly more knowledge on the subject than myself. What difference does it make if I have read it cover to cover? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-the-bible-is-an-authoritative-source-when-discussing-biblical-topics/576136.md?page=5)