Debate:Why the Bible

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Helios (talk | contribs) at 03:04, April 16, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nothing

There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations. -Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the authors seemed to think it's true. --BenjaminS 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. Jacobin 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. Seekcommon 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --AppalledBystander 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the Old Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Why_the_Bible&oldid=110082"