Why do people QUOTE from the bible when trying to PROVE the bible is right?

Question

You can't quote from a text if the very argument is whether that text is reliable or not. GEEZ!!

Answer 1

Because they don't get it.

Answer 2

The same reason some individuals quote people like Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins when trying to prove that God doesn't exist. No matter how many times they say it, it still doesn't change the fact that spontaneous generation has never been observed in the entire history of our world. Which makes it completely unscientific by normal standards. But it's the only alternative to Creation that we have been able to imagine. So when faced with these unfortunate facts we have no choice but to keep making things up to try to make ourselves sound more intelligent. The truth is nobody knows where life comes from yet. There is probably a good reason for this. lol ;-)

Answer 3

Very good point. All that would prove is whether the data offered in the bible is verifiable against itself. This is called a closed system, and in any sphere of discussion must be considered to be invalid as a proof.

I actually followed the biblical directive (I think it is in Revelations) to analyse the bible and weigh the truth of it against itself. When I did, I found that the bible wasn't even verifiable against itself in many cases. Given that there is also a passage in the bible that says that the bible is all true, the only conclusion I could reasonably come to is that the bible cannot be considered to be true.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater though, there are many lessons in morality to be learned from the bible, so don't dismiss it all as rubbish. Much of it is useful.

Additional: I have noticed that everyone here disputing your assertion also offers nothing in the way of proof, still only offering closed system arguments. To those people I ask: Why do you consider your post to be useful ?

Answer 4

Well, sorta yeah you can. Prophecy, for instance, would be a good way of proving the veracity of a religious text, if it came true. Of course, since the prophecy of the bible is no more (in fact quite a bit less) reliable than many non-christian sources, one must really not examine the bible with much scrutiny in this manner.

Now, some people like to be silly and quote the bible for everything! To them I say: until you understand the dharma of the community, you will never understand yourself in it, and therefore never understand your greater connection to the higher soul above and within us- that is Godhood.

Of course, this would be more convincing if I were not a Satanist. Sounds cool though, huh?

Answer 5

To people that don't really know what the bible says it won't make any sense to you, you can't read the bible and try to just study it. It's something you take by faith and know. And when you grow in your spirituality with the Lord you will know it's right. Most people don't like to face the reality of being a sinner because they want to be able to continue in there sinning ways. And it's usually not till you think you need God in your life to help you in situations that you call on Him for help. The bible makes all the sense you need. I hope people will come to understand how much they need God.

Answer 6

Contrary to your thinking, there indeed are teachings in the "Divine Library"** --that cannot not be approached by all the ideas, and books in the world--put together--Please note IF your open to answers?

Why did this well know person say this of the Bible and its power:

*** w77 5/15 p. 292 A Book of Matchless Impact ***

American humorist and editor Thomas L. Masson said of the Bible’s impact on literature: “It is the bedrock foundation of all our literature and, therefore, if you want to know anything, the Bible is where you must find it. . . . It is too big for systems, it comprehends man himself and all his thoughts. It is, in reality, a great gallery of superb human portraits"

--Are the powerful impact of the words, phrases & ideas of the Bible matchless?

--In the 1971 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica describes the Bible as constituting “probably the most influential collection of books in human history.” We further read: “Whatever one may think of the Bible’s contents, its role in the development of western culture and in the evolution of many eastern cultures makes at least some acquaintance with its literature and history an indispensable mark of the educated man in the English-speaking world.”

--Why did this person express this thought as to the appeal greatness of the Bible?

....p. 291
A basic reason for the Bible’s appeal to all tribes, nations and races is that it realistically depicts life, with its joys and its sorrows, its triumphs and its failures, its advances and its setbacks, its love and its hate. T. H. Darlow, in the introduction to The Greatest Book in the World, expressed this as follows: “There is one Book, and only one, which embraces all the heights and depths of human nature. The Bible belongs to those elemental things—like the sky and the wind and the sea, like bread and wine, like the kisses of little children and tears shed beside the grave—which can never grow stale or out of date, because they are the common heritage of mankind.”

Why did Sir Isaac Newton refer to the Bible and its ideas to support his understanding some 1.5 million times, whereas to scientific information about 500,000 times?

--Why do Shakespeares' refererences include a good number of Biblical references in his works?

---*** Multiple Articles ***

*** g79 2/8 p. 26 Shakespeare’s Quoting of the Bible ***

Shakespeare’s Quoting of the Bible

Columnist Sydney J. Harris recently pointed out that William Shakespeare incorporated into his plays more than 1,000 Biblical references. “Thus,” he explains, “many people imagine they are quoting Shakespeare when they are really quoting the Bible.”

--Do you really think he was quoting the nonsense you claim it has?

--Are you forgetting that the Bible is not just one book, it is a book of 66 little books--a Library, that can be cross-referenced for confirmation of subjects it expands on?

--Where do you think the word "BIBLIOGRAPHY" comes from, it is the idea that when a subject is written on in a book ,of non-fiction in nature it has to have references listed otherwise it is not a non-fiction book--and is not accepted as fact?

--Well, lady you have come upon the most non-fictioned book in history in your seeming disrespect for its powerful content!

Answer 7

Your question is not entirely clear to me. One possibility is that maybe it's because the people that you talked to are trying to cite specific examples of passages that have been corroborated by archaelogical evidence?
How could you make a logical argument for or against specific parts of the Bible, or the whole Bible for that matter, if you don't know and understand what's in it?
Another notion that I gather from your question is that written text is not enough proof for you that an event actually happened. Then what would be?
2000 years from today, there will be no record of your life (where you lived and what you did) except written accounts and scattered archaelogical evidence. There would similarly be many people who doubted that you ever existed. If, for example, people who descended from peolple who knew you tried to convince others that Hottie actually lived, what evidence would they have to show other than the written first hand accounts of your having lived? They could show pictures, relics, whatever...but people who still choose to doubt that you existed would still not be convinced.
Religious conviction is not blind faith, but faith nonetheless, based on evidence such as the text of the Bible describing the life of Jesus and others. In my church, we often talk about "the mystery of faith", because it's not fully understood why God has chosen to reveal his existence to us in the manner that He has. In my view, any effort to disount the writings of the Bible would also have to discount the documented miracles over the centuries, modern day miracles such as personal recorded accounts and (for example) the events of Lourdes, France, plus the fact that Christianity has survived this long even though scrutinized over and over again by generations over the centuries.

Answer 8

It's pretty stupid, isn't it? The weirdest part is, the bible is the only thing they do that with, if somebody is talking about evolution, Christians want solid, physical proof, and credible information from several different qualified authorities on the subject, just like Atheists and other non-christians demand of the christians' god. But when it comes to the bible, all they can do is quote the bible, in order to PROVE the bible, and then say "The bible is the truth, get over it".

Answer 9

Because the Bible is filled with tons of quotes about that kind of stuff, the Bible is basically all about the very argument whether God and Jesus are real or not. It's all about faith, story after story about it. People that believe and people that don't.

Answer 10

I by no means am a so called scholar of theology but instead am a Christian. What I have read is seek and you shall find knowledge. Those who paraphrase the bible to substantiate their beliefs have not found the knowledge they were searching for. Knock and the door will be opened. I feel it unnecessary to recite my wedding vows to people so as to prove the legitimacy of the love I have for my wife. I do on the other hand feel compelled to answer questions presented by those who want to know how it is that I have found such bliss

Answer 11

It's kind of like quoting the TEXT book. It's to verify the answer, where and why the person feels as he/she does. It's not much different from quoting from a book, an author, the Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights, etc.