Christians, when you answer a non-believer using the bible as THE final proof?

Question

don't you first have to establish that the bible actually counts as final proof?

If the non-believer does not believe the bible is 100% true, infallible and the direct word of God, quoting from it would not really PROOVE anything for that person. Would it?

It's just like a Muslim quoting the Koran to you or a Mormon quoting the Book of Mormon to you or a Hindu quoting from the Bhagvand Gita. If they did, does that PROOVE anything to you that what they are saying is true? Wouldn't they first have to PROOVE their books are 100% accurate, infallible and the direct word of God first?

Do you realize for a non-believer, they see the bible in the same context you see the Bhagvand Gita?

So wouldn't it make more sense to establish THAT foundation FIRST before using ANY book as a final authority on ANYTHING?

I am asking because I just find it a little arrogant the way some assume, they can just throw scripture around and they think, "Ah case closed! I proved MY end of the arguement!"

Answer 1

You make a good point that people tend to treat the Scriptures as authoritative on all subjects, when I don't think that is anything like what the scripture writers had in mind when they wrote.

Rather than seeing their writings as being the definitive test of truth, Scripture writers composed their writings to tell their stories while making theological points about God. The Hebrews used narrative and poetry and prophecy to create impressions, pictures, and concepts about their God.

They didn't seem too concerned with making their writings scientifically viable in the face of technological scrutiny. That way of thinking would never have occurred to them!

It's too bad that people now project conservative Christian agendas onto the Jewish Scriptures in order to make them do something they were never intended to do in the first place.

Answer 2

"If the non-believer does not believe the bible is 100% true, infallible and the direct word of God, quoting from it would not really PROOVE anything for that person. Would it?"

How do you call yourself a non-believer if you be a portion of the bible, even if under 100%? A lot of things that a known now were only theory at one time. A lot of things that are theory now will be prooven some day. If one quotes the Bible to offer an explaination to you, it's merely to show part of the source of which they answered you. I know I can not give you faith, (if I could I'd give it to everyone,) I offer no proof. But I encourge you to look for yourselfs and you'll find the answers. Where you start your search is up to you.

Answer 3

I really don't think this is going to work. For one thing, a Christian would have a hard uphill battle to convince me that the Bible is in some relevant sense the word of God. If you managed that, we'd probably not disagree at all anymore, because I'm quite familiar with the Bible. My mother was a Sunday school teacher.

I think it makes more sense to develop arguments for what you believe that would mean something to a non-Christian. For example, if you want to argue that abortion is wrong, do so. There are arguments. I could even give some of them myself. However, also be prepared to face my response that even if you admit it is wrong, sometimes it really is a necessity. And there's no convincing me that the pregnant woman shouldn't have the last word in the decision.

And so it goes with anything you want to debate: marshal your arguments without using the Bible as an authority. You can of course quote the Bible passage that seems to sum up the argument best for you. But you are just using it as a rhetorical device; it does not count as proof.

Answer 4

That is so very true.

If a person believes that the bible is 100% true, then that person cannot question someone from a different religion who says that their religious text is 100% true.

The thing is, the bible is littered with inconsistencies and errors. There are tons of them. Some people say those are translation errors. Well then, that is still error in the bible. A translation error is still an error. Some say that the person is confused about what the bible is saying. Well then, that is proof that the bible is poorly written and thus not of divine origin.

Also, every person is atheist in one way or another. Ask them if they believe in Thor, Odin, Ra, Apollo, or Quetzalcoatl. If they do not, then they are atheist to the religions that those gods belong to. That being the case, then they have no reason to question a person who is atheist to their religion. The only exception to this is if the person believes in all gods and all religions.

Answer 5

It's true the Bible must be accepted by faith as the true Word of God but there is good reason to...there is no other book or combination of books in history that equal the Bible. It's 66 books were written by over 40 different authors, claiming it to be the inspired Word of God, through 40 generations over a period of 1500 years yet it contains a consistent message, it contains hundreds of prophecies that all came true over a period of several hundred years apart, has a multitude of scientific facts not known by science until many centuries later, is the most translated book in history (some 2400 langauge translations), the best selling book of all time. Name another book in human history that can equal or better those properties... they are pretty compelling reasons to validate it's importance and authenticity.

Answer 6

I give people scriptures when I talk to them because usually they have not red the bible themselfs, I want to tell them what it says in the bible, so they know I am not making crap up.How do you know the bible is true? I always explain that there is Historical evidence,Archaeological evidence,and fulfilled prophecies. We read stories of people in history all the time in schools,we believe it because we read it and the fact add up.So you need to read the bible and find some facts, good books to check out are New evidence that demands a verdict by josh mcdowell, The case for christ by lee strobel, and the signature of god by grant jeffrey.In order to proove something wrong or right you have to research it.

Answer 7

I understand what your saying and I agree with part of it. The reason it's only part is because quoting the bible must be made on a case by case basis. for example a person who is very depressed and needs a word of encouragement would delight in the fact that God has words of encouragement. But, I agree when you try to show God to somebody it would have more fruit if we do it by example rather than just reading it.

Good question....

Answer 8

I am asking because I just find it a little arrogant the way some assume, they can just throw scripture around and they think, "Ah case closed! I proved MY end of the arguement!"

I agree. I think that is a perfect argument when someone is trying to assume that their scriptures have a bearing on an argument. Very good.

Answer 9

I'm a young christian on a missions trip. All I care about is how real you are. And posting this is real. I dont care if you smoke, drink, swear, I care about you're heart. And then I can show you God's love. I realize that you see the Bible as a book. But God does due amazing things, The Bible is a tool, but his people like me for example are hear on eath not for comfort but to help non-believers. It's faith, that you have to believe in. Exsplain to me how the world came to order? The big bang? Come on. Someone made it. Someone created everything and that someone is God. You think we sprouted out of the ground? Or evolved from monkeys? Lets be honest...no..Someone created us....God......If you read the Bible and pray God will answer. Might not be right away but he will

Answer 10

STAR! Double Star! With bonus stars for clear thinking!

I don't know if "arrogant" is the right word. We must try to look at it from the beleivers point of view. To them, it is incredibly obvious that the Bible, or other tome of choice, is the end-all and be-all of truth. Many simply can not -conceive- of any other way of thinking. In that framework, the only way that they can comprehend a differing opinion is either ignorance or willfull stupidity.

Sadly, this also means that they will not understand your point, as I'm sure maaaaaaany answers have made clear in the time it's taken me to type this.