The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

"my opponent has conceded to my stance, thus, regardless of what my opponent may say next round, you ought to consider this particular action as reason enough to vote in my favor (oh yeah, and extend all arguments)." -True, however this is a debate and regardless of what I said before, the entire argument must be considered. If I sufficiently prove my point in this round, they should still vote in my favor. Here are my opponents points. 1)For instance, if I am writing an essay on one of the Biblical stories, my professor will no doubt have no problem with me citing the particular scripture that concerns one of the biblical passages. -True, it would be an acceptable source, but that does not necessarily make it reliable. 2) When it comes to demonstrating whether or not there is anything written in the Bible, well, quoting is pretty much essential. True, but that does not make it reliable. 3) We can go about it Ragnar Rhals route as he is of the belief that the Bible disproves the christian God PERCEIVED in the Bible. Surely quoting the Bible would a good way to do this. Or you can go the opposite when it comes to negating his resolution. True, but that does not make it reliable. 4) If a preacher wants to give a Biblical based lesson, then it using the Bible as a source for quotes is pretty reliable. True, it would be a good thing to quote. It is by NO MEANS reliable. --- I think you can see where I am going with this. The debate topic clearly states: The Bible should not be considered a RELIABLE source to quote. Yes, in those situations it would be acceptable to quote the bible, because those scenarios are all about supporting the bible, and teaching the bible. -------- ASSUMING that the bible is reliable, this works. But you know what happens when we assume don't you? -------- To be reliable, something must come from a credible source. If you believe that the Bible was written by God, then I guess one may assume that God is a reliable source. Also, to be reliable something must not negate or contradict itself. Let me elaborate further. The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan of God. ----- The Bible, which claims to be the direct word of God, is obviously not a reliable source. May I remind you of some of the characteristics of God, outlined within The Bible. God is a spirit. God is changeless. God is all powerful. God is all knowing. God is everywhere. Got is eternal. God is holy. God is righteous. God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom. If god is all powerful, and all knowing, how come he wrote the Bible in a fashion that discredits itself? If he is everywhere and eternal, why doesn't he just fix his mistake now and pretend like it never happened? Obviously, the bible contradicts itself once again. The bottom line is, you can use the bible as a source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish.