The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

An interesting response indeed, Please note one key sentence offered up by my opponent: “Bear in mind that these are from a translated Bible. Also remember that the Bible is not the word of God, rather man's interpretation of it. Man is prone to errors.” This statement invalidates any further argument that can be made, because if the bible is not only an interpretation (implying it is incorrect) and man’s interpretation of god’s word (implying it is incorrect) how can it be useful to use it as a sole piece of evidence for the belief in the Christian god. That said, I would like to walk through the key elements that my opponent has offered up: While the two examples I chose of errors in the bible are simple at face value, they are far from as simple as this is implying. Re: Age this is not as simple as “guessing the age of a king” these are the books that are held in high regard and have a religion building off of them. No single person proof read the original authors work and made a change to correct a full 20 year difference in an estimate of a figure that can surely be researched? Not only does that support my position, that the bible is not only not factual it is an insufficient piece of evidence for the belief in much of anything. Re: Nitpicking you are partially correct, but the problem is still that it has not been corrected, and the KJV of the bible was authored/translated/published in the 1600s, leaving plenty of time for corrections to be made. The only interpretation is that the bible has not been corrected, on purpose. If you would like further examples of issues within the bible please feel free to let me know, I can post a few in the comments for your viewing pleasure, or you can do some googling. The information is out there, and not terribly far from your finger-tips, pleading ignorance is disingenuous. Re: Sufficiency When sufficiency is discussed, it is done in context. The context of here is “the bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Christianity,” which clearly defines what is needed. This is not a discussion about the benefits of the bible or who has found it warm or appreciates its authorship, it is about whether it constitutes “a quantity [of evidence] that can fulfill a need or requirement [to believe in christianity] but without being abundant; enough or ample [evidence to believe in Christianity],” which by Pros own admittance of it being a translated interpretation of the actual word of god, it is not. Arguing that the bible is sufficient for hope or social order is not at all what we are talking about. This argument about sufficiency may have glossed over a second less obvious aspect which I alluded to in my previous response: the bible has to be shown to have met the minimum bar for evidence. Even if you are willing to make the leap that the bible is evidence for believing in the Christian god, it does not constitute sufficient evidence for it, as it requires more than itself (Ex. Experience/Personal accounts). Re: Factual Nature of the Bible If a form of evidence is not factual, what good is it? No person alive would stand behind a belief in Peter Pan in never-land, or the existence of Narnia because we know that the books based around those characters and settings are fictional (fictional means fabricated; formed by the imagination[1]). Holding a book to be more than a story is an extraordinary claim and needs to be justified. I am focused on the factual nature for the same reason, and while you may assert the morality aspect of the bibles purpose I will be willing to argue the morality of the bible with you in a separate debate. This discussion is about understanding the evidentiary nature of the bible. Re: Fundamentalism & Christian beliefs If you do not agree with the beliefs I have posted please feel free to define your own. It was simply a first attempt to get a set of definitions into play that we can point to. I have found that many Christians seem to hold many different (and often contrary) positions, so it is difficult to nail down what it means to be a Christian. It is funny that you bring up PI here, because another of the issues within the bible is its definition. First Kings 7:23: “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about […] and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” [2] Re: Double Standards I absolutely support revision of the bible, the problem is that it does not self-correct. Interpretations are provided of the word of the bible, because the words themselves are held to be sacred, or gospel if you will. Revising the bible would lead to better outcomes, I agree and I alluded to them in mentioning editing and revision for cultural corrections, but there has not been a significant revision to the bible in a very long time. While it may be an interpretation, but the KJV is a very popular source of biblical citation, which has not been updated in any significant way (save the “new” KJV, which has been updated but not very well IMO – another debate). Science is a self-corrective process, and even when it is wrong the process is built around revision, correction and repeatability. No matter how you feel about the comparison between these two, the bible does not have this feature. When it comes to your position on axioms, you are again incorrect. The scientific world is built on not taking anything for granted, and looks for proofs. Your own example (1+1=2) is actually something that goes back to the Principia Mathematica. [3] [4] Re: Rationality In no way is this simply a trial on the error of the bible, as you assert. The purpose is to discuss the sufficiency of using the bible as evidence for believing in Christianity. While I accept that we use more than logic to survive, the important aspect is that the things we use beyond that are not random, they are rooted in reason and logic. Re: Intelligence & Study Habits New meaning does not address the sufficiency argument, whether it comes from intelligent people or not, and your views on axioms I don’t understand how that applies to the argument either. 1.http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... 2.http://www.abarim-publications.com... 3.http://mathforum.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...