Clarification of rule #3- Bible as evidence

[OpenYourEyes]

To moderators, preferably admin.

Here's one of the forum rules:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

I started another thread to address this rule but I did not get any clarification or confirmation. I questioned its application on this forum when a moderator made a series of statements that are contrary to rule #3 by reducing the Bible to just being claims or as being part of circular reasoning when used in debate.

Please clarify or confirm:
The Bible serves as evidence FOR claims regarding people, places and events. IN other words, the Bible is not just a matter of claims but can serve as EVIDENCE for claims. These claims relate to history and not theology, which is implied by the terms, "places", "people", and "events".

Is my understanding correct?

[otseng]

Yes, you can use the Bible as evidence.

Also note guideline #2:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

[OpenYourEyes]

Yes, you can use the Bible as evidence.

Also note guideline #2:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

Thanks!

I personally try not to use it at all to prove Christianity as a whole, which gets into theological claims, but rather i tend to use it as evidence (not conclusivley proof) for historical claims.

[OpenYourEyes]

Otseng,

There is still some confusion about rule #3. I would've sent you a private message, but I figured a lot of members would want to see this so that they understand this rule, as well. Using the Bible as evidence is a common source of contention, and I can refer you to at least 4 head-to-head debates that serve as examples to my point.

In a current H2H debate on the resurrection, For_The_Kingdom referred to rule #3 to show that the Bible can be used as evidence. Zzyzx objected to this and quoted from the rules to show that For_The_Kingdom's statement was wrong..

Here's one example:

I disagree with the notion that the Bible cannot be used as evidence, and I am in line with Guidelines of the forum, you know, the same guidelines that you appealed to in your earlier post.

Kindly review – quoted from C&A Guidelines

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

What part of that is unclear?

Here are the facts so far based on your post here and what's in the rules:
- The Bible can be used as evidence in support of historical claims (people, places, and events).
- The Bible can not be used as proof (from the forum rules that Zzyzx quoted)
- Avoid using only the Bible to prove that Christianity is true.

My take is perhaps Zzyzx is confusing "proof" with "evidence", and he's also confusing evidence of 'historical' claims with evidence of 'faith/theological' claims (the Bible contains BOTH types of claims). So the way I avoid this confusion, is by looking at this in the following way:
Using the Bible as evidence for individual historical claims is not the same as using the Bible to prove Christianity; the latter would involve proving theology and history rather than individual 'historical' claims.

I tried to be as specific as I can. Is my understanding correct? Is Zzyzx's understanding correct? Or is there a genuine conflict in the rules?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 4 by OpenYourEyes]

I'll give my personal take on this.

OYE, in my opinion, based on what you are writing, it seems you may be the one confused about the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. I see absolutely no conflict in what either Zzyzx and Otseng have said or the rules as they are currently written.

Evidence does not necessarily prove anything.

Evidence can only add support or add doubt to a hypothesis. With enough supporting evidence, one can build a solid case. Without enough supporting evidence, it's hard to remove doubt.

I will high light the quote you posted above and bold the areas where I think you might be getting stuck:

I disagree with the notion that the Bible cannot be used as evidence, and I am in line with Guidelines of the forum, you know, the same guidelines that you appealed to in your earlier post.

Kindly review – quoted from C&A Guidelines

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

This sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions – none of which are given preferential treatment. It is a very “level playing field�. Any story, statement or claim of knowledge which is challenged is required to be substantiated with evidence to show that it is true and accurate. “The Bible (or Quran or Bhagavad Gita) says so� is NOT acceptable as proof of truth.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

What part of that is unclear?

In the debate between Zzyzx and For_The_Kingdom, it is my opinion that FTK thinks the Bible quotes amount to proof and Zzyzx is simply pointing out that it's not. Maybe they are just misunderstanding each others position a little. Perhaps FTK did not mean to imply proof, but only meant to imply evidence. However, when doing so it's much clearer to say "The Bible contains the following quote which supports my claim". Then if challenged to provide non Biblical support the answer should either be "Here you go, the following is from X" or "Sorry, this is my only evidence". Then it is up to readers to decide if the sum total of evidence is convincing or not.

[otseng]

There are no hard and fast rules on the Bible; there are only guidelines. But here's my take on it...

If you're going to debate a non-Christian, it cannot be assumed that the Bible will be authoritative. I don't see in the debate where For_The_Kingdom used any evidence other than the Bible to support the resurrection of Jesus. He is implicitly assuming that the Bible is authoritative since that is the only evidence he is presenting.

Sure, he can use the Bible, but he needs to bring in other sources other than the Bible (and quoting people with M.Div degrees isn't going to cut it either).

Now, if he uses other independent sources, then he will have a strong case. But, if he relies only on the Bible, then the debate will go nowhere.

When I debate non-Christians, I don't even use the Bible as primary evidence. If you can do that, then that would be a powerful argument.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 4 by OpenYourEyes]
Evidence does not necessarily prove anything.

I never claimed that using the Bible as evidence "proves" anything. I have always maintained here that there's a difference between "evidence" and "proof" which is one reason why I see no conflict between using the Bible as evidence for historical claims vs. using the Bible as proof of Christianity. Another difference there is also between 'history' and 'theology'.

In the debate between Zzyzx and For_The_Kingdom, it is my opinion that FTK thinks the Bible quotes amount to proof and Zzyzx is simply pointing out that it's not. Maybe they are just misunderstanding each others position a little. Perhaps FTK did not mean to imply proof, but only meant to imply evidence. However, when doing so it's much clearer to say "The Bible contains the following quote which supports my claim". Then if challenged to provide non Biblical support the answer should either be "Here you go, the following is from X" or "Sorry, this is my only evidence". Then it is up to readers to decide if the sum total of evidence is convincing or not.

For_The_Kingdom has not mentioned that using the Bible "proves" anything. He has used it to make a 'probable' historical case. However, my reason in bringing up this issue is that Zzyzx does not view the Bible as admissible for evidence at all. As far as I understand it, his view is incorrect UNLESS he can present evidence to show why a particular passage is invalid, as opposed to dismissing the entire Bible a priori, as if none of it counted as evidence to begin with.

[benchwarmer]

... However, my reason in bringing up this issue is that Zzyzx does not view the Bible as admissible for evidence at all...

Can you please point me to where Zzyzx does what I have bolded above? Perhaps I have missed it and for what it's worth I will apologize to you and admonish Zzyzx at the same time

From everything I have read, Zzyzx has only said the Bible can't be used to prove truth or any evidence from the Bible can't be considered proof of truth.

[OpenYourEyes]

There are no hard and fast rules on the Bible; there are only guidelines. But here's my take on it...

If you're going to debate a non-Christian, it cannot be assumed that the Bible will be authoritative. I don't see in the debate where For_The_Kingdom used any evidence other than the Bible to support the resurrection of Jesus. He is implicitly assuming that the Bible is authoritative since that is the only evidence he is presenting.

Sure, he can use the Bible, but he needs to bring in other sources other than the Bible (and quoting people with M.Div degrees isn't going to cut it either).

Now, if he uses other independent sources, then he will have a strong case. But, if he relies only on the Bible, then the debate will go nowhere.

When I debate non-Christians, I don't even use the Bible as primary evidence. If you can do that, then that would be a powerful argument.

Thanks again. One point of clarity is that you mentioned that the Bible can be used as evidence to a degree which would be contrary to anyone claiming that it can't be used at all, as I believe one member has been claiming. As an additional point, I would say if the goal is to show that it's part of "history", then that would take appealing to historical standards which is what For_The_Kingdom is trying to do. The acceptance of historical claims can range from having just a written account (as with Plato, Socrates and plenty of other ancient figures) up to having multiple lines of evidence beyond that written account. I believe your point leaves a little room for that.

Otseng,

Do you agree that some of accepted history is based on nothing more than written accounts?

If so, then doesn't it follow that appealing to only the Bible, unless the passages in use are disputable (maybe because supernatural is involved or some other reason which is part of the debate), can count as history per historical standards - not proof, just some historical validity?

*Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting here for the person to just argue that the Bible tells me so and that's it. To show that it's history, the person should also employ historical reasoning or standards, rule out alternative explanations, if any, etc.

[otseng]

Do you agree that some of accepted history is based on nothing more than written accounts?

Yes.

If so, then doesn't it follow that appealing to only the Bible, unless the passages in use are disputable (maybe because supernatural is involved or some other reason which is part of the debate), can count as history per historical standards - not proof, just some historical validity?

No, it doesn't follow. The Bible is not the only source of written accounts.

Like I said, if an argument is going to be persuasive to a non-Christian, sources outside the Bible must be presented.