Original Post
Is it correct to cite the Bible as a primary source?
This has been something that I have been wondering for a while. Many historians use the Bible to cite or prove their theses and or hypotheses. It is true that many places and artifacts in the Bible have definitely existed; The Tower of Babyl, Noah's Ark, Garden of Eden (Apparently). Others say that you cannot cite it, since it's "eye-witness accounts" and it is simply collective memory since the beginning of time.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
There are things in the bible that are provable, for example places. We know they were some places talked about in the bible that existed because we have proven it exists either through archaeology or the place still existing till today. But we still cannot assume that 100% of places mentioned in the bible exist (see: Garden of Eden)
As for science, you leave the bible as far away from any scientific discussion as humanly possible. I've seen science vs creationism arguments and it always ends up the same, the scientist citing his arguments with peer reviewed and accepted theories and the creationist replying with "well... the bible says". Religion does not belong in scientific debate.
The only discussion that the bible should ever be used in is what exactly is contained within the bible.
As for science, you leave the bible as far away from any scientific discussion as humanly possible. I've seen science vs creationism arguments and it always ends up the same, the scientist citing his arguments with peer reviewed and accepted theories and the creationist replying with "well... the bible says". Religion does not belong in scientific debate.
The only discussion that the bible should ever be used in is what exactly is contained within the bible.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
The bible is a collection of works, some of it is primary, some of it is secondary. For example Gensis is most certainly not a primary source (eg Noah's Ark story), where as much of the post-Jesus new testament is.
By the way, a primary source IS an eye-witness account. So I'm not sure exactly what answer you are after. A secondary source is one that discusses a primary source. For example if you personally saw the Tower of Babel and wrote it down then that's a primary source, but if I read your account and then wrote about it, that's a secondary source.
Contrary to what you might immediately think, secondary sources are usually more reliable. Some examples of primary sources are eye witness accounts, journals, interviews. Some examples of secondary sources are journals, textbooks, encyclopaedias.
No matter what the source is (primary or secondary) you should always consider the validity and repute of the source, and always consult multiple sources - making special care to purposefully hunt for contradictory sources.
Anyway what's the context of your question? You have to write a report about history and you want to cite the bible?
This is wrong for 2 main reasons:
1. Citing something does not assert it as fact. An untrustworthy source is still one that can be cited. For example you could say"Certain religious texts indicate that all animals were created at the same time [<insert citation scheme of your choice> The Bible]". Is this wrong? Is this illegal? Should this not be allowed? No, no, and no. Of course you can cite the bible, but that doesn't mean it should be taken as fact.
2. The bible is a historical text. I think you can imagine that it would be perfectly acceptable in anthropology, religious, or historical discussions. I don't think this needs to be discussed further, obviously any source from that long ago has historical value.
By the way, a primary source IS an eye-witness account. So I'm not sure exactly what answer you are after. A secondary source is one that discusses a primary source. For example if you personally saw the Tower of Babel and wrote it down then that's a primary source, but if I read your account and then wrote about it, that's a secondary source.
Contrary to what you might immediately think, secondary sources are usually more reliable. Some examples of primary sources are eye witness accounts, journals, interviews. Some examples of secondary sources are journals, textbooks, encyclopaedias.
No matter what the source is (primary or secondary) you should always consider the validity and repute of the source, and always consult multiple sources - making special care to purposefully hunt for contradictory sources.
Anyway what's the context of your question? You have to write a report about history and you want to cite the bible?
Originally Posted by Neko
As for science, you leave the bible as far away from any scientific discussion as humanly possible. I've seen science vs creationism arguments and it always ends up the same, the scientist citing his arguments with peer reviewed and accepted theories and the creationist replying with "well... the bible says". Religion does not belong in scientific debate.
The only discussion that the bible should ever be used in is what exactly is contained within the bible.
This is wrong for 2 main reasons:
1. Citing something does not assert it as fact. An untrustworthy source is still one that can be cited. For example you could say"Certain religious texts indicate that all animals were created at the same time [<insert citation scheme of your choice> The Bible]". Is this wrong? Is this illegal? Should this not be allowed? No, no, and no. Of course you can cite the bible, but that doesn't mean it should be taken as fact.
2. The bible is a historical text. I think you can imagine that it would be perfectly acceptable in anthropology, religious, or historical discussions. I don't think this needs to be discussed further, obviously any source from that long ago has historical value.
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Oct 13, 2015 at 09:49 AM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
The bible is a collection of works, some of it is primary, some of it is secondary. For example Gensis is most certainly not a primary source (eg Noah's Ark story), where as much of the post-Jesus new testament is.
By the way, a primary source IS an eye-witness account. So I'm not sure exactly what answer you are after. A secondary source is one that discusses a primary source. For example if you personally saw the Tower of Babel and wrote it down then that's a primary source, but if I read your account and then wrote about it, that's a secondary source.
Contrary to what you might immediately think, secondary sources are usually more reliable. Some examples of primary sources are eye witness accounts, journals, interviews. Some examples of secondary sources are journals, textbooks, encyclopaedias.
No matter what the source is (primary or secondary) you should always consider the validity and repute of the source, and always consult multiple sources - making special care to purposefully hunt for contradictory sources.
Anyway what's the context of your question? You have to write a report about history and you want to cite the bible?
You are neglecting to mention that the bible itself states it's a collection of primary and secondary sources. For all we know these "sources" could have been made up years after anything happened or are completely false. There is no validity of the source, even Christians disagree on what parts of the bible hold merit.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[4:37 PM] ponf: y'all might think i'm not wild enough to send dick pics over toribash[4:37 PM] ponf: you'd be wrong
uwu i wuv you uwu
