From the agnostic/skeptic side of view not my side because I am a Catholic: there is the possibility of the Bible fulfilled prophecies being made up in the new testament to make it match up with the old testament prophecies and Bible writers using existing historical names and places to write a make-believe story in order to keep people good and to point to archaeology as evidence and to make it look like it really happened and Bible reliability just a coincidence of many copies of the handwritten Bible. How would one refute these claims? How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction, now off course one may say faith, but one can have faith in the Quran that it is true just as one has faith in the Bible, but that doesn't mean what it says is true. So how do you determine that the Bible is in fact indeed true?

  • Welcome to Christianity.SE. For a quick overview, please take the Site Tour. Your question, though a good one, is far to big a question for this site. It is the subject of whole books—and many of them. Here we deal mostly with the beliefs of particular Christian groups and denominations, and the biblical basis for those beliefs. See: What topics can I ask about here? and: How we are different than other sites. Commented Dec 10, 2016 at 15:30

1 Answer 1


The faith the bible talks about is different than a mere conjecture on a given set of factoids. The faith is specified in the bible, therefore it is not the same as a belief in the quran as a source of truths.

People who deny the archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the bible have left the realm of logical reasoning and sound argumentation for one reason or another. It may not be a logical step at that point to argue further.

The archaeological evidence for the bible is rich and beyond the sort of forgeries and fudgeries some want to lead you to believe. Of course, as with anything, if you want to use it as an argument, you first have to learn it and the associated discussion.

However, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that many (so-called) skeptics do not allow for the existence of a spiritual plane besides the natural. Regardless how illogical that position is, they will always come back to that, if not consciously then subconsciously.

The answer then would be to ask the question: how do you know that the supernatural (the spiritual) does not exist?

Another point of discussion is the question whether knowledge is even possible without a spiritual plane. What is knowledge? Let the skeptic define the term and see if they can explain what they are talking about.

  • Instead of providing a credible answer to the question as put, this seems to reflect the responsibility of proof back onto the OP's hypothetical sceptic, which IMHO is a flawed logic. For a good answer you need to show some reasoning rather than insist this of others. Commented Dec 11, 2016 at 6:10
  • Although I find a disqualification of my post as not being a credible answer a bit too harsh a judgement, I also don't want to defend it as the best show since Ben-Hur either. The problem is the imprecision of the terms involved. If we want to reach an answer that addresses the skeptic's ontological framework, we have to clarify our definitions. What kind of knowledge are we talking about, when we say that we can know something because it is written in the bible and conversely, what kind of knowledge is the specific skeptic talking about, when he uses the term. Commented Dec 11, 2016 at 21:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .