Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

74,584 hits 2.5 (4 votes) Share Favorite | Flag 9 years ago by biffa

Which is more reliable as a source of history, the bible or Wikipedia?


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 1-25 of 120)

Bottom Last Post

9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 5:41:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
A history book....

The bible only has biblical history not all history... Wiki info could have been put by anyone.....
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 8:53:50 PM EST (GMT-5)
What does the bible have to say about the Renaissance? the enlightenment? The American revolution? The JFK assassination? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Viet Nam war?
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 9:16:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
the things *cited* in wiki articles, yes
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 9:19:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 3/18/11 - 9:16:22 PM mysocks wrote:
the things *cited* in wiki articles, yes

On Friday 3/18/11 - 8:53:50 PM aldod wrote:
What does the bible have to say about the Renaissance? the enlightenment? The American revolution? The JFK assassination? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Viet Nam war?

On Friday 3/18/11 - 5:41:22 PM NATLOVER44 wrote:
A history book.... The bible only has biblical history not all history... Wiki info could have been put by anyone.....

The question was "reliable", not "most".
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 11:17:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't find either one to be *particularly* reliable, but I definitely don't find the Bible to be reliable in any way...
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 11:18:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
Wikipedia is reliable for more things than the Bible is.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 3/18/11 - 11:59:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
Anyone who thinks you can write anything on Wikipedia has never tried doing so.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 1:10:09 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 3/18/11 - 8:53:50 PM aldod wrote:
What does the bible have to say about the Renaissance? the enlightenment? The American revolution? The JFK assassination? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Viet Nam war?

there was a cuban missile crisis?
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 2:56:22 AM EST (GMT-5)
Wikipedia, in general, is incredibly accurate.

Sure, there are incidents of vandalism and "ideological" edits, but it's overall reliable.

The reliability of the Bible is fairly low, since much of it simply cannot be substantiated in ANY other writings from the era(s). This is even ignoring the supernatural aspects, and focusing only on its historicity.

Therein lies the main difference: Facts on Wikipedia can be found from other sources (and they even require the content writers provide these sources), while the Bible largely can't.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 3:04:22 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 2:56:22 AM skine wrote:
Wikipedia, in general, is incredibly accurate. Sure, there are incidents of vandalism and "ideological" edits, but it's overall reliable. The reliability of the Bible is fairly low, since much of it simply cannot be substantiated in ANY other writings from the era(s). This is even ignoring the supernatural aspects, and focusing only on its historicity. Therein lies the main difference: Facts on Wikipedia can be found from other sources (and they even require the content writers provide these sources), while the Bible largely can't.

THE bible? not the Mormon Bible or Jehova's Witness Bible, but THE bible? Everything I've read points to how historically accurate the bible is. What isn't historically accurate about it, apart from the supernatural things?
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 5:30:05 AM EST (GMT-5)
Wikipedia is for the most part very reliable these days
that it used to be. In an article on Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, someone put in a statement that he had done jail time for pedophilia.
Wikipedia's quality control had that statement removed within a few hours.
Besides, Wikipedia often contain references to serious, peer-reviewed journals, articles and books.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:26:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 3/18/11 - 11:59:06 PM Mat wrote:
Anyone who thinks you can write anything on Wikipedia has never tried doing so.

What do you mean? I totally just edited this page by adding "hi" and a smiley face. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:28:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
Id go wikipedia.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:34:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 3:04:22 AM pedalmetal wrote:
Mormon Bible

There is no Mormon Bible, it's called the Book of Mormon, in a sense it's a bible, because bible means a bunch of books compiled together as one, but it's "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" written on the American continent during the same time Christ was on the Earth.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:35:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 3:04:22 AM pedalmetal wrote:
Mormon Bible
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:34:06 AM mikegrella wrote:
There is no Mormon Bible, it's called the Book of Mormon, in a sense it's a bible, because bible means a bunch of books compiled together as one, but it's "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" written on the American continent during the same time Christ was on the Earth.


in what language?
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:54:28 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 3/18/11 - 11:59:06 PM Mat wrote:
Anyone who thinks you can write anything on Wikipedia has never tried doing so.
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:26:30 AM mikegrella wrote:
What do you mean? I totally just edited this page by adding "hi" and a smiley face. [link]


Yeah, see how long that stays up there. It'll be removed in a matter of hours, if that.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:55:03 AM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah, see, not there anymore.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:56:22 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm already not seeing the smiley, or the word "hi."
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:00:00 AM EST (GMT-5)
'Reformed Egyptian', apparently.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:02:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:54:28 AM Ongooshk wrote:
Yeah, see how long that stays up there. It'll be removed in a matter of hours, if that.

On Friday 3/18/11 - 11:59:06 PM Mat wrote:
Anyone who thinks you can write anything on Wikipedia has never tried doing so.
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:26:30 AM mikegrella wrote:
What do you mean? I totally just edited this page by adding "hi" and a smiley face. [link]
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 7:54:28 AM Ongooshk wrote:
Yeah, see how long that stays up there. It'll be removed in a matter of hours, if that.

yeah, I guess it doesn't last very long
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:03:03 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:00:00 AM Matthias wrote:
Reformed Egyptian

This
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:36:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 2:56:22 AM skine wrote:
Wikipedia, in general, is incredibly accurate. Sure, there are incidents of vandalism and "ideological" edits, but it's overall reliable. The reliability of the Bible is fairly low, since much of it simply cannot be substantiated in ANY other writings from the era(s). This is even ignoring the supernatural aspects, and focusing only on its historicity. Therein lies the main difference: Facts on Wikipedia can be found from other sources (and they even require the content writers provide these sources), while the Bible largely can't.


It's still very subjective. People write all kinds of opinionated crap and then verify it with a source that only supports a factual event that they have based that opinion on.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:40:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Saturday 3/19/11 - 8:02:25 AM mikegrella wrote:
yeah, I guess it doesn't last very long
Which was my point.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 11:26:45 AM EST (GMT-5)
This is Troll bait,and the trolls are biting

Nuff said.
9 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 3/19/11 - 1:01:10 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't think you understand the concept of trolls.

Trolls lay the bait, fish take it.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next (showing 1-25 of 120)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If a defendant is found `not guilty`, do you assume that they are innocent?

2 Should transgender people use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificates, or by what gender they most look like?

3 Have you ever gotten a small loan of a million dollars?

4 Have you ever been in a fist fight before?

5 Is Rock and Roll here to stay?

6 Would you rather have no elbows or no knees?

7 Do you think Donald Trump will become the president of the United States?

8 Is Squidward`s skin color blue or green?

9 Has anyone from youthink ever been on Jeopardy?

10 Are you a dedicated follower of fashion?

More Questions
Friends
Daily Moment of Joy
Personality Quizzes
Funny Videos
I-Am-Bored.com
Free IQ Test
The Impossible Quiz
Intelligence Test
Relationship Test
Doodie Cartoons
 
Edit