Bible as Legitimate Source?

There was an interesting in-class discussion about Margaret Fell and her argument for Quaker women speaking in worship services. Relating Fell to Harris caused quite a stir, ultimately it seemed like she, unlike Harris, took passages in context while arguing for a tangible goal. The question came up whether or not it is ever possible to prove anything using the Bible. It seemed like people generally agreed that in taking it as allegory it is possible, but there are various levels of convincing.

I think it’s tricky to legitimately prove anything (besides distinctly religious cases) with the Bible as a primary source. Allegories allow quite a bit of room for interpretation, and nothing is definite because the Bible itself is not composed of facts. The Bible is, however, a respected holy book; when addressing religious issues (like Fell did) it can be used as a legitimate source. She did selectively interpret the Bible, but also addresses how she justifies her arguments with the entirety of the Bible. Margaret Fell ultimately gained much more credibility than Sam Harris because she had an argument and a proposed course of action, for one thing, and she managed to justify her selective interpretation of the Bible, rather than take passages completely out of context and expect them to sound credible.