stephan huller

I don't know if this really qualifies as a Biblical Criticism and History thread but I guess it sort of fits (and besides it's sort of funny). I had been noticing that my blog was ranked higher and higher by Alexa until it finally ended up in 41st place by the end of the month. I told the religious people over at Biblioblogger Top 50 about it and they said it would all be taken care of. Lo and behold, by the 31st of this month I wasn't on the list.

I started emailing this Jeremy Thompson character who runs the list. Suddenly his email isn't working or he won't respond to my questions.

I post the question in the comments section of the ranking and I get into this big fight with Joel Watts which isn't fair because he's sort of slow. Anyway I thought my exchange with the fatso was worth posting because I somehow had to justify pulling out the 'Jew card' (i.e. a variation on the race card).

If you're a creative nihilist like myself you might my definition of what it is to be Jewish as hilariously contrived as I do.

http://biblioblogtop50.wordpress.com...-west-edition/

I don't know why I like getting myself in these situations. It's so stupid this fight to get recognized. I noticed that Neil Godfrey doesn't even post the Biblioblog Top 50 icon at his blog. His so much cooler than I am. Anyway, we're still stuck together categorized as 'fringe dwellers and conspiracy theorists' by these bastards. They say they are going to change things but I was warned during the exchange by Steve Caruso (the guy that now runs the Biblioblog Top 50) that he'll set up an even worse label for my blog if I don't play ball with him.

Maybe he'll put an armband or some distinctive marker to separate my site from the other blogs. That'd be original ...

Anyway it's worth a laugh to check out the exchange. I think ...

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...iblioblog.html

Juststeve

How exactly are the blogs ranked? Is it by popularity? Anyhow, congratulations on your success.

Steve

hjalti

I admit that I haven't read much of your theories, but from what I've heard they're rather "original" :P

But aren't there inerrantists on that list? Why don't they get put into some derogatory category like: "Fundies and snake-handlers"? :huh:

stephan huller

Thanks Steve,

Its based on the rankings at alexa.com. You can put any URL in the search engine and it will tell you the relative ranking against other sites. freeratio.org for instance is ranked 391,576 in the world and 90,596 in the United States. My site is ranked 143,132 in the United States and 709,020 in the world.

You can check any URL you want. It's a lot of fun.

hjalti, yes the system skews in favor of the religious right but the real reason they were trying to keep me out I think is that the list used to 100% filled with believers. Now I think skeptics and non-believers account for about 20% of the make up.

One thing I don't understand is why Roger Pearse's site isn't put on the listing. In any event, as I have said many times here - one of the best sites on the web.

avi

1. Roger is too intelligent for the sort of nonsensical political gibberish at that site.

2. Roger has made available lots of important GREEK documents at his site, hence, he is, from their pointy point of view, thoroughly UNRELIABLE. Honestly. Using Greek. What was he thinking? Jeez. Next thing you know, turn around, and the guy will have some kind of silly ARABIC docs on his web site. Obviously someone not to be trusted.....

avi

aa5874

You just made that up? What is your source for your claim "....he is, from their pointy point of view, thoroughly UNRELIABLE....."

avi

It was meant as hyperbole.

avi

Toto

Roger Pearse's website www.tertullian.org is universally admired, but it is not a blog.

He has a blog at http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/ - which is listed on the complete list of biblioblogs.

Roger doesn't seem to do anything to drive traffic to his blog, such as comment outrageously on current events or post fake pictures of, or insults to, other bibliobloggers.

stephan huller

Toto

Yes but what people don't understand - and even I didn't get this - is that what appears as an objective survey of the Top 50 Biblioblogs really isn't so. The Top 50 list is a carry over from an earlier period where they used to do a 'complete list of Biblioblogs' which ranked every single blog related to the Bible. This site stopped doing the complete list a while back and then this Jeremy did a much shorter list (I think it was originally a Top 100 and then he condensed it to a Top 50). But the point is that when you really think about it - how do you know if a new blog from the bottom 51+ is now a Top 50?

They can't measure all the blogs every month to see if there are any new Top 50 blogs so what they did instead is 'freeze' the original Top 50 from some month and then any new person that comes along and says that they should be included in the Top 50 are 'evaluated' for their inclusion in the 'elite list of 50.'

The point is that the 'Complete List' (where Neil and I are relegated to 'fringe dwellers and conspiracy theorists') was compiled by the people that took over the blog. Roger was never included in the original Biblioblog ranking for some reason and only added later by the new people. Since he apparently doesn't request to be 'evaluated' for inclusion in the Top 50 he isn't included (I'm sure if he did ask he would be included because he is an evangelical).

Yet what I see at work is that the list is now frozen as it were with about 5 or 6 skeptical or atheist sites carried over from original Top 50 list. In other words, they hate Neil just as much as me but can't do anything because it would be an obvious sign of tampering if they suddenly dropped him from the rankings. Again if I didn't play the 'Jew card' they would have said 'wait until next month.' I have the emails to back this up.

I think the problem they face is that even though agnostics and atheists are in the minority in America (not of course in Europe, Canada and other non-third world countries) a disproportionate number of such people actually write and think about the Bible. To this end they don't want the list to get 'watered down' in their terms by non-believers. So every effort is made to restrict the list's composition.

Just look at what they did to me. I don't really think that they hate Jews but they want to keep as many of their ilk (evangelicals) on the list. So in this case adding me at 41st place would drop the 50th place guy who happens to be a self-described evangelical from the south. That's why if you look closely they kept him on with an asterisk. So now it's really a 'Top 51' in order to retrain the proper 'evangelical composition.'

The reality is that if they actually made an outreach effort to include atheists, agnostic and skeptics who blog about the Bible with the actually frequency that Joel Watts, Jim West and rest do (remember if you go to their site you'll see VERY few posts dealing with the Bible or biblical criticism) the list would actually tilt in favor of the enemy

stephan huller

And a couple of other points. Joel Watts has perhaps a high school diploma from a public (or perhaps 'Christian') school in West Virginia (which is today ranked 37th in the nation and was even worse when Joel was going to school). As such the inflammatory comments coming from this high school educated moron in the comments section that Frankist Jews are not 'real Jews' should be ridiculed in light of Maciejko's recent book on the subject:

http://www.forward.com/articles/138272/#ixzz1O88RTMBf

Maciejko not only dispels many popular misconceptions about the tradition (i.e. its supposed interest in Sabbateanism, kabbalah etc.) but also highlights its importance to modern Jewish life as the reviewer notes:

Indeed the next time you go to a Chinese restaurant with your friend who claims to be Jewish while eating the Kung Pow shrimp, you will immediately recognize the lasting impact of Jacob Frank