Pantera

Somewhere in between, but possibly more the latter than the former. The SAB throws a lot of mud, some of which sticks, some of which doesn't. I only really use it if I'm looking for a particular verse and don't remember where it is - there's a good chance that the footnotes will make it easier to find.

Layman

Vague and amgibuous. How can I answer this without any specific references or context? I can't.

The idea of the Kingdom is a complex one. Many scholars opt for the "now/not yet" idea. I tend to agree with them.

Layman

A provided a sampling to be sure, but I think these examples show that the SAB isn't really a serious piece of work. No doubt he does comment on some serious contradictions or difficulties. But the major problem I see with his "work" is that he's radically overbroad and invents problems that aren't there.

Not all of one side. Many sincere Christians are not inerrantists.

I've read much better commentary from Christians than I have seen in the SBA. But then it doesn't seem that many other people take him seriously either. Which is part of what I wanted to find out.

SingleDad

Layman

You are, I think, mistaking the intent and actual usage of the SAB. The SAB does not appear to be intended as a proof of the falsity of the bible, but as a resource (with an unashamedly strong unbelieving bias) for people investigating the truth or falsity of the bible.

In practice, I have never seen the conclusions of the SAB used as an expert source for scholarly conclusions.

The SAB is exactly what it claims to be: An annotated reference. If someone is claiming a contradiction, I can usually go to SAB and quickly locate the source material using their annotation. If I want to make a particular about contradictions, absurdities or atrocities, I can go to SAB and get a laundry list of potential material as a starting point. Because it attempts to be more exhaustive than thorough, it's going to have false positives. But since I am not assigning any particular expert authority to their annotations this is not a particular problem.

In short, you appear to criticize the SAB for failing to fulfill a role it was not intended and does not claim to fulfill. Indeed, I am uncertain what conclusion you intend your readers to draw, other than the obvious and trivial conclusion that the SAB is not a scholarly work.

Layman

Quite impossible. I can't be mistaking the intent of the SAB, because part of what I am trying to figure out is just what that intent is.

Good to hear.

Actually, this is what I was hoping. How skeptics view it and why.

To the extent I'm criticizing it I am doing so on its poor annotations. The SAB is obviously not a scholarly work. But it also appears to be a decidedly, and unreasonably, overbroad work.

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman

I disagree with the characterization of the SAB "all known" errors or contradictions. It's obviously much more than that. It clearly contains several annotations that are just plain unfounded. Any "freethinker" should laugh at them, not throw them out there and hope that some stick.

I'm not attempting to dismiss the entire SAB, I've been trying to figure out just how its used and abused by skeptics. The author obviously just cobbled together everything he could think up, without appyling any critical thinking. I'm sure some of his info comes from more critical and informed sources, but obviously much of it does not.

I appreciate that you tend to be more selective. The SAB, however, does not. I guess it strikes me as somewhat petty in its distortions. Obviously it can be useful in some instances. I've received good info. from fundamentalist sources, but many of their arguements are unpersuasive.

These verses do require explanation. The SAB offers one short line. And, as far as the specific passage referenced goes, an inaccurate annotation. There is widespread disagreement on what the "Kingdom" would entail, but I am not one of those who believes it only means the end of the world. I think Jesus was establishing the Kingdom on earth through his actions here, and especially, through his Resurrection.

Layman

The annotation doesn't even refer to the "entire context," and the coming of the Kingdom does not necessarily mean the literal destruction of the Earth.

Layman

But Jesus' resurrection did involve angels. And it's very possible that the promise that some would see Jesus "coming" in his Kingdom, arranged sequentially as it was just before the Transfiguration, meant that some would see a preview of what was to come. Whether that was the Resurrection or the Second Coming. To some extent, Jesus is unclear on these events Himself, as he admits to not knowing the time.

Quatermass

Vague and ambiguous describes most biblical prophecy as well. What I meant was you can always interpret a statement as meaning something else – after the fact. My church taught that Jesus had to return within one generation of the re-establishment of the nation Israel. Amazingly enough, the interpretation changed after 1988. The gospels provide settings for sayings attributed to Jesus. It is just as easy to suggest that the legendary transfiguration story was added to ‘explain’ some problematic statements. I can see that you disagree with the SAB on this particular point but when the same words are used to convey an eschatological message outside the context of the transfiguration or the resurrection, it seems you are trying to avoid the issue.

Yes, it is complex and you can make it fit whatever happened.

The Guy

I know I am getting off topic here, but Jesus was clear that he did not know the day or the hour of his return, so we are in agreement there. But he did say that we would know the seasons. And a literal reading of the gospels strongly implies that he expected his return to be within the lifetimes of his disciples.

So the SAB might have not elaborated on Mark 9:1 to your satisfaction... but the problem he brings up with the text is valid.