Jorgen

Some of you will be aware of Jason Gatrich's amateurish attempt to 'refute' the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Unfortunately, his attempt is almost comical in its complete incompetence. At http://www.gastrich.org/ Gastrich's handiwork has been exposed! Gastrich.org takes issue with Jason Gastrich's misguided attempt to harmonize all of the errors in the Bible in his publication, 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained'. More generally, Gastrich.org takes issue with the method of Inerrantists - exposing their tendentious and unscholarly approach to the Bible.

On Gastrich.org you can find the following issues addressed, in substantially greater detail than the one-liners in Jason Gastrich's own CD-book:

- Who or what is the referent of the "servant" figure of Isaiah 40-55, and especially of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12?

- Was Sir Robert Anderson correct in claiming that Jesus fulfills Daniel 9:24-27 to the very day?

- Is there a problem with the chronology of the fig tree cursing?

Jorgen

GakuseiDon

I'm usually very cynical about attempts by contradictionists to prove errors in the Bible. To paraphrase the site's comment on inerrantists' methods, contradictionists usually show:

1. A primary interest in finding any interpretation of a text which supports their view of errancy.
2. Only a secondary interest in establishing the best interpretation of the text.

SAB is one of the worst exponents of that view. The Gastrich site, to its credit, appears to be one of the more balanced ones as it recognises the problems in SAB as well. Though it would have been even better if it could have given a few of the problems in SAB as well as the Bible.

I haven't read anything by Gastrich, but some of his resolutions are pretty bad. My favorite, in the "Jason Gastrich Can't do Math" section:
Ouch! A good website.

Vorkosigan

Don, "best" is a value. There is no "best" interpretation. Places like the SAB choose a prima facie approach, because it exposes the fact that Biblical literalists are not literalists at all, but are importing their doctrine into the text. To argue that they have "only a secondary interest in establishing the best interpretation of the text" is to take the position that "a best interpretation" exists. There is, in reality, no such animal.

Withal, SAB remains a useful site with good information. Its goal is to be inclusive. Naturally, some contradictions will have a prima facie case that is stronger than others.

There are few, if any problems with the SAB, although naturally all of its claims will not be to everyone's taste. Nevertheless, it is a very useful compendium of information.

That one is hysterical. :rolling:

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I think that's true, but in principle I don't see this as a problem (e.g. the Chicago statement on inerrancy, as long as they are consistent in application.

But isn't that what we do on this board? If there are better and worse translations, then there must be a "best" translation. Or do you mean that ultimately it is subjective?

The SAB is cr*p, IMHO. As Carrier said about the Kersey Graves book, if you have to re-research every claim to make sure that what is being claimed is fact, what value is the original research?

Try arguing against the SAB in their forum - they defend it with the same zeal as any creationist. I used to post there, but in the middle of a debate I was having on one of the notes in SAB, the SAB maintainer (Steve Wells) noted my criticism and subtly changed the note to give it a different spin, without notification. Now, I have nothing against him making changes, but IMO it was dishonest to do this in the middle of a debate without the notification. (Imagine someone debating you, and going in and editting their previous posts without informing you so that your criticism seems invalid). I stopped posting there soon after that.

PoodleLovinPessimist

I don't pretend to be any sort of expert. Prodigious scholars here such as Vorkosigan have more biblical knowledge than me in their fingernail clippings. Still I understand logic and evidence fairly well.

As Vorkosigan mentions, the SAB attempts (among other things) to compile and annotate prima facie inconsistencies. Perhaps you could offer examples of where the SAB bends over backwards to create an interpretation that leads to an inconsistency?

There are objectively better and worse translations or interpretations according to particular standards. The choice of standards is, ultimately, subjective.

This is a nonsequitur. I'm simply unable to follow your reasoning here.

Are you criticizing the SAB discussion board staff or the SAB? If you have an issue with their moderation policies, perhaps you should take your case up with them directly. AFAIK, there is little or no connection between II and SAB.

gregor2

Well, let me defend GD to a degree. [From my recollection of the site - it's been a while] I think the SAB would improve it's site if it discussed some potential resolutions for contradictions and indicated that some matters are minor quibbles. However, I understand its role as an introductory work.

GakuseiDon

How many do you want? Just go to the website and you'll see any number of inane comments. Here are some of SAB's annotations on "absurdities" in Numbers

"And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days?" Perhaps. But shouldn't God be ashamed for including such vulgarity in the Bible? 12:14

SAB has this strawman of prim Christian women banning books based on vulgarity. But spitting??? Is there a prima facie case here?

"And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." This statement may have been figurative, hyperbole, typical biblical exaggeration, or an actual description of the sons of Anak, in which case they must have been about 300 feet tall.

Does anyone really think that the Bible is trying to give a literal relative size differential? Steve even suggests it may be figurative language! Is there any prima facie inconsistency in this passage that needs pointing out at all, IYO?

God has "the strength of a unicorn." Oh heck, I bet he's even stronger than a unicorn. 23:22

Aside from the fact that "unicorn" isn't really the most accurate translation (SAB uses the KJV), is there even a prima facie difficulty with figurative statements like this in the Bible?

As I tried to argue with Steve, SAB would only be the stronger if it dropped the inanities and concentrated on the very real contradictions and errors in the Bible. One in-depth and well explained contradiction would be worth more than all those put together.

Try to argue against one of these on the SAB forum. As I said, some of the posters there have the zeal of any creationist (though others are good).

Here is an example of where the SAB bends over backwards to create an interpretation that leads to an inconsistency: "Thou shalt not kill" is contradicted by passages where God tells people to kill. Even someone with a basic understanding knows that "Do not kill" refers to murder.

In the contradiction "Is it wrong to commit adultery?" SAB supplies some verses that it says shows that the Bible condones adultery(!). Check the verses for yourself and tell me if SAB isn't bending over backwards to create an inconsistency.

It only took a few minutes to find these. There are heaps more.

I mean: If you need to recheck the cites that SAB gives in order to see that they have the context correct, it makes it useless.

I'm criticising both. I did take it up with them directly. I realise that there is no connection between II and SAB.

GakuseiDon

Lots, lots more in SAB:

SAB gives a verse that it says shows that gambling is condemned in the Bible in its "Does the bible condemn gambling?" contradiction:
Here, SAB asks "When was the tabernacle set up?"
I'm still trying to work what the actual contradiction is supposed to be for this one. If anyone can work it out, let me know.

SAB produces some Bible verses in its "Is it wrong to lie?" contradiction that shows that "Lying is approved and sanctioned" in the Bible. But who is this supposed to convince?

Vorkosigan

No, I mean ultimately the criterion you choose as "best" is a value. For example, you and I probably agree that the "best" translation should attempt to render what the text actually says, uninfluenced by doctrine. But the translators of the NIV do not share that definition of "best."

If you think it is crap, then don't use it. Meanwhile those of us who value the effort of others to find and display problems will continue to make good use of it.

<shrug>

That's too bad.

Vorkosigan

We've had this discussion many times, and the commandment does not refer to murder, but killing. Basic understanding, ya know.

Yes. The passage highlights the problem with Biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism. You can't take this literally, so you have to take it figuratively. But then -- what are the rules for taking it figuratively? Inerrantists shift the goalposts on that one. The SAB is taking the right approach there. Sometimes the ridiculous can be sublimely satirical.

What kind of comment is that?

You just don't "get" the SAB, Don. Its goal is to undermine literalism by showing how stupid it is. Again, can you explain the rules for determining when something is figurative? No inerrantist can. So what justification is there for your problem about God having the strength of a unicorn? That's what the Bible says!

BTW, I don't see the contradiction between Ex and Num either. There's no contradiction there AFAIK. What did Steve say?

Vorkosigan