Toto

Lee Strobel's PAX-TV show Faith Under Fire has a rather unusual lineup this week:

The format of this show is just a little too abbreviated to get any real meat. But the line up here has me puzzled. Michael Shermer was Penn & Teller's favorite Bible expert on their BS program, but is not a Biblical Scholar by any stretch of the imagination - he is a social scientist with a PhD in the history of science. (Not that you have to be much of an expert you need to be to answer the question of whether the gospels are reliable). Still, I wonder if he and Ben Witherington III, who probably still defends the James ossuary and wanted to test it with a DNA match with blood from the Shroud of Turin, can possibly speak a common language.

On the other hand, Michael Licona is a real lightweight apologist in training (apprenticing under Gary Habermas), based on what I saw of him in his debate with Richard Carrier, and a strange choice to put up against Elaine Pagels.

Jon Promnitz

A couple years ago I found myself investigating these Bible Codes and other such nonsense. There are Christian sites for it and against.

Here's a humerous article:
http://www.bluedonut.com/biblecode.htm

A more serious tone:
http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_6_98.html

John Kesler

I just finished watching the Shermer/Witherington segment, and I will now add Michael Shermer's name to those of Annie Laurie Gaylor and Tim Callahan in the "worst showing by a skeptic" category. What a slaughter! As you mention, Toto, Shermer is not a Bible scholar--which may be why Strobel chose him--but his lack of preparedness was embarrassing. If Shermer didn't feel that he could adequately discuss the gospels, he should have declined Strobel's invitation and offered to debate another topic. Faith Under Fire resembles Fox's Hannity and Colmes--a setup made to look like a contest of equals. Thankfully Richard Carrier and David Silverman ( of American Atheists) represented the skeptical community well when they debated William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler respectively.

cjack

I just watched the segment as well. I don't think Shermer was necessarily hung up by his lack of preparedness or knowledge, but he was slaughtered by obvious (and pretty sloppy) editing. It was painfully clear that his answers were heavily edited, while his opponent was allowed to speak at length. It would be interesting to see the unedited version of the exchange.

I get the impression that even if a well-qualified "skeptic" Bible scholar were the guest, it would have turned out no differently.

John Kesler

I, too, noticed that Shermer's responses seemed clumsily edited, but based on what Shermer was allowed to say, I am inclined to doubt that he said anything that left Witherington dumbfounded. Last year, Shermer did a live debate with Kent Hovind. A skeptic on another list I subscribe to attended this debate, and his assessment was that Hovind was the clear winner. In response, Shermer wrote an article defending himself which conludes with this:

Maybe Shermer will give his side of the Witherington debate; I hope that he does.

It's too bad that Lee Stobel didn't take Ed Babinski's advice when Babinski wrote: