Unbeliever

I agree, and I think that's the goal of apologetics: not to provide rational reasons for the unbelievers to convert, but to supply a semblance of rationality to the flock, so they can feel that their beliefs are not wholly lacking in rational justification.

Buster Daily

Ironically, reading the annotations in my NIV bible DURING boring sermons at church started my deconversion process. That stuff should be extremely doubt inspiring for Christians. I think I know why many Baptists stick with the good old un-annotated King James.

Don't forget that wonderful tool called the internet that lets one check out anything anyone claims within seconds to see if it's bulls$&t. Once one has the guts to check out claims that align with their world view as well as the claims that clash, it's only a matter of time.

Unbeliever

I tried that just recently by asking a Christian (on-line) if he hated his whole family, as Luke 14:26 says they must. But it turned out that he wasn't reading the KJV, he had the Good News Bible, which says nothing about hating your family in that verse; insted it says you must love Jesus more than your family. It was very frustrating for me!

Toto

There's hardly any Biblical Criticism here, so we're going to try this thread in GRD.

Joan of Bark

It's a good-looking site, Un. I'll check it out further when I get some time.

Joan of Bark

Yeah, that's the common liberal interpretation of that passage. I would still point out the reading in other Bibles, and ask why they contradict each other. Were the translators (who are always believers) wrong the first time around? Can the translators of the Good News Bible support their interpretation through other passages?

jjramsey

This is all well and good, but it reminds me of an article on "The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security", especially idea #3:

I see the same essential problem with the SAB. Steve Wells uses such a poor methodology in the first place that leads to gross errors like the one that had been in the note to Leviticus 14, and then invites people to patch things after the fact. (Here, the critics can be likened to the ones looking for holes.) It's one thing to have subtle errors here and there, but another to have big errors at the outset.

I'm sorry, but I despise that kind of nonsense. If you did meet a Christian that had a more literal translation of Luke 14:26, he/she would probably tell you that it was extreme language that Jesus used to make a rhetorical point, and would rightfully ridicule you for that kind of wooden literalism. As I said as the beginning of the thread, "NEVER misconstrue the Bible to invent problems that aren't there. This will segue right into the stereotype that atheists are desperate for reasons to deny God and will twist the facts to do so."

Lazarus Long

I see your point and don't dispute it. I am a member of the dicussuion forums there as well, so just wanted to point out that Mr. Wells is open to criticism...unlike many apologist sites. Wells does not claim to be a biblical scholar, he's just a guy who de-converted after finding his own holes in the bible, and set about to list them in the hopes that others may find them helpful in some way. It can serve as a good reference point to start many discussions, and if nothing else, isn't it better to have people talking about potential problems with the bible than just folllowing it without any query or skepticism?

LL

Joe Bloe

On the other hand, there have on rare occasions been people who took literally the "better to chop off your hand than to sin with it" stuff. I know Christians (well, used to know; they've cut me out of their lives) who take the "hate your family" passage literally, who take it to mean that they must be at least willing to do so, and actually to do so when "necessary" (i.e. your family doesn't go along with your theology and tries to talk some sense into you). Given that there are Christians who are in fact that literal (and God would know that, since he made them), why would he use extreme language to speak rhetorically and thus be vague about what he really meant rather than to speak clearly and literally, to say what he means and mean what he says? And if he did use rhetoric, where do you draw the line between rhetorical and literal? Was Jesus just rhetorically stressing his importance when he said that he is the only way to the Father? To give your shirt too when someone asks for your coat? To turn the other cheek? You could say that "common sense" dictates what is and isn't rhetorical, and to what degree something is rhetorical, but lots of people don't seem to have much common sense and even those who do often disagree about what is commonly sensical.

That the Bible contains differing degrees of rhetoric and the resulting vagueness and uncertainty about its message and rules is evidence that a good and perfect God was not behind the writing of the Bible: he would have done a better job of avoiding misunderstandings.

jjramsey

The serious answer is because Jesus was living in an oral culture, and extreme rhetoric and vivid metaphors were easier to remember.

That is a more fair argument, although one could counter that Christians are supposed to be part of a larger community where the brighter Christians help keep the other members away from a wooden literalism.

Anyway, I see two issues being mixed up here: the problems and contradictions that come up when the documents in the Bible are interpreted like any other ancient documents, and the absurdities that result from Christians' own failure to interpret the Bible like any other bunch of ancient documents.