Vorkosigan

Haran writes:

I have seen many good arguments here against the "Skeptics annotated Bible". I have a hard time understanding why the more critical of you keep presenting it to new people. Is it in hopes that you can deconvert them based on bad and biased information? Perhaps I shall take my leave if good arguments make no difference to so-called "critical thinkers" here.

There are two major problems with the SAB: (1) it is based on the KJV; and (2) it tries to be absolutely inclusive, and so gets to be picayune. In the main, it is a useful beginner's reference, precisely because it is so inclusive. I also posted a couple of others. I tried to give ax a variety of references.

What specific problems do you see that render the SAB unfit as a reference?

Originally posted by ax:
When taking things literaly or not, you need to look at what kind of book or passage it is,eg:
poetic, historical etc...

ax, we're not stupid.

If the skeptic really wants to find an answer,then he will search untill he has an exact answer.Its no good finding some insignificant apparent fault, and then not go the full degree to get an answer.Many of the apparent faults that have been listed on various sites have been proved wrong.

Well, give us a list of ten favorites, and show why they have been "proved wrong." There are plenty of resources in print and on the web. Or go to the SAB, pull up a list of contradictions, pick ten at random, and show how they are wrong.

( by the way, people should try using their brains and not expect me or anyone else to spell things out for them-I'm not trying to be mean here)

I ask for specific points, and you get angry because I want specificity? Sorry to have bothered you with such an unusual request.

There's a reason few of the major denominations are inerrantist, ax, because most Bible contradictions are not amenable to explanation.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I can't be as sure as you seem to be.

Haran

On the contrary, Haran, you're so sure you bet everything that out of the 100,000 or so gods humans have invented, you'd pick one that wasn't fictional. You're but one god away from us, so you are every bit as sure as we are....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ax:
The way I recomend to go about understanding the bible is as follows(sections anyway):
1.Study closely the passage in context with
the book's message or theme.

Thanks for the advice, ax. Let us know when you have a list of specific items you think skeptics have erred on.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

So what? Is this your way of conceding that some parts of the Bible are not literal documentaries?

Cry me a river, O Ax. You are the one making the claim, so back it up with something.

lpetrich

What's so funny?

Study what? Be specific.

Buchananeer

By Haran:

You'll please forgive me, I am new here, and not even considered a regular yet, so I probably am not justified in saying this... but from what I've been reading in the threads... Bunk is whatever does not justify your particular position. I could be wrong.

Though from what I have seen, and I will reiterate: Bunk is what does not lift up my point of view.

Haran again:
Wasn't it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said "History is dependent on one's own point of view?"

And who said "History is written by the victors."?

As for languages, I unfortunately think I'm 'past my prime' for learning them. I was attempting to learn some Ashanti, Yoruba, Ibo, and Fon, as I was hoping to travel to West Africa with a relief mission (non-Religious) to teach agricultural techniques. I will admit, I'm just a simple crop researcher. I can't get into anything not really technically inclined. But I will say this. Languages like Yoruba are damn near impossible to translate into English word for word. Liberties are often taken in the literal translation. In the words of where I grew up, "I dunn know nuthin' 'bout that Jew tongue." In other words, I'm ignorant of Hebrew, but doesn't it contain similar problems in translation as my case with Yoruba?

Guess who! Yep, Haran:
There's that bias word again. Dunno much, but I think it's pretty well given that both sides are biased. Haran, could you reccommend any books critical of the bible that you consider unbiased?

I wanna read those! I've read the Bible. It's what 'deconverted' me alone, but I suppose the kicker was when I found others who saw the same thing I did.

Perhaps I was biased, but I certainly have no compulsion to be 'resaved' at this point. I just got to reading that SAB site. Interesting stuff that I missed, but which I suppose added to my disbelief. I think I'll just end up like our Founding Fathers in 'merikuh, deistic. I guess I'll take a candy-coated mystery god over one who's gonna burn me forever.

I know, I know, my English ain't the best. I'm still learnin'.

Buchananeer

nogods4me

[q]If the skeptic really wants to find an answer,then he will search untill he has an exact answer[/q]

What you mean is the skeptic should search until he has your answer, since apparently you believe yours and aonly yours to be correct and everyone else whose opinion may differ from yours is simply not studying hard enough,

please, there are enough "apparent" contradictions within the bible that it takes verbal gymnastics worthy of Bill Clinton to extricate oneself from the problems. from such simple things as the conflicting orders of creation in genesis, or how did noah know which were clean and unclean animals, which genealogy of Jesus is correct, etc, etc, etc, and those are just the simple things, never mind such questions as how could a just being have 40+ children mauled by bears simply for mocking a bald man? or any of the other mass murders committed by, or at the direction of, that being. puhleeze!

Haran

You think? I've read the "holy books" of several religions and studied about their beliefs. Though I cannot completely dismiss all of their claims, I find Christianity most historic and plausible... I find atheism untenable for many reasons, not least of which is the moral dilemma which no one really seems to be able to satisfactorily explain though I see many valiant attempts. In my opinion, atheism has its own set of problems in which its believer must have faith.

Haran

Haran

Perhaps "bunk" takes on different meanings to different people. According to Webster's it has the meaning of "nonsense". That is the sense in which I use it. The things I see many post here are "nonsense" and it is mostly because they have not studied.

I may be somewhat regular here, but there's no reason to feel that I must forgive you for speaking. Your inputs are as important as anyone else.

I believe that they are partially true, but not totally. We can know with some confidence what happened in the past through knowledge gained about the past (and gained in multiple areas pertaining to the past especially). There are some, however, who nearly make things up to support their own modern ideologies. I see this happen a lot. One case in point is Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries, but there are many more that I see presented regularly here.

You're right, there are nuances that do not come across in translation. Though I don't think it is necessary for most to believe, it is necessary to study if one wishes to criticize the Bible (and not just things that bolster one's own point of view).

BTW, I very much applaud your humanitarian efforts!

There are not many that I would consider completely unbiased, on either side. However, most of my problem is that people seem to present only one side of the story (many Christians as well) and I find this dishonest. BTW, there are many scholars that I consider less biased than others. (Different fields...but here are a couple of examples: Robert Eisenman, I consider highly biased. Bart Ehrman, I consider much less biased. A lot of times one can only begin to see this after much study.)

Hmm... Don't mind if you read other points of view (though the severe ones bend one's thinking in the wrong direction, IMO). However, I've never understood those who say the Bible 'deconverted' them (it has nice rhetorical power though). I know many, including scholars who have read the Bible innumerable times, that do not 'deconvert'.

All I know is what the Bible says. It seems to say there is a Hell for the unrighteous. It also says that God is merciful and just. Only God really knows your heart...

Looks pretty good to me... Self-deprecation is a good quality.

Haran

This is the kind of stuff that ax and I are referring to...things like this is Isaiah. The "little children" mauled by the bear comes from an English translation. The word used can refer to young men...think gang. Do you know the Hebrew here? Yet again, this is what I'm talking about. If you want to criticise the Bible, you had better learn more about it.

(P.S. - It is never too late to learn. There is no such thing as being past your prime.)

Haran