Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 07-23-2003, 12:25 AM

I wish the SAB had never been written. It's crap, full of simplistic interpretations and idiotic eisegesis.

Joel

Doctor X · 07-23-2003, 12:41 AM

Well . . . it is a start for some people.

From the perspective of scholarship it will suffer simply because it is based on the KJV.

Provided people use it as a tool and respect its limitations, it has a use.

--J.D.

Cretinist · 07-23-2003, 01:18 AM

The SAB could be a lot better if it were more comprehensive and took inerrantist replies into account in the footnotes. As it is, it's little more than a collection of contradictions with no substance. Of course a theist can feel like he is refuting it when he just spews the standard inerrantist answer, which gets no mention in the SAB.

It is somewhat useful when you can�t remember certain contradictions though. For that, I use an offline, easily searchable version.

JaeIsGod · 07-23-2003, 01:28 AM

I like the SAB. It might have some errors , but it makes more then up for it with the huge lists.
Their absurdities and cruelties ment the final deathblow for my faith. I was reading there and I thought:"Wow , do I actually believe this stuff? Is this really in the bible? THis is not what I learned in Sundayschool"

GakuseiDon · 07-23-2003, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
There are alot, but here's three of my favorites:

Leviticus 11
20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.

Note--No birds walk around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.

Out of interest, are there any atheists on this board who *don't* think this is an error? (I'm a theist though not an inerrantist, but don't think this is an error)

Secular Pinoy · 07-23-2003, 06:47 AM

Why is it not an error? Please clarify.

Wayne P · 07-23-2003, 07:07 AM

Not to prolong the SAB digression, but Jason Gastrich, who is debating Farrel Till here on IIDB, has already corrected the SAB for all the fundies out there. CD (NOT Book) $19.95 from him or Amazon, just in case anyone is looking for a twenty dollar laugh.

Janaya · 07-23-2003, 07:10 AM

Regarding the OP:

Isn't there some story in the bible about breeding cattle and striped sticks?

Editted to add the following from this page:

Quote:

Striped Goats

In Genesis 30, we find a rather strange story. Laban, Jacob's employer, had promised Jacob that he could have all the striped and speckled goats in his flock. Laban then went on to ensure that this would not happen - he removed all the striped and speckled goats from his flock, and moved them far away. Laban thus had a fairly good understanding of the process of genetic inheritance. Jacob, however, did not. The Bible records that Jacob got hold of some green branches, pulled the bark away in strips, and planted them in front of the troughs where the goats would come to drink. Jacob was here acting under the old Semitic notion that the offspring were influenced by the environment of their parents during conception. The Bible goes on to record that this is exactly what happened:

Genesis 30:37-39 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Obviously, this is impossible by all the laws of genetics, as we understand them today. The genetic makeup of the embryo, we now know, is determined entirely by the genes selected at random during conception - the environment has absolutely nothing to do with the process.

CX · 07-23-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Out of interest, are there any atheists on this board who *don't* think this is an error? (I'm a theist though not an inerrantist, but don't think this is an error)

I guess I'd be curious to know what the Hebrew for "walk on all fours" is and whether the number 4 is explicitly included. "Walk on all fours" is an English idiom so it could be a translation issue. Clearly the passage in question is talking about something the ancient Israelites were accustomed to eating. One would think that even a primitive culture such as theirs would be able to tell if what they were eating had 4 or 6 legs.

If we look further along in the passage it's clear that it's referring to the eating of locusts, grasshoppers and similar insects which many peoples have done. Some English translations render it as "walk along the ground" but this could be an attempt to remove a mistake or it could be an attempt to render it more accurately in English. Basically I have a hard time believing that whoever wrote this passage intended to say that locusts and grasshoppers have 4 legs.

GakuseiDon · 07-23-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
I guess I'd be curious to know what the Hebrew for "walk on all fours" is and whether the number 4 is explicitly included. "Walk on all fours" is an English idiom so it could be a translation issue. Clearly the passage in question is talking about something the ancient Israelites were accustomed to eating. One would think that even a primitive culture such as theirs would be able to tell if what they were eating had 4 or 6 legs.

Exactly. So, it's probably one of the following:
(1) they were incredibly unperceptive
(2) there is a copyist error
(3) there is something else going on.

I think the possibility of (1) is remote, and it doesn't fit (2). Which leaves (3).

So what is going on?

In the first place, you'll notice that the Bible says that they have 6 legs: 4 for crawling, 2 for jumping. The Bible differentiates between "feet" and "legs" in the original Hebrew.

Leviticus 11
20 All flying insects that crawl on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs above their feet for leaping on the ground.

So there are 4 legs for creeping, and 2 for leaping.

The ancient Hebrews are referring to the front four legs as "feet for crawling" - these legs are "under" the body of the insect. The back two legs are specialised for jumping, and are different to the front 4 legs. If you have a look at this link, you can see the difference in the diagram: http://fs-sdy2.sidney.ars.usda.gov/g...de/extanat.htm

The usual objection to this is that the insects being referred to (members of the locust family) can use 6 legs to walk on. But just as we can say that "a baby crawls on all 4s" without implying that babies have 4 legs, the Israelites themselves have, in Lev, clearly defined the front four legs as "legs with feet (for crawling)" and the back two as "legs for jumping". It's not surprising really, as the Israelites actually ate them, to find them more interested in making a differentiation than we are. If you asked them, "How many legs does a grasshopper have?", they would say "6", just as we would. If you asked them, "How many *feet* does a grasshopper have?", they would say "4", while we would say either "6" or "none".

07-23-2003, 07:07 AM	#27
Wayne P Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Great Northeast Posts: 58	SAB Corrected Not to prolong the SAB digression, but Jason Gastrich, who is debating Farrel Till here on IIDB, has already corrected the SAB for all the fundies out there. CD (NOT Book) $19.95 from him or Amazon, just in case anyone is looking for a twenty dollar laugh.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2003, 12:25 AM	#21
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I wish the SAB had never been written. It's crap, full of simplistic interpretations and idiotic eisegesis. Joel

07-23-2003, 12:41 AM	#22
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well . . . it is a start for some people. From the perspective of scholarship it will suffer simply because it is based on the KJV. Provided people use it as a tool and respect its limitations, it has a use. --J.D.

07-23-2003, 01:18 AM	#23
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	The SAB could be a lot better if it were more comprehensive and took inerrantist replies into account in the footnotes. As it is, it's little more than a collection of contradictions with no substance. Of course a theist can feel like he is refuting it when he just spews the standard inerrantist answer, which gets no mention in the SAB. It is somewhat useful when you can�t remember certain contradictions though. For that, I use an offline, easily searchable version.

07-23-2003, 01:28 AM	#24
JaeIsGod Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 760	I like the SAB. It might have some errors , but it makes more then up for it with the huge lists. Their absurdities and cruelties ment the final deathblow for my faith. I was reading there and I thought:"Wow , do I actually believe this stuff? Is this really in the bible? THis is not what I learned in Sundayschool"

07-23-2003, 06:47 AM	#26
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Why is it not an error? Please clarify.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.