Skeptics Annotated Bible

[summa8447]

Anyone ever heard of the Skeptics Annotated Bible? It’s amazing what is in the “Holy Book”.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Skeptics Annotated Bible’s Flags these categories as problematic for the passage :
Cruelty and Violence
Family Values
Injustice
Intolerance
Absurdity
Science and History
Interpretation

Interesting web site. Especially if you’ve never read the Bible cover to cover and have just glossed over passages like this one.

Anyone else out there wonder about the inconsistencies, cruelties and injustices of God etc. Browse the site a little then answer this…how does everyone out there reconcile these? I really want to know.

Summa8447

 

[Spock]

Anyone ever heard of the Skeptics Annotated Bible? It’s amazing what is in the “Holy Book”.

Of course. It is a fun reading from those who read and researched the Bible. It is truly an eye-opener, but only for those who want their eyes to be opened. For the rest it is just a crude and cruel distortion, or a caricature… to be dismissed as an atheist “conspiracy”.

 

[liquidpele]

Anyone ever heard of the Skeptics Annotated Bible? It’s amazing what is in the “Holy Book”.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Skeptics Annotated Bible’s Flags these categories as problematic for the passage :
Cruelty and Violence
Family Values
Injustice
Intolerance
Absurdity
Science and History
Interpretation

Interesting web site. Especially if you’ve never read the Bible cover to cover and have just glossed over passages like this one.

Anyone else out there wonder about the inconsistencies, cruelties and injustices of God etc. Browse the site a little then answer this…how does everyone out there reconcile these? I really want to know.

Summa8447

I’m sure the apologists will have an answer for anything you find in there, all stemming from the fact that you just have to have faith. Just keep in mind that 100 years of analysis could make an Adam Sandler movie into something serious and meaningful, and the bible has had about 1700 years of it.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

When I read the Bible through in my teens it scared the willies out of me… but then, with regard to the OT, it’s easy to forget that it appears for large parts to refer to a world of virtually absolute savagery and violence - on a scale I doubt anyone with a PC can seriously imagine… even the ‘holy’ people are more ‘or nearest offer’ by modern standards! But then again, so are we, I’m sure! What’s a God to do, micromanage everyone to perfection? I’ve subsequently looked up some of these, ahem, problematic passages and they always make more sense in context than they do taken in isolation

Of course, finding the context usually involves bucketloads of reading, but it’s made sense every time I’ve bothered…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i wouldnt take it too seriously. it simply reflects a lack of understanding about Scritpture, the oral traditions and theology. its about as meaningful as if i were to critique, some french poetry as i neither speak french or understand the aesthetics of poetry. it always makes me laugh a bit when non-theists attempt to attribute some meaning to a system that they dont understand at the most basic of levels.

 

[Spock]

i wouldnt take it too seriously. it simply reflects a lack of understanding about Scritpture, the oral traditions and theology. its about as meaningful as if i were to critique, some french poetry as i neither speak french or understand the aesthetics of poetry. it always makes me laugh a bit when non-theists attempt to attribute some meaning to a system that they dont understand at the most basic of levels.

This kind of “reply” is unfortunately much too prevalent. Translating: “you atheists dont know what you are talking about, and you are too lazy to learn”. It tells much more about you, then about those whom you attempt to put down.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

This kind of “reply” is unfortunately much too prevalent. Translating: “you atheists dont know what you are talking about, and you are too lazy to learn”. It tells much more about you, then about those whom you attempt to put down.

It gets quite annoying, however, having someone criticise the Bible from random quotes, sending you running off to check it up, reading up on the context etc., then explaining it, then having (usually) the same people come up with some other quote, repeat the process etc… in this kind of argument, it’s too often the case that the accusation is based on wholly out of context quotes, which the accuser hasn’t checked up on at all, which just don’t have the kind of clear grounds they appear to out of context.

It’s so often like the review quotes you get on posters praising films, which on closer examination turn out to have wholly different (and often contradictory) connotations when you read the original review.

Except of course, in reverse!

 

[Spock]

It gets quite annoying, however, having someone criticise the Bible from random quotes, sending you running off to check it up, reading up on the context etc., then explaining it, then having (usually) the same people come up with some other quote, repeat the process etc… in this kind of argument, it’s too often the case that the accusation is based on wholly out of context quotes, which the accuser hasn’t checked up on at all, which just don’t have the kind of clear grounds they appear to out of context.

It’s so often like the review quotes you get on posters praising films, which on closer examination turn out to have wholly different (and often contradictory) connotations when you read the original review.

Except of course, in reverse!

A spade by any other name is still a spade. You guys cannot even convince other Christians that it is your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong… thatshould tell you something, but it does not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This kind of “reply” is unfortunately much too prevalent. Translating: “you atheists dont know what you are talking about, and you are too lazy to learn”. It tells much more about you, then about those whom you attempt to put down.

you may not like it, but i dont see how it is incorrect. atheists do not, and cannot understand Scripture as anything more than a text which with they are unfamiliar. in the same way i just mentioned, i dont understand french poetry, even if i spoke french, i dont understand poetry aesthetics, i dont know, or understand the tradition from which it stems, the context of it, and that means i am certainly unqualified to offer opinions about it or use it as the basis for some anti-french poetry arguments.

ive known atheists and Christians that can qoute Scripture all day long, and still not understand it any better than i understand french poetry.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A spade by any other name is still a spade. You guys cannot even convince other Christians that it is your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong… thatshould tell you something, but it does not.

case in point. do you have any idea the context of the various Christian disagreements? what exactly should that tell us? or do you not know that the wheat will grow up with the tares?

things you should know before you can critique.

 

[EphelDuath]

You guys cannot even convince other Christians that it is your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong… thatshould tell you something, but it does not.

It definitely tells me that Christians and non-Christians alike are guilty of ignoring evidence for particular passages’ interpretation when it’s relevant to their interests to do so, certainly.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

A spade by any other name is still a spade. You guys cannot even convince other Christians that it is your interpretation is correct and theirs is wrong… thatshould tell you something, but it does not.

A thrilling debate raging about evolution at the moment is whether humankind is held to have developed in Africa alone or in Africa and Australasia seperately. Does that tell you the same about evolutionary theory?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A thrilling debate raging about evolution at the moment is whether humankind is held to have developed in Africa alone or in Africa and Australasia seperately. Does that tell you the same about evolutionary theory?

sweet!

 

[liquidpele]

A thrilling debate raging about evolution at the moment is whether humankind is held to have developed in Africa alone or in Africa and Australasia seperately. Does that tell you the same about evolutionary theory?

I would think that the existence of multiple opinions is perfectly natural in both cases. Anything that has even the slightest bit of ambiguity or subjectivity is going to cause different people to see the situation differently based on their previous experience and biases. That said, you have to admit there is a lot of weird stuff in what is supposed to be the word of an all knowing perfect God.

 

[summa8447]

It gets quite annoying, however, having someone criticise the Bible from random quotes, sending you running off to check it up, reading up on the context etc., then explaining it, then having (usually) the same people come up with some other quote, repeat the process etc… in this kind of argument, it’s too often the case that the accusation is based on wholly out of context quotes, which the accuser hasn’t checked up on at all, which just don’t have the kind of clear grounds they appear to out of context.

It’s so often like the review quotes you get on posters praising films, which on closer examination turn out to have wholly different (and often contradictory) connotations when you read the original review.

Except of course, in reverse!

Perhaps, evangelization is too much of an inconvenience for some. Darn those proof-texters.

Don’t you suppose it possible that a cradle Catholic like me, stopped attending Church, searched other religions, came back, took an interest in apologetics for many years, then I started looking at other arguments out there to further sharpen my apologetics only to find more questions, questions, questions?

I still attend Church. I went to confession yesterday and Communion today. I just don’t know if I should. Something about discerning the true presence in 1 Corinthians. I don’t know for sure if God is real, if the wafer is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity, and if it is, is his body Spiritual.

Mythisists like Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, Earl Doherty, David Friedrich Strauss have salient arguments that Jesus may have been a mythical figure attached to a Jewish sect of the time. Peter, James, and John were head figures to whom the gosples where built around. When Paul joined up he attatched a spiritual (not physical) Resurrection to the myth and the Gospel writers (starting with Mark) eventually built up full mythical (except Luke tended to think he was writing history not myth) stories buttressed by old testament prophecies.

Here is a few debates
apologetics315.blogspot.com/2008/01/michael-licona-vs-richard-carrier.html
bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

 

[Matthias123]

In all honesty, the criticism of scripture by atheists and the criticism of evolution by fundamentalists are extremely similar. Both have no idea what they are talking about. Although the atheist is not inclined to admit it – he doesn’t like the fact that there is any level of sophistication in scripture, so he in content to read it over a cup of coffee and then give his opinion, most likely in a youtube video, as if he was an expert. Sorry, for the bitterness but it is really immature.

I’m sure the apologists will have an answer for anything you find in there, all stemming from the fact that you just have to have faith. Just keep in mind that 100 years of analysis could make an Adam Sandler movie into something serious and meaningful, and the bible has had about 1700 years of it.

…you really surprise me. I always thought you were more reasonable then this…. This is basically a straw man, because you know for a fact that the people on this board do not make such arguments. Remember who your audience is.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I would think that the existence of multiple opinions is perfectly natural in both cases. Anything that has even the slightest bit of ambiguity or subjectivity is going to cause different people to see the situation differently based on their previous experience and biases. That said, you have to admit there is a lot of weird stuff in what is supposed to be the word of an all knowing perfect God.

There’s a bit in Johns Gospel about it - it’s why the parables are, well,parables, apparently… reality - a bit tricky, if we admit it to ourselves :whacky:

 

[liquidpele]

In all honesty, the criticism of scripture by atheists and the criticism of evolution by fundamentalists are extremely similar. Both have no idea what they are talking about. Although the atheist is not inclined to admit it – he doesn’t like the fact that there is any level of sophistication in scripture, so he in content to read it over a cup of coffee and then give his opinion, most likely in a youtube video, as if he was an expert. Sorry, for the bitterness but it is really immature.

…you really surprise me. I always thought you were more reasonable then this…. This is basically a straw man, because you know for a fact that the people on this board do not make such arguments. Remember who your audience is.

Hmm… perhaps you’re right, my apologies. I’ve been arguing with certain individuals regarding evolution for too long I guess… they take genesis as literal and it’s been driving me nuts :whacky:

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Perhaps, evangelization is too much of an inconvenience for some. Darn those proof-texters.

Don’t you suppose it possible that a cradle Catholic like me, stopped attending Church, searched other religions, came back, took an interest in apologetics for many years, then I started looking at other arguments out there to further sharpen my apologetics only to find more questions, questions, questions?

I still attend Church. I went to confession yesterday and Communion today. I just don’t know if I should. Something about discerning the true presence in 1 Corinthians. I don’t know for sure if God is real, if the wafer is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity, and if it is, is his body Spiritual.

Mythisists like Richard Carrier, Robert M Price, Earl Doherty, David Friedrich Strauss have salient arguments that Jesus may have been a mythical figure attached to a Jewish sect of the time. Peter, James, and John were head figures to whom the gosples where built around. When Paul joined up he attatched a spiritual (not physical) Resurrection to the myth and the Gospel writers (starting with Mark) eventually built up full mythical (except Luke tended to think he was writing history not myth) stories buttressed by old testament prophecies.

Here is a few debates
apologetics315.blogspot.com/2008/01/michael-licona-vs-richard-carrier.html
bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm

I think you’re coming from a tangent here - this thread is (for me) largely about the kind of (mostly OT) “God told the Israelites to perform genocide” accusations and the like…

You sound like you’re in a similar position to me, or at least my niggling skepticism, which has certainly been more than that at various points - talking of which, I really should go to confession some time soon, preferably with a priest with a high tolerance and high degree of leniency … although the NT never struck me as being especially mythopaic… of course, if evolution turns out to be true, the earliest bits (at least) of Genesis would have to be, and I generally read Job as being such, but there you go…

Also, since you’re talking about the NT, I have to say there’s a certain rejection of the ‘mythopaicism’ idea in all the conflicts with the sadduccess, who come from that kind of angle, as I understand it. It would be a bit odd to have a mythopaic Jesus arguing mythopaically that all this metaphorical interpretation is cobblers!

I saw an entertaining argument on a website somewhere where it was pointed out that there are more primary/secondary witness accounts about Jesus than about most of the figures of the ancient world… was Socrates a myth? Pythagoras? Historians rate reliability according to their opinions, and where the assumption of reality is a physicalistic one, accounts involving supernature are cheerfully rejected - but that’s scientific orthodoxy for you !

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hmm… perhaps you’re right, my apologies. I’ve been arguing with certain individuals regarding evolution for too long I guess… they take genesis as literal and it’s been driving me nuts :whacky:

Hmmm - you talking about me, perchance? I read the starter book on geochronology, by the way, and that DID shout tautology on an increasingly regular basis regaring evolution, although my favourate bit was where apparently they gave up on the radiometric dating of the Earth in favour of carbon dating because it didn’t fit the cosmological assumption…and carbon dating pretty much did!

Anyway, I never said I took it absolutely necessarily literally… just possibly so! Anyway, nice to see they re-evaluate the hominid they previously decided didn’t walk on 2 legs to, in fact, walk on 2 legs and be the missing link - I’m sure there’s not an ounce of scientific positivism behind that one!