ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
We're talking about contraditcions in the Bible, and a Skepticwiki article about the Bible.
SkepticWiki And The Bible
- Thread starter Dr Adequate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible skepticwiki
We're talking about contraditcions in the Bible, and a Skepticwiki article about the Bible.
ceo_esq was commenting on the Cygnus site in the post to which you originally responded. Unless I misunderstood, he simply said that some of the "contradictions" posted on the site weren't well-researched, as evidenced by the three that he clicked on at random (i.e. they weren't true contradictions at all).
Your response that there may be other contradictions has little to do with his comments about the accuracy of that particular site. He admitted that there may even be some accurate contradictions on that site when he said "I didn't take the time to read through the whole site, though, so maybe there's a genuine contribution in there somewhere." That still doesn't negate the fact that the site asserts several "contradictions" that don't seem to hold up to even slight scrutiny.
-Bri
Your response that there may be other contradictions has little to do with his comments about the accuracy of that particular site. He admitted that there may even be some accurate contradictions on that site when he said "I didn't take the time to read through the whole site, though, so maybe there's a genuine contribution in there somewhere." That still doesn't negate the fact that the site asserts several "contradictions" that don't seem to hold up to even slight scrutiny.
-Bri
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Argh, I must get back to this.
If anyone would like to contribute, but doesn't want the hassle of dealing with the SkepticWiki software, just post something here and I'll format it for the SkepticWiki.
[swiki]Slavery in the Bible[/swiki] is new.
If anyone would like to contribute, but doesn't want the hassle of dealing with the SkepticWiki software, just post something here and I'll format it for the SkepticWiki.
[swiki]Slavery in the Bible[/swiki] is new.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Dr. A,
Have you considered checking out the following two sites for guidance on pro-murder, pro-war, and pro-genocide references in the Bible?
http://www.evilbible.com/
http://positiveatheism.com/
Have you considered checking out the following two sites for guidance on pro-murder, pro-war, and pro-genocide references in the Bible?
http://www.evilbible.com/
http://positiveatheism.com/
Personally I don't like this site, evilbible.
It's a bit over the top and at several places it doesn't use the exact wording of the passages, increasing the intended representation.
Reminding me too much about Michael A Hoffman II's diatribes against the Talmud and the quotes, conclusions he draws from it, anything that will make the jewish people seem bad.
I think a paralleled "quest" can be seen in the evilbible presentations, however instead of jews it's christians.
So as I said, it's a bit over the top, for example the theme therein on how Hitler's plans to rule and exterminate was out of his christian doctrines, which isn't so.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
"Exact wording?" That may a different version than the King James, but I believe they note what version they're using.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
A link to biblegateway is good; it confirms the quote and shows the context.
Well not always, for example the;
"A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33"
Which it essentially doesn't say when considering biblical context, or if it says so then it's hardly ever a christian who believes it true in the sense that it excludes a christian court-system to judge christians, which in other places is a thing granted by God.
So the point of this above arranged quote? That christians feel that no court or system can accuse them of any wrongdoing, that no one has authority on earth except God, well I'd be hard pressed to find christians who throughout history have understood it to be so.
"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. KJV"
He, the creator of evilbible, also writes that;
" For intolerance of various religions is the foundation of Judaism, Christianity, Muslim and many other orthodox communities."
Well Judaism for example, does not have a defining streak of intolerance for other religions as so, quite the opposite, the acceptence into the afterlife wasn't just dependant on one being a jew nor a convert, but moreso a righteous person, rabbinical scripture brings up Guggenheim etc as productive and helpful people of a society that has earned the afterlife.
And Maimonides, the more famous Rabbi of rabbinical texts, said that Christianity and Islam where just roads to God, not idolatry faiths, filling the world with the commandments etc.
While there is a lot to say about these things, I think there's still no need to overly lambast these matters as all hateful, evil, racist agendas.
The fact that evilbible.com picks and chooses which translation to use is evidence to the target audience that there might be other valid translations that make the contradiction much more refutable, if it exists at all. Put another way, if a particular passage can be validly interpreted such that there is no contradiction, then it can't necessarily be considered a contradiction. WhiteLion has a point, that relying on a particular translation to make a point would be a little suspect in those cases.
Even though the author of the site picked and chose which translations to use, at least some of the synopses/comments provided don't really mesh even with the translation chosen. For example, clicking randomly, I didn't see anything in the passage under the heading "sex slaves" that refers to sex slaves (it was about the treatment of a female maidservant -- she cannot be sold but must be set free if it doesn't work out -- and about a son marrying the female maidservant of his father -- at which point she is no longer considered a slave and must be treated as a wife and daughter with full rights). *
If the purpose of sites like evilbible.com is to "spread the vicious truth about the Bible," particularly to believers, particularly to those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then it would seem like the best approach would be to find and clearly mark a few irrefutable examples of contradictions in the Bible rather than hide them among hundreds of highly questionable ones. Otherwise, a skeptic (much less a fundamentalist) is likely to choose a few at random and dismiss the entire site.
* On the SkepticWiki page cited above, a different translation of the same passage is under the heading "How to sell your daughter to a polygamist" which is also misleading as it doesn't indicate the process by which one sells one's daughter, but rather indicates how a female maidservant is to be treated.
-Bri
Even though the author of the site picked and chose which translations to use, at least some of the synopses/comments provided don't really mesh even with the translation chosen. For example, clicking randomly, I didn't see anything in the passage under the heading "sex slaves" that refers to sex slaves (it was about the treatment of a female maidservant -- she cannot be sold but must be set free if it doesn't work out -- and about a son marrying the female maidservant of his father -- at which point she is no longer considered a slave and must be treated as a wife and daughter with full rights). *
If the purpose of sites like evilbible.com is to "spread the vicious truth about the Bible," particularly to believers, particularly to those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then it would seem like the best approach would be to find and clearly mark a few irrefutable examples of contradictions in the Bible rather than hide them among hundreds of highly questionable ones. Otherwise, a skeptic (much less a fundamentalist) is likely to choose a few at random and dismiss the entire site.
* On the SkepticWiki page cited above, a different translation of the same passage is under the heading "How to sell your daughter to a polygamist" which is also misleading as it doesn't indicate the process by which one sells one's daughter, but rather indicates how a female maidservant is to be treated.
-Bri
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
That's a fair point, but EvilBible is focused less on contradictions than on finding objectionable content in the Bible. I don't know if they choose the worst translation possible, or simply take whatever they come across, but you have a point.
The best way of pointing out that the Bible is silly and untrue is to compare all the different versions of the story of Easter.
Yes, see I've studied theology for many years. I even used to be a christian.
Ironically I have probably studied Judaism more so than the many texts connected to Christianity.
Anyway, there's a lot of anti-semitism out there, quoting the Talmud etc half-assed and irresponsibly, utilizing anything they can to portray jews as of an evil, hateful, racist, blood obsessed doctrine... which isn't so.
Now naturally I think it's similarly an act of intellectual fraud to apply the same method against christians for example, which is something I notice the evilbible.com site do.
Scripture either way is a plethora of possibilities from which you can extract a lot of differences and surely unflattering notions, interpretations and so forth.
I think it's more important to be a bit more strict on the elaborations thereof, to consider how the given group has payed heed to these matters.
And... to, as you said, use less pressure on emotional hot-buttons with elaborations that only concludes the followers to be as insane and detriment for finding the texts worthy of consideration and respect.
It's so easy to get over-board and I'd hate to see skeptics out there apply the same narrow tactics against christians as anti-semites use against jews.
Yes I think that's a more reasonable and respectful way to go.
Using non-emotionally fueled coherence and logic with a scientific, historical perspective.
As opposed to connect as many dots of "evil" as one can to a certain group, since then we would be no better than some of the woo's out there.
That's a good point. Of course, the answer will be that what is considered "objectionable" today is likely different than what would have been objectionable back then (and perhaps vice-versa). Many -- but not all -- consider professional boxing or abortion objectionable, for example. The Bible was undoubtedly written in the context of a past society and must be interpreted with respect to that society.
For example, many of the passages in the Bible concerning slavery are clearly to assure that slaves were treated humanely as it was likely common at the time for slaves to be treated far worse. It may also have been far more preferable to allow slavery than to allow people to die of starvation or exposure if they couldn't afford necessities. Perhaps these points are not historically accurate (I'm not a historian) so it would be far better to discuss these sorts of points than to quote Bible verses.
In other words, it's important to look at how particular religions interpret the passages rather than taking various translations of the passages out of context. This may be easier to do with the Jewish religion than with the Christian religion, since the former is notorious for encouraging these sorts of questions, and most are discussed at length in the Talmud.
Or even the various accounts of where Jesus was born.
-Bri
Sure. But I don't know that such things are necessarily "the best way of pointing out that the Bible is silly and untrue", or even a particularly good way of pointing it out. For example, Bede contradicts himself on several historical points in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, but few people familiar with the work would characterize it as "silly and untrue" on that basis.
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Bede contradicts himself occasionally. The Bible contradicts itself incessantly. There is no comparison.
Steven Howard
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,797
Also, unless I'm very much mistaken, "Bedeian inerrancy" is not a position that's advocated by a large number of people.
Well, I don't know how many contradictions you'd consider to be "incessantly" in the context of an eight or nine hundred thousand word long collection of texts. I doubt anyone here has a firm idea of how many contradictions there actually are in the Bible. The Cygnus site purports to list 69, although I think Bri and I have already established that Cygnus' figure is inflated, possibly greatly so.
Perhaps when the Skepticwiki is further along, we'll have a more reliable idea. As you know, only a very small handful of potential contradictions are discussed on the site, and at least one or two of those discussions end inconclusively as to the existence of an actual contradiction. As things stand, not having clear evidence of the likely number of Biblical contradictions, I find no preliminary basis for concluding that the Bible contradicts itself "incessantly", and your own basis for drawing that conclusion naturally meets with some skepticism.
ETA: At any rate, you specifically said that "the best way of pointing out that the Bible is silly and untrue is to compare all the different versions of the story of Easter." Now, who knows exactly what you had in mind, but the Easter accounts must reflect at most a very limited number of contradictions. The question of whether the Bible "incessantly" contradicts itself is a separate matter. So, presumably you think a small number of contradictions is sufficient to demonstrate that the Bible is silly and untrue.
Steven Howard said:
Quite so, but if anything, this lends support to my point: yes, pointing to genuine contradictions demonstrates that a text is not inerrant, but merely establishing that a text is not inerrant doesn't validate the characterization of "silly and untrue".
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Do you ever get tired of being an apologist? There's fewer points of agreement between the four gospels on the Easter story than there are points of divergence!
Who went to Jesus's tomb? Was the rock in place when they got there? Was the tomb empty? If someone was in it, who was it? Who first saw him? Which Mary are they talking about? What mountain did he go to? What did he say? On all these points, the gospels disagree.
Here, one of the most damning criticisms of Biblical accuracy penned.
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone
Yes, it's by a non-theist, Ceo. Cope.
Last edited:
ceo_esq
Why do you keep saying this? I don't endorse any of the Gospel accounts. That doesn't keep me from making textual analyses. I think it enables me to approach these matters from a relatively detached position.
All of which - and this was my point - would not establish that the Bible was silly or meaningless (about which I express no opinion), merely that it was not inerrant (which I firmly agree it isn't). In my field, it's not often that I can procure a set of testimonial accounts that do not show discrepancies of one sort or another (and when I can, it can sometimes backfire from a credibility perspective). It doesn't mean that the case is frivolous.
At any rate, that challenge is not directed at someone like me, obviously, but perhaps I'll look into it.
Everything I write is by a non-theist too, but you don't exactly seem to "cope".
Why do you keep saying this? I don't endorse any of the Gospel accounts. That doesn't keep me from making textual analyses. I think it enables me to approach these matters from a relatively detached position.
All of which - and this was my point - would not establish that the Bible was silly or meaningless (about which I express no opinion), merely that it was not inerrant (which I firmly agree it isn't). In my field, it's not often that I can procure a set of testimonial accounts that do not show discrepancies of one sort or another (and when I can, it can sometimes backfire from a credibility perspective). It doesn't mean that the case is frivolous.
At any rate, that challenge is not directed at someone like me, obviously, but perhaps I'll look into it.
Everything I write is by a non-theist too, but you don't exactly seem to "cope".
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
I think the fact that it's ridiculous is why it's quoted. No one but a lunatic would take that at face value, and yet there it is.
While that may be true of modern Judaism, the old testament is full of god's commandments to lay waste to neighboring tribes and villages whose only crime is worshiping a different god. The Midianites and the Caanites would likely have a thing two to say against the Old Testament, and ancient Judaism.
Incidentally, doesn't Moses marry a Midianite, despite intermairrage between Israelites and Midianites being specifically prohibited?