SkepticWiki And The Bible

[ImaginalDisc]

He didn't ignore them, but rather pointed out that they were irrelevant:

Excuse me, I was refering to his non-responses to questions in other threads.

 

[ceo_esq]

Excuse me, I was refering to his non-responses to questions in other threads.

Yet another irrelevancy, regardless of its truth or falsity.

I guess we'll have to take "uh huh, sure" as your final word on the other points, even though we don't know what it meant in substantive terms.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yet another irrelevancy, regardless of its truth or falsity.

I guess we'll have to take "uh huh, sure" as your final word on the other points, even though we don't know what it meant in substantive terms.

Ceo, you said nothing of substance, and nothing worth refuting.

As for my "irrelevancy" I ask you again, "What happened during the events of the alleged resurrection?" Please, quote biblical sources.

 

[ceo_esq]

Ceo, you said nothing of substance, and nothing worth refuting.

As for my "irrelevancy" I ask you again, "What happened during the events of the alleged resurrection?" Please, quote biblical sources.

But I don't know what happened during the events of the alleged resurrection. For that matter, why would I necessarily rely on biblical sources to tell me what happened? They'll say things I have a great deal of trouble accepting.

ETA: By the way, bringing up the resurrection way back in response to one of my earlier posts was irrelevant then; how has it gained in relevance in the interim?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But I don't know what happened during the events of the alleged resurrection. For that matter, why would I necessarily rely on biblical sources to tell me what happened? They'll say things I have a great deal of trouble accepting.

ETA: By the way, bringing up the resurrection way back in response to one of my earlier posts was irrelevant then; how has it gained in relevance in the interim?

It was and still is relevant, as the event described in the four Gospels in relation to the alleged resurrection are mutally contradictory. They are four different fairy stories used to enthrall and confuse the masses. As is fundamentally characteristic of religions, they're a bundle of lies used to bilk people.

 

[ceo_esq]

It was and still is relevant, as the event described in the four Gospels in relation to the alleged resurrection are mutally contradictory. They are four different fairy stories used to enthrall and confuse the masses. As is fundamentally characteristic of religions, they're a bundle of lies used to bilk people.

Yet you keep bringing it up (twice now) specifically in response to posts of mine. How is it relevant to anything I've said in the thread?

Don't get me wrong; I don't expect you to have professional expertise in argument from evidence. But let me repeat something I said earlier: would the existence of contradictions in the Resurrection accounts make the truth or falsity of any statement I've made in this thread, or the existence or nonexistence of any fact on which an argument of mine relies, any more or less probable? If not, then it's not relevant to my posts because that's what "relevant" means in evidentiary argument. If you still think it's relevant, kindly identify the statements of mine that you think are made more - or, presumably, less - probable by putative contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yet you keep bringing it up (twice now) specifically in response to posts of mine. How is it relevant to anything I've said in the thread?

It is relevant because this thread is devoted to a Skeptitwiki article about the Bible and its inconsistencies. This thread is not about you and you do not set the agenda for it.

Don't get me wrong; I don't expect you to have professional expertise in argument from evidence.

Spare me your condescension.

But let me repeat something I said earlier: would the existence of contradictions in the Resurrection accounts make the truth or falsity of any statement I've made in this thread, or the existence or nonexistence of any fact on which an argument of mine relies, any more or less probable? If not, then it's not relevant to my posts because that's what "relevant" means in evidentiary argument. If you still think it's relevant, kindly identify the statements of mine that you think are made more - or, presumably, less - probable by putative contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.

It's relevant because you've dismissed less signficiant biblical contradictions and errors as not being "true" contradictions, so I provided you with an example of a "true" contradiction.

I repeat: The Bible is relentless self contradictory and a bundle of lies. You have expressed disdain for the sound conclusion that the Bible is a bundle of lies. Pray tell, how can four mutually inconsistent books be true? This is impossible. At least three, if not all four, must be factually incorrect.

Perhaps you're unable to understand why people who are not apologists for christianity would consider the inconsistencies in the four different stories of Easter to be a salient part of a skeptical inquiry into the history and naunces of Bible?

 

[ceo_esq]

It is relevant because this thread is devoted to a Skeptitwiki article about the Bible and its inconsistencies. This thread is not about you and you do not set the agenda for it.

In that case, consider not tying such comments (about the Resurrection, etc.) specifically to quoted posts of mine, because that raises confusion in the reader as to your precise purpose in responding. No one's said it's not germane to the general theme of the thread.

Spare me your condescension.

I was trying to be instructive, not condescending - the same as I might with a client or other layman. No need to take offense there.

It's relevant because you've dismissed less signficiant biblical contradictions and errors as not being "true" contradictions, so I provided you with an example of a "true" contradiction.

My conclusion (that a certain alleged biblical contradiction is not in fact one) did not call for an example of a valid contradiction in response. That was the point of my earlier counterfeit dollar bill analogy; if one person concludes that a given bill is counterfeit, the situation obviously doesn't call for the production by someone else of a genuine bill in response - that's just a non sequitur. Dismissing one contradiction does not constitute a challenge, by me or anyone else, to the notion that other contradictions exist.

However, since (1) a number of your own views of the Bible are vulnerable and your attitude correspondingly defensive, and (2) you have obviously mistaken me for someone with the slightest interest in upholding Christianity or any other religion, it is perhaps not surprising that you approach these discussions as zero-sum games in which every comment not constituting an attack on the Bible is misread as an implicit challenge to your cherished brand of anti-theism.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I was trying to be instructive, not condescending - the same as I might with a client or other layman. No need to take offense there.

Save it.

My conclusion (that a certain alleged biblical contradiction is not in fact one) did not call for an example of a valid contradiction in response. That was the point of my earlier counterfeit dollar bill analogy; if one person concludes that a given bill is counterfeit, the situation obviously doesn't call for the production by someone else of a genuine bill in response - that's just a non sequitur. Dismissing one contradiction does not constitute a challenge, by me or anyone else, to the notion that other contradictions exist.

However, since (1) a number of your own views of the Bible are vulnerable and your attitude correspondingly defensive, and (2) you have obviously mistaken me for someone with the slightest interest in upholding Christianity or any other religion, it is perhaps not surprising that you approach these discussions as zero-sum games in which every comment not constituting an attack on the Bible is misread as an implicit challenge to your cherished brand of anti-theism.

Considering you act like an apologist, what is one to conclude?

P.S. If you actually think the follow turn of phrase isn't condecending, "Don't get me wrong; I don't expect you to have professional expertise in argument from evidence." I urge you chose a different way of speaking to your clients, lest they think they've hired an insufferable git.

 

[Bri]

P.S. If you actually think the follow turn of phrase isn't condecending, "Don't get me wrong; I don't expect you to have professional expertise in argument from evidence." I urge you chose a different way of speaking to your clients, lest they think they've hired an insufferable git.

Unless you're an attorney, you probably wouldn't be expected to have professional expertise in argument from evidence. I imagine that ceo_esq's clients appreciate his not assuming that they are attorneys when he speaks to them.

-Bri

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Unless you're an attorney, you probably wouldn't be expected to have professional expertise in argument from evidence. I imagine that ceo_esq's clients appreciate his not assuming that they are attorneys when he speaks to them.

-Bri

There are ways of saying as much without being a git.

 

[jjramsey]

Considering you act like an apologist, what is one to conclude?

I guess, then, that you would consider these to be the words of an apologist :

we must continue to employ the best tools we possess to substantiate our claims and by tools I refer to the scientific method, to critical thinking, and to the employment of logic and rational thought and to the need for in-depth research before we make proclamations. One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. Let me give you two examples: Tim Leedon has produced an important book entitled The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read. So far so good, but he included in that an item that was first published in 1875 titled "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." This is nonsense. It's completely wrong. It's not only more than a hundred years out of date, it has nothing to do with the facts. Unfortunate. It should never have gone in. The second example is related to the oldest freethought magazine in America, The Truthseeker, which has recently been publishing articles on astro-theology that are so out of touch with scholarship that my students, when they picked this up and started to read it, threw it aside and said: "this magazine has nothing to say to us."

From Gerald LaRue's speech at Freethinkers United! Conference 1997
Orlando, Florida

Of course, if you read on through the speech, it is dead clear that LaRue is no apologist. My point is that pointing out bad arguments against religion is not the same as being an apologist.

 

[Piggy]

Just to draw your attention to the pages [swiki]Biblical Textual Issues[/swiki] and [swiki]Biblical Errors[/swiki].

We could really do with more Biblical Errors.

I could provide you with dozens.

But there's no point, because this site is worthless.

I understand what's being attempted here, but it's a half-assed effort.

It's like creationists sniping at evolution without bothering to offer an alternative.

If people are going to go to the trouble of pointing out why the Bible should not be taken literally, they should do the scholarship and explain what actually is going on.

These "errors" are meaningful, and if we understand why they are there, and what the implications are, we will come to a true and productive understanding of the texts.

But I don't see any attempt to do this.

This site does not try to establish understanding in the place of error, but merely to point out error, and what's the use in that?

 

[jjramsey]

If people are going to go to the trouble of pointing out why the Bible should not be taken literally, they should do the scholarship and explain what actually is going on.

The page on the birth narratives of Jesus quotes actual scholars and actually does delve a bit into the scholarship regarding the historical problems.

Not all of the articles are even attacking the Bible. The one about "pi = 3" points out that the claim that the Bible says that pi = 3 is a canard based on a slanted reading.

The page on slavery in the Bible needs a workover, though. Bri already pointed out that the section on "How to sell your daughter to a polygamist" is inaccurate. Also, the statement, "God commands the forcible ritual mutilation of slaves," seems to be more a protest against circumcision than slavery per se. The verses cited in favor of "Slaves are to be whipped as a punishment for being raped" do no such thing. It's really not up to SkepticWiki standards, but is rather the kind of half-true rant on the Bible that one can find anywhere on the Internet. I'm making notes of this in the article until it can be properly fixed.

 

[jjramsey]

The page on slavery in the Bible needs a workover.

I worked over the "Slavery in the Bible" article so that it was more accurate. My article is a bit thin, but it's a good start. I noticed that in a couple places, the translation of a couple passages in the old article was screwy. This, as far as I can tell, isn't even in the KJV:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, or his field, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or aught that belongeth to thy neighbor. (Exodus 20:17)

Both the KJV and the NRSV have "wife", not "field." I would also be leery of using that passage to argue that slaves were regarded as chattel, since there are passages that unambiguously refer to slaves as property.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20-22)

"Scourged" is only in the KJV. The NRSV reads:

If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed;

Interestingly enough, when I look in Strong's Concordance, the word rendered as "scourged" is baqqarah, which means "examination," and is from the root baqar, meaning to search, seek out, inspect.

 

[Bri]

Interestingly enough, when I look in Strong's Concordance, the word rendered as "scourged" is baqqarah, which means "examination," and is from the root baqar, meaning to search, seek out, inspect.

A Hebrew version that I have translates it like this:

If a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a slavewoman who has been designated for another man, and who has not been redeemed, or freedom has not been granted her; there shall be an investigation -- they shall not be put to death, for she has not been freed.

ETA: In the same source, the passage in Exodus 21:20 about the lingering death of a slave is commented. According to the comments, the purpose of the passage is to discern the intent of the master who kills a slave. If the slave survives at least 24 hours, it is assumed that the master did not intend to kill the slave. If the master beats the slave so viciously that the slave dies within 24 hours, the master is liable to the death penalty. Rambam ruled that if the master used anything other than a rod (i.e. anything that was not normally used to discipline a slave) then he would be liable to the death penalty even if the slave lived a year before he died, because such an assault goes beyond any reasonable means of imposing discipline.

-Bri

 

[Dr Adequate]

I worked over the "Slavery in the Bible" article so that it was more accurate.

I think you took out some good stuff. I liked the Christian apologists for slaveholding, and the quotations were perfectly accurate.

And should there not be a response to the modern apologists who claim that the Bible does not sanction slavery?

 

[jjramsey]

I think you took out some good stuff. I liked the Christian apologists for slaveholding, and the quotations were perfectly accurate.

Some of the stuff I took out because I wasn't sure where it fit. The quotes from the apologists for slaveholding did not seem to be very informative. Many of them were bald assertions, or just statements about how evil the abolitionists were. They add plenty of heat, but not much if any light.

And should there not be a response to the modern apologists who claim that the Bible does not sanction slavery?

To some extent, it is already there, in the section "Old Testament Slavery as Concession?" That could be fleshed out, though.

 

[ceo_esq]

And should there not be a response to the modern apologists who claim that the Bible does not sanction slavery?

Not all such claims are made by apologists, and the basic claim (notwithstanding the contrary arguments of slavery apologists) is rather far from modern, I think. That said, I think it's an appropriate response to present and evaluate such claims.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Not all such claims are made by apologists, and the basic claim (notwithstanding the contrary arguments of slavery apologists) is rather far from modern, I think. That said, I think it's an appropriate response to present and evaluate such claims.

The bible quite clearly does sanction slavery. The best you could say is that it admonishes one to treat a slave well.