SkepticWiki And The Bible

Irony

Does anyone else notice the irony of the biblical literalists who oppose same-sex marriage?
They say that it might lead to polygamy. Besides being a classic slippery slope fallacy, look how it works.

They are opposed to same sex marriage, something that is explicity referenced and disapproved of in their holy books because it might lead to polygamy, something that has many examples in their holy books and is never explicitly disapproved of.
 
The apologetic defense is that God never explicitly approves of polygamy. Really, it makes him hopping mad, but, with a degree of tact which some might find out of character, he never mentions it.
 
Do Biblical literalists who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they believe it will lead to polygamy, or do they do so because they believe that the Bible prohibits same-sex relations? Does the Bible actually say that same-sex marriage leads to polygamy?

-Bri
 
McCulloch said:
They say that it might lead to polygamy. Besides being a classic slippery slope fallacy, look how it works.
Click to expand...

No, a classic slippery slope fallacy would be that accepting A will lead to B and C, not that that it might lead to B and C. Some people commit a classic slippery slope fallacy with respect to this issue; others are simply making a slippery slope argument.
 
Bri said:
Do Biblical literalists who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they believe it will lead to polygamy, or do they do so because they believe that the Bible prohibits same-sex relations?
Click to expand...

Does it have to be one or the other?

That said, I do think that some (not all) people who invoke this kind of argument on same-sex marriage do so at least in part as an expedient to avoid making an explicitly scriptural argument.
 
ceo_esq said:
Does it have to be one or the other?

That said, I do think that some (not all) people who invoke this kind of argument on same-sex marriage do so at least in part as an expedient to avoid making an explicitly scriptural argument.
Click to expand...

I think that's my point. Unless there is scripture that explicitly makes the connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy, it seems more likely that a literalist would be against same-sex marriage simply because same-sex relationships are prohibited (at least between men) in the Bible, rather than because same-sex marriage leads to polygamy. In other words, the argument linking same-sex marriage with polygamy isn't a literalist argument (since to my knowledge the argument isn't made in the Bible and the Bible doesn't prohibit polygamy) and therefore the argument that same-sex marriage leads to polygamy is likely made by people who aren't literalists.

-Bri
 
McCulloch said:
Does anyone else notice the irony of the biblical literalists who oppose same-sex marriage?
They say that it might lead to polygamy. Besides being a classic slippery slope fallacy, look how it works.
Click to expand...
I always heard that state-approved-crystal-meth-induced-gay sex lead to bestiality not polygamy.

Maybe we should ask Ted Haggard for his expert opinion.
 
Here's one that you may want to add an article for. Possibly one of the most "legitimate" contradiction (meaning that I've seen few satisfactory explanations) is whether plants were created before or after man (see Genesis 1:12-31 and 2:5). Genesis 1:12-31 says that God created plants on the third day, before the creation of man on the sixth day. But Genesis 2:5 clearly states that there were not yet plants when man was created because there was nobody to work the soil.

Here's the first account (from http://bible.cc/genesis/1-1.htm) in Genesis 12-31 clearly showing that plants were created before man:

12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

...

24 God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;" and it was so.

25 God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.

26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27 God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29 God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food.

30 To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;" and it was so.

31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
Click to expand...

Here's the second account (from http://bible.cc/genesis/2-1.htm) in Genesis 2:5-6:

5 No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,

6 but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.
Click to expand...

The commentary for Gen 1:12 in the Chumash I have recognizes the apparent contradiction:

The Talmudic sage Rav Assi noted the apparent contradiction between this verse and the Torah's statement that nothing had grown prior to the creation of Adam (2:5). He explains that the herbs began to grow on the third day, as they had been commanded, but stopped before they broke through the soil. It remained for Adam to pray for them, whereupon rain fell and the growth was completed.
Click to expand...

I find this explanation a little less than satisfying.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
I just noticed that the translation of Gen 2:5 above seems to attempt to solve the conflict by making "There was not a man to till the ground" another sentence and combining it with the following verse. However, the conflict is much more evident in the King James Version:

5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Click to expand...

The translation from Hebrew in the Chumash I have translates it as follows:

5. now all the trees of the field were not yet on the earth and all the herb of the field had not yet sprouted, for HASHEM God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil.

6. A mist ascended from the earth and watered the whole surface of the soil.

7. And HASHEM God formed the man of the dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life; and make became a living being.
Click to expand...

I suspect that because the Hebrew version I have recognizes the conflict that these translations are more accurate. Does anyone have evidence for or against that?

-Bri
 
Dr Adequate,

I sent you a pm but your mailbox is full. :) I'll post the pm here.

I was looking thru your thread. I think it's a very impressive project both in scope and fairness. I have this single criticism. The bible is the basis for a broad range of skepticism. For that reason I don't think your project should be buried at a site that deals with all sorts of skepticism (skepticwiki). In my opinion, this is the kind of project that could stand on its own.

Gene
Click to expand...
 
For that reason I don't think your project should be buried at a site that deals with all sorts of skepticism (skepticwiki).
Click to expand...
First, let's be clear about this: I didn't do all the work: this is a communal project, and indeed I started this thread in the hope of getting more people involved. And the Head Honcho of SkepticWiki is fowlsound.

Second, I don't think "buried" is the right word. The SW isn't a big pile of paper, it has a search facility. I think having any particular topic as part of one big interlinked project makes it more likely that people will look at it. I think google sees things the same way. But perhaps it would be a good idea to have the Bible as one of the topics on the main page. And Creationism, for that matter. I shall mention it to fowlsound and see what he thinks.

Thirdly, there is overlap between stuff on the Bible, on religion in general, on creationism, on pseudohistory, on cryptozoology, on frauds, fakes, and dubious artifacts. For example, after B & L the obvious next step is to tackle the Nephelim. This, perhaps should be related to a general article on giants, an article on creationists claiming that they've found some giants, really, no kidding mister, we have! and maybe an article on the Cardiff Giant if I want to go the whole hog.

In Artifacts and Relics" there's a piece on the Holy Grail ... Biblical Textual Issues has a bit on the Gnostic Scriptures ... both of which which will be handy if anyone wants to do a book review of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail".

And so forth.
 
I'd like to make a few not-very-well connected statements about the SkepticWiki and the articles therein:

1. The Skepticwiki is not founded on the proposition that religions in general, or Christianity, Judaism or Islam in particular should be accorded any more respect than any other human endeavour. They are all worthy of skeptical examination.

2. There is no such thing, in my view, as a neutral point of view (which is where I depart from Wikipedia rather radically). Skepticwikians take the viewpoint that it should be preferable to state clearly what a proposition is, and its likely history and etymology, before examining it skeptically and if necessary attacking those propositions. (If I were like Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia, then this would be called the SK:NSM (No Straw Man) rule)

3. There is a big difference in my view between demonstrating the Bible is inerrant or errant, and that the Bible is false or evil. I rather think that the former is provable, but the latter are matters of debate and taste.

4. The guiding philosophies of Skepticwiki are naturalism, skepticism and empiricism. They are taken to be axiomatic, but themselves cannot be proven. Thus the Skepticwiki will not be wholly consistent with itself (Godel's Theorem applied to wikis). Why should we therefore expect complete self-consistency in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran? Complete self-consistency is a delusion, even if its widely believed in.

5. No-one should pay any particular attention to me simply because I started the Skepticwiki. Everyone should contribute within the bounds of reason, but not everybody's viewpoints will be given equal weight, not even mine. I would encourage people to give a little time and energy to improving the quality, the range and the incisiveness of Skepticwiki.

6. One thing that would improve the Skepticwiki would be lots more book reviews. Yes, that's a Hint.
 
Oh, I forgot.

[swiki]Horns of Moses[/swiki].

Thanks for not-actually-a-rabbi David Swidler for helping me with this one.
 
Dr. A, your PM box is full.

I've spoken with you before about an article in Skeptiwiki on the Easter narrative, and it looks as though there isn't one yet. Would an article detailing the four gospel narratives and pinpointing where they depart be a welcome addition?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Dr. A, your PM box is full.

I've spoken with you before about an article in Skeptiwiki on the Easter narrative, and it looks as though there isn't one yet. Would an article detailing the four gospel narratives and pinpointing where they depart be a welcome addition?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would, thank you.

---

Did you say four gospel narratives?

Take a look at my latest ... [swiki]Life of St Issa[/swiki].

Does it exist, doesn't it? You decide.
 
I just read your article on St. Issa. Interesting and entertaining. Thank you.

I had heard that some claimed that Jesus had traveled in India and Tibet. Is this the sole source for that notion?

As to the validity of the thing: I would put it at wildly unlikely. The fact that it referenced the Jesus birth narrative suggests at the very most all that is going on here is that somebody had knowledge of Christianity and spun their own tale utilizing details from the Christian narrative.
 
* [swiki]Answering A Fool[/swiki]
* [swiki]King David's Census[/swiki]

The second of these is a spin-off from an article I'm trying to do about whether David and Solomon actually existed, a question on which there is some debate. (They probably did, but watch this space.)

---

ImaginalDisc: any news on the Easter story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom