Skeptic's Annotated Bible the ultimate christian challenge

www.scribd.com...

I would like for any christian to provide answers to the above link.It shows over a thousand condradictions in the bible and just how irrational it really is.Im not trying to attack christians but would like to see what there outlooks on this book is.Far as i can see this book pretty much destroys the bible. Good luck and have fun.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by trey85]

Greatest book ever:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

By Bart D. Ehrman

Mr. Ehrman is a Biblical Scholar, he was once an Evangelical, and was one of the many Christians who believed that the Bible is the absolute word of God. After realizing though, that all of today's Bibles and ancient manuscripts are merely copies of copies of copies of copies...he realized that no one actually knows the "original words of God." Especially when you take into account the thousands of scribal errors.

It is a great book and I would recommend it to anyone with any interest in the history of the Bible.

Good post by the way and Ill be sure to check out the website more thoroughly when I have the chance.

reply to post by dalan.

Especially when you take into account the thousands of scribal errors.

Even Ehrman says in his book that the "thousands" of "scribal errors" don't matter. They are simply differences in spelling. Much like the difference between "color" and "colour". Ehrman even concedes that the wealth of fragments/manu.quotes/and so forth, that we have for the New Testament is amazing. If other works of of antiquity [that scholars hold as valid] were to be personified, they would probably be very, very jealous of the New Testament.

I recommend the book, Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts. He too is a Biblical Scholar, who received is doctoral degree from Harvard. He makes a very good case as to why the Gospels can be trusted, and viewed as God's Word, despite not having the originals. He even quotes and refutes some things that Ehrman says a few times.

reply to post by trey85


I just want to say, notice that the book is called the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Why is this important? It shows that those who are involved in the project are, most likely, going to the text with a biased point of view. This is bad because, that means that they don't take the time to sit back and work through the apparent contradictions. [Which can be done. I've reasoned my way through "contradictions" myself in my personal Bible study.] It's easy to make a notation when two things don't jive completely [seemingly anyway].

reply to post by octotom


Besides the fact that some of the first "scribes" weren't even professionals and you can tell by the fact that they used no punctuation whatsoever?? So literal translations came down to what scribes thought the text should be saying.

The New Testament is simply a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, and anyone who claims that it is trustworthy is simply speaking from a biased opinion. Erhman was not a biased atheist, he was an Evangelical when he came to these conclusions.

[edit on 8/15/2009 by dalan.]

[edit on 8/15/2009 by dalan.]

Rather than try to write a book, let's take a few items from the SAB and demonstrate how those are wrong. Let's take an example: one issue mentioned is how Lot's daughters slept with him. Critics say that's a big problem in the Bible. Here is your answer:

1. Incest was not illegal or forbidden until Moses hundreds of years later.

2. The event centers around the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. At the destruction event, something like a volcanic explosion or nuclear bomb occurred. This is an area of what the Bible notes were "slime pits," which would be like the La Brea tar pits. Hence, petroleum was present. I suppose that a rupture of a natural gas chamber, coupled with an ignition source like fire, could have created something much like a nuclear explosion.
In any case, the daughters may have presupposed that they two and their father were the last people on Earth. Their reasoning was that they were attempting to "preserve the seed of their father."

Now, for any specific examples you would like answered, please reply.

reply to post by Jim Scott


SAB may not be flawless but it still leaves 100s of unanswered questions for the bible.So feel free to go through it and explain a fraction of what it points out.

The author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible has not discovered any new inconsistencies in the Bible. These anomalies have been known for millennia. Every one of them has been answered by scholars, rabbis, priests, evangelists, and others who sought to reconcile the apparent errors. While the explanations may not be always be satisfactory, every question raised in SAB has been answered several times over.

Many of the sexual "sins" committed in the early Bible by supposedly good people were done before God handed down the Law at Mt. Sinai. Until that Law was published, so to speak, those acts would not have been forbidden. Many other apparent contradictions arise from mistranslations.

For example, we're all familiar with the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". And yet God commands people to kill all the time - stone sinners, kill enemies in war, and so on. Contradiction? Not at all. The commandment isn't thou shalt not *killI*; it's "thou shalt not murder". Big difference. Murder is the unsanctioned killing of someone, killing without authority to do so.

I'm not saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. In fact, I believe that it is not the inerrant word of God, and in many places, not even close to the word of God. However, for thousands of years, many very smart, educated people have addressed themselves to these questions, and have devised clever answers that are difficult to refute. SAB adds nothing, except erhaps to gather these various questions into one place.

I believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God. As the previous post states, the supposed errors, etc., have been satisfactorily answered through time by many scholars.

That being said, the Bible is the most reliable ancient text. For example, we rely on historical writings to recollect the stories of the great leaders of all time. However, many of the writings we rely on for our history lessons in school were composed hundreds of years after the events, as in the stories about Alexander the Great. In point of fact, writings about him are unreliable at best. We do not dispute the histories of Alexander, but we revile any historical facts in the Bible. Why? Is it because the Bible is a thorn in the side of those who want to apply scientific fact to everything? This book, while historically accurate, is really about faith.

reply to post by chiron613


I just wanted to add to this that if you or anyone ever gets to read through the OT again it really helps if people keep one thing in mind.

The true "sin" in virtually all cases of the OT isn't necessarily what the person was doing. It didn't matter what they did or what they didn't do. That was irrelevant.

The problem was, in most every case, is that someone wasn't doing what God told them to do. Usually had nothing to do with what they were actually doing or not doing.

Also, just because God tells one person to do something, doesn't automatically mean that goes for everyone. It only goes for the people he tells. Read in context to find out who he tells to do what. Most people think a law in the OT goes for everyone. When read front to back in context a reader will easily see this is NOT the case.

And when it comes to the sexual laws in the Bible well that particular part starts right off with God saying, well I know you guys do all this stuff like incest and stuff like that all the time, but if you guy's wanna be Holy people you can't do that anymore.

In other words, it's not like the "law" was always the same. It continually got more complicated with more rules added over time. But at the start, at Genesis hardly any of those rules applied because they hadn't even been given yet and wouldn't be for thousands of years.

Christians. Source of much of the evil in the world today. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of Almighty God? German soldiers had "Gott Mit Uns" on their buckles. Bush says that God tells him to invade countries.

And everyone puts their faith in a book that was assembled by political committee in the seventh century, calling it "the inerrant word of God".

I rather like the SAB myself but my favourite website on the subject has lots of fun bible quizzes!

Skeptics and believers alike should try them. (I think after one or two goes, the skeptics will score higher for reasons that become obvious when you actually do the quizzes.)

George Carlin on the Ten Commandments

Get this link while it's hot, people... YouTube tend to clean out this stuff from time to time.

I also like the part of his act where he explained that he worshipped the Sun, because you can at least see it and it definitely does the planet and its life forms some good... but he doesn't pray to the sun, he prays to Joe Pesci... because he looks like someone who can get things done.

It's at least as rational as the Christian view.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by rich23]

reply to post by rich23


So what, like nobody else does evil? Like a non-believer has never killed someone? Muslims never started a war?

What exactly was your point? Oh, you just wanted to bash Christians even though every other form of non-Christian on the planet has done the exact same stuff. Awesome!

Yeah, we're all well aware that some Christians are very BAD at it. That's why I always like to say I'm a practicing Christian. Because I'm most likely very bad at it to the point in which I need more practice. Too bad others don't realize just how bad at it they are.

But I'm at least comforted to know that some God or supreme force must be real if what you say is true. That they have committed evil. True evil cannot exist in evolution. Only undesirable behavior that can be explained via completely natural processes.

So, if you think true evil exists then there must be some super natural force out there that influences us. If not, then there is no evil. We're just dumb animals that get it wrong sometimes. Like when animals eat their young.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

Originally posted by trey85
www.scribd.com...

I would like for any christian to provide answers to the above link.It shows over a thousand condradictions in the bible and just how irrational it really is.Im not trying to attack christians but would like to see what there outlooks on this book is.Far as i can see this book pretty much destroys the bible. Good luck and have fun.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by trey85]

Not trying to attack Christians? Ok, so then you are curious? You have a deep seeded need to know the truth? You have questions you can't answer? Fair enough, though I must point out giving an entire book like it makes some sort of statement or in anyway proves anything, would be like me advising you to read The Case for Faith and saying, get back to me when you're saved.

I'm also curious how far you can see. As in "as far as I can see". Because on a hunch, I'm guessing you are not that well versed with the Bible.

I always find it interesting when non-believers throw something at Christians like its going to destroy their faith and laugh their way out of the room.

On a hunch w/ this site, I'm going to use words like: fabricate, context and out of context.

Admitedly, I'm a Christian, not a Jew, meaning that I've spent more time in the New Testament than the old, so I will arbitrarily grab 1 from there and see what we have.

John 5:22

22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Then according to your site:

John 8:15
15 Ye judge after the flesh; judge no man.

Out of context and errant. In the 1st example, Jesus is making clear his divinity. That He is the son of God and has the power to judge. For the 2nd one, 1st its not complete. It should be:

15Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Frankly the way they have it would be correct as we are advised not to judge. However, what they surely mean is this correct verse. It is very clear here that Jesus is talking about false judgement as opposed His. All you have to do is look at the very next verse to see that He is certainly not saying he doesn't judge.

16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

I trust that this is clear. There is obvious bias here both in the book and your post. If you need further clarification, I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of professionals who have already clarified this. I could find you a link.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by rich23

 

So what, like nobody else does evil? Like a non-believer has never killed someone? Muslims never started a war?


[edit on 16-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

I always find those types of posts laughable. Like nobody would ever use the name of God for their own purposes. Nope must be the horrible Christians.

Yet the Bible very clearly advises you will know them by their fruits and wolves in sheeps clothing.

Oh the irony.

duplicate.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by JustG]

reply to post by tinfoilman


Actually I think that Rich23 wasn't trying to just bash Christianity, but point out facts. Religion does nothing but cause war, grief, fear, sadness, repression and so on.

Originally posted by JustG

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by rich23

 

So what, like nobody else does evil? Like a non-believer has never killed someone? Muslims never started a war?


[edit on 16-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

I always find those types of posts laughable. Like nobody would ever use the name of God for their own purposes. Nope must be the horrible Christians.

Yet the Bible very clearly advises you will know them by their fruits and wolves in sheeps clothing.

Oh the irony.

The most ironic part is that all of modern Christianity was born from those "wolves in sheep's clothing."

Awesome, another thread in which the members on ATS go to create more division in the world. Way to go, you would think after all the battles with religion, science, the NWO, Paranormal and other things that we would already know that we are NEVER GOING TO AGREE ON ANYTHING. Damn people, stop making these threads that say Christianity, evolution or anything is debunked, we have heard this crap a thousand times. Most of the mistranslations are from different words, being replaced over the years and the words mean different things now. Come on people, stop falling into this trap of diversion and division, and let people believe what they believe. Can the bible be debunked? Yes, has it? No. Can Science be debunked? Yes, has it? No, and by science I mean evolution.

Stop fighting against each other and learn to live with each other.

Whether you believe in Science or Christianity they both VERY SIMILAR! Don't believe me:

"Science states that we came from one cell and Christianity states that we came from one God, whether we like it or not we are connected."~TheMythLives

And the sooner we can learn the above the better off we will be. However, I doubt no one will listen, because they have an AGENDA...

Peace,
~TheMythLives

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by dalan.

 

Especially when you take into account the thousands of scribal errors.

Even Ehrman says in his book that the "thousands" of "scribal errors" don't matter. They are simply differences in spelling. Much like the difference between "color" and "colour". Ehrman even concedes that the wealth of fragments/manu.quotes/and so forth, that we have for the New Testament is amazing. If other works of of antiquity [that scholars hold as valid] were to be personified, they would probably be very, very jealous of the New Testament.

I recommend the book, Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts. He too is a Biblical Scholar, who received is doctoral degree from Harvard. He makes a very good case as to why the Gospels can be trusted, and viewed as God's Word, despite not having the originals. He even quotes and refutes some things that Ehrman says a few times.

You must, of course, be referring only to those four Gospels that weren't rejected from the Bible when the Romans hi-jacked the Christian religion in order to silence it and make it State Sponsored so they could control those who believed in it...

A Biblical Scholar coming out and saying the Bible is true is kind of like a crazy man coming out and saying his brain is made of pudding, common sense says it isn't so but other crazy men looking to that one for guidance and for "academic" support in their belief about their brain being made of pudding will accept it as truth. They would say "he's a high-ranking crazy-man, not like you or me, clearly he's done his research."

reply to post by dalan.



If anyone wishes to debate the merits of religion or various religions that's perfectly acceptable.

But bashing Christianity like it's the only religion that causes problems is unnacceptable or bashing it like it's the only religion that exists is unnacceptable.

That's just someone bashing one particular religion because someone doesn't like it. But it's based on a false premise that if one can make Christianity seem evil it will prove God is not real. But that's a logical false hood.

Because, when one debates religion as a whole or the lack thereof on their true merits the posters premise falls apart. We see that in fact the problem is not the religion, but the problem is stupid people that do stupid and evil things regardless of which religion they believe in.

Showing that there are stupid people that do stupid things and proving there are stupid people that don't even follow their own religion does not prove God isn't real.

Now that doesn't mean God is real, but it just means to insult one religion or another adds nothing to the conversation and proves nothing.

Now if only people from one particular religion did evil things then maybe they'd have a point, but that's not what we see in real life. What we see is that people, regardless of which religion they believe in, have the ability to do evil.

Seems like the real beef posters like that have is more with how much they hate the human race and not how much they hate Christianity.

I wasn't trying to single out Christianity exclusively. However, the OP is about Christianity. So, let's see, just off the top of my head...

Bush says "God told him to invade Iraq".
The Christians in the New World routinely slaughtering everyone they came across. That's genocide, which seems like quite a big deal.
Christians used nuclear weapons, and many would be happy to do so again.
Christians conducted the pogroms against the Jews.
Christians conducted the Inquisition.
Burned lots of witches.
Fought all the European wars.
Enslaved lots and lots of people. (The Bible says you can. Or is that a mistranslation?)
Ashcroft used to hold morning prayer meetings before embarking on new ways to mess up the world and shred the US constitution.

These days, I'm not at all sure that Jesus was a genuine historical figure, but if he was, I rather think he'd be aghast at most of his followers.

If you put a gun to my head and asked me what religion I adhered to, I'd say I was a Taoist. I was raised a Christian but, you know, it just never made sense to me. When I was around 16 I came across the I Ching and the Tao Te Ching and these short books (particularly the latter) hold more genuine wisdom than the entire Bible.

Taoism also differs from Christianity in that it offers a genuine spiritual path if you wish to tread it. It starts with the physical body and works up from there. There's no preaching. You have practices, exercises and meditations. If you follow the practice, you get results. It's not a rule-driven system: the emphasis is on liberation, not control (which is what most of Christianity is all about).

Now, I've never looked into it, but I've not heard of any wars or religious persecution being launched by Taoists. It's really not their style. If anyone can find any examples I'd be interested, but I somehow doubt it. Taoists tend to be hermits.

Interestingly, Taoism is the only religion (afaik) with a martial arts tradition. I suspect that this is not coincidental.

At any rate, it requires no faith, merely practice. And practice reveals just how much Taoists know about what human beings are on every level all the way down to the physical.

Now Tinfoilman said:

That's why I always like to say I'm a practicing Christian. Because I'm most likely very bad at it to the point in which I need more practice. Too bad others don't realize just how bad at it they are.

When you say you're a practicing Christian, what does that mean? I take it you try to do what Jesus would have done, or obey an arbitrarily chosen list of rules from the Bible.

This is trying to change your personality from the outside in.

When I practice I might do an hour's t'ai chi or some chi gung meditation. This sorts me out and gradually makes me... well, calmer, at least. Healthier. More able to cope with emotional stress. Physically more supple, and mentally too.

It works from the inside out. And maintaining discipline with the practice is at times extremely difficult. But well worth while.

It's not for everyone. I don't proselytise, especially since, several years ago I worked for some time with a guy who was a fundamentalist Christian and it was clear to me, from his story, that even though fundamentalist Christianity is something I find appalling, it was just the right thing for him at that time.