Skeptics Bible refuted

Skeptics Bible refuted

by BecauseHeLives | Published on January 9th, 2008, 6:40 pm | Religion

http://www.gotquestions.org/skeptics-an ... Bible.html

Question: "What is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?"

Answer: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ - is a website dedicated to pointing out all of the supposed errors, contradictions, and discrepancies in the Bible. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible divides the supposed errors into the following categories: injustice, absurdity, cruelty and violence, intolerance, contradictions, family values, women, good stuff, science and history, prophecy, sex, language, interpretation, and homosexuality. It is not the purpose of this article to refute every issue the Skeptic's Annotated Bible raises (there are over 6,000).

It is the purpose of this article to point out the fallacies behind the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. First, we commend the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for giving the "Good Stuff" section - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html. It is rare for an atheist / anti-Christian website to say anything positive about the Bible and/or Christianity. At the same time, the "Good Stuff" section is the only place the Bible is treated with any respect or logic. In regard to the "contradictions" and "absurdities" sections, please read our article on Bible errors, contradictions, and discrepancies. The sections on homosexuality and tolerance can be answered simply and concisely. Speaking the truth and not tolerating sin is the most loving thing we can do. Ignoring evil and promoting ungodliness may be seen as tolerant, but it does not result in anything truly positive.

The sections on "injustice," "family values," "cruelty and violence," and "women" fail to account for an important concept—the Bible was written to reform our souls, not our societies. While the teachings of the Bible were revolutionary in the protection they gave to slaves, women, etc., some of the commands and statements seem brutal and unjust to our modern minds. God "breathed out" the Bible in an ancient culture. God approached the sins of man from the "inside out." If a man comes into a relationship with God, God will reform his heart, teach him to love, to respect, to forgive. Yes, some of the laws in the Bible seem brutal and primitive, but if a person had a genuine relationship with God, the laws would not even be necessary.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible's section on "sex" does nothing but point out all the various verses in the Bible that mention sex. Why is this section even necessary? Yes, the Bible talks about sex. Sex is, obviously, an important aspect of life in this world. It is normal, therefore, for the Bible to address human sexuality. The "interpretations" section is filled with difficult verses and passages. However, these difficulties are answered in detail in nearly every major Bible commentary. The existence of a difficult passage is meaningless in verifying or rejecting the inspiration of the Bible.

Again, if you have questions about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible or have found something in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible that you cannot explain, please feel free to ask us, and we will be happy to provide a personalized answer.

Well thank you for that wonderful insight. Why even bother with the Bible when we have the infallible Gotquestions.org. Apparently the Holy Spirit is insufficient to understand the Bible - unless gotquestions is a proxy for God.

The very existence of the plethora of apologists is one of the best arguments against the Bible being the words of a perfect supernatural being. Even a very imperfect being should be capable of writing in terms that were clear and unambiguous. That is assuming He actually wanted people to understand and believe.

So how good is gotquestions? What do they have to say about
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
This is tagged by Skeptics Annotated Bible with Sex, Absurdities and injustice.

Well it is about sex. Reader discretion advised
Is it Absurd? I'd say so
Is it unjust? It certainly doesn't align with the commandment to 'Love they neighbour as thyself' - Jesus didn't say 'Love they neighbour as thyself, provided he has an intact privy member and two stones'. Jesus also seemed to be of the opinion that cripples are made that way as a result of sin (John 5:14) but Jesus at least had the decency to cure one. It's a shame he didn't eliminate the pathogens that cause so many disabilities.

What does the infallible gotkwestions say?

Hello?

Hello?

Anyone there?

I sense I struck a nerve by attacking your "Holy" skeptics bible reference.... :mrgreen:

I suggest if you have an unrelated question that you start your own thread so it can be discussed on it's own merits.

Oh my, how can I live now, I can no longer reference them in every post - oh wait I don't. Just because you have a website think for you it doesn't mean everyone does.

BHL - the disciple of the Church of Gotquestions.

A Person wrote:Oh my, how can I live now, I can no longer reference them in every post - oh wait I don't. Just because you have a website think for you it doesn't mean everyone does.

BHL - the disciple of the Church of Gotquestions.

Your still mad aren't ya. Too bad for ya bud. According to the bible I'm not even sure I should even be answering your stupid question so you should probably feel it's a privilege when I do.

BecauseHeLives wrote: According to the bible I'm not even sure I should even be answering your stupid question so you should probably feel it's a privilege when I do.

Oh well, I can always read what you think from Gotquestions.org. Let's go see if it says you should answer...

Yup, it says you should. Sorry.

Jan 29, 2008:

A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote: According to the bible I'm not even sure I should even be answering your stupid question so you should probably feel it's a privilege when I do.

Oh well, I can always read what you think from Gotquestions.org. Let's go see if it says you should answer...

Yup, it says you should. Sorry.

It's getting old AP.

Really, if all you're going to do is disregard his views based on that one instance, why even ask his opinion?

A Person wrote:Well thank you for that wonderful insight. Why even bother with the Bible when we have the infallible Gotquestions.org. Apparently the Holy Spirit is insufficient to understand the Bible - unless gotquestions is a proxy for God.

The very existence of the plethora of apologists is one of the best arguments against the Bible being the words of a perfect supernatural being. Even a very imperfect being should be capable of writing in terms that were clear and unambiguous. That is assuming He actually wanted people to understand and believe.

So how good is gotquestions? What do they have to say about
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
This is tagged by Skeptics Annotated Bible with Sex, Absurdities and injustice.

Well it is about sex. Reader discretion advised
Is it Absurd? I'd say so
Is it unjust? It certainly doesn't align with the commandment to 'Love they neighbour as thyself' - Jesus didn't say 'Love they neighbour as thyself, provided he has an intact privy member and two stones'. Jesus also seemed to be of the opinion that cripples are made that way as a result of sin (John 5:14) but Jesus at least had the decency to cure one. It's a shame he didn't eliminate the pathogens that cause so many disabilities.

What does the infallible gotkwestions say?

Hello?

Hello?

Anyone there?

John 5:14- Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Not only was he referring to the cripple, but to everybody, especially new born Christians. When Christians are born again, they are made whole by Jesus Christ. Upon excepting him has their personal Savior, they are full and complete. He was saying, "I have made you whole, now go and sin no more, and witness to others that were liken to you."

KJV, please.

Deu 23:1
"He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.

Who ever has had his testicles removed by crushing or any kind of maiming cannot enter the assembly of the LORD. Now, 'the assembly' can mean alot of things, i'm really not sure... But I'm pretty sure God is banning any man without testicles from sex. 'Assembly' as in family.

I figured this from the next verse.

Deu 23:2
"One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

No outsiders enter the Family of God at that time.

The medical problems that are created by God are the consequences of Sin, such as, in some incest cases, retardation.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:Really, if all you're going to do is disregard his views based on that one instance, why even ask his opinion?

What views?

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:Not only was he referring to the cripple, but to everybody, especially new born Christians.

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more.

Not: Afterward Jesus findeth them in the temple, and said unto them, Behold, he art made whole: sin no more,

So while it is an explanation, which is more than Gotquestions, it's hardly a convincing one.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:i'm really not sure... But I'm pretty sure God is banning any man without testicles from sex. 'Assembly' as in family.

Well that's certainly a novel interpretation of "Assembly of the Lord". It also seems rather unnecessary - that's something wouldn't think would need any prohibition - let alone such an oblique one; - let's see no penis, no testicles - ooh let's have sex.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:The medical problems that are created by God are the consequences of Sin, such as, in some incest cases, retardation.

This attitude has always disturbed me. Medical problems are not the fault of the victim any more than natural disasters are because God hates fags.

BecauseHeLives wrote:I sense I struck a nerve by attacking your "Holy" skeptics bible reference....

My guess would be that he was reacting to your latest fad of getting your answers from yet another on-line source instead of thinking through matters on your own. Those of us who take the time to think for ourselves find it a most useful skill, you see. And when we see someone who obviously goes to this much effort to let others think for him... well it looks bad.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:I sense I struck a nerve by attacking your "Holy" skeptics bible reference....

My guess would be that he was reacting to your latest fad of getting your answers from yet another on-line source instead of thinking through matters on your own. Those of us who take the time to think for ourselves find it a most useful skill, you see. And when we see someone who obviously goes to this much effort to let others think for him... well it looks bad.

Wait a minute here. I'm confused here.... I THOUGHT you guys were asking the questions because you wanted an answer. Apparently that's NOT what you wanted. You wanted a debate. And when I brought you answers that you couldn't debate with then you throw a hissy fit. Too bad. A big problem with the atheists and the unsaved world in general is that you think that every Christian (regardless of how they are in the new spirit) knows the answers to all of your questions. That's rediculous logic.

If you ask a question I'm going to try and give you the best answer I can. Whether it comes from my study (which it usually does BTW) or from another website resource it should not matter to you.

Get off your arrogant high horses (especially AP).

I will say this about your chosen article. I'm constantly amazed by the fact that apologists don't seem to realize that their explanation of why the Bible has such brutal, primitive laws in it (it was created by God for brutal, primitive societies) presents a huge problem for them. Society has evolved radically over the centuries since the laws were "set in stone." The very process of setting them in an unchanging form tends to work against the need to improve societies.

One would think that repeated revelations would be needed, new ones for each major revision of societal standards. But of course, that would mean that human societies are in the driver's seat of morality, which you don't believe, IIRC.

Now, we've discussed this other point in other threads... your current source of thought on the Bible says that your "word of god" isn't even meant to inform society of what's right or wrong. That's patently false, since it has these huge books that are dedicated almost exclusively to LAWS. It seems to me that gotquestions has a lot more problems philosophically than they are able to handle.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I will say this about your chosen article. I'm constantly amazed by the fact that apologists don't seem to realize that their explanation of why the Bible has such brutal, primitive laws in it (it was created by God for brutal, primitive societies) presents a huge problem for them. Society has evolved radically over the centuries since the laws were "set in stone." The very process of setting them in an unchanging form tends to work against the need to improve societies.

One would think that repeated revelations would be needed, new ones for each major revision of societal standards. But of course, that would mean that human societies are in the driver's seat of morality, which you don't believe, IIRC.

Now, we've discussed this other point in other threads... your current source of thought on the Bible says that your "word of god" isn't even meant to inform society of what's right or wrong. That's patently false, since it has these huge books that are dedicated almost exclusively to LAWS. It seems to me that gotquestions has a lot more problems philosophically than they are able to handle.

I think you are making lots of conclusions out of this air. Oh well.. to each their own.

Maybe I'll start using answersingenesis now so you guys won't be offended. Maybe I won't respond at all unless you really want an answer and not a debate. Time will tell.

BecauseHeLives wrote:
I THOUGHT you guys were asking the questions because you wanted an answer. Apparently that's NOT what you wanted. You wanted a debate. And when I brought you answers that you couldn't debate with then you throw a hissy fit.)

You bring out your so-called answers and then get mad when people don't automatically praise you for your vast wisdom and then have the nerve to say other people are throwing hissy fits?

RebelSnake wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
I THOUGHT you guys were asking the questions because you wanted an answer. Apparently that's NOT what you wanted. You wanted a debate. And when I brought you answers that you couldn't debate with then you throw a hissy fit.)

You bring out your so-called answers and then get mad when people don't automatically praise you for your vast wisdom and then have the nerve to say other people are throwing hissy fits?

The hissy fits are ALL being thrown by the atheists here. They don't like the good answers being given to them. I never once asked for praise (which would be silly anyway). However it would be nice that if you ask a question, and you aren't really interested in the answer, then to put a disclaimer in post that it's a debate. Of course, that'll never happen because you all act like you are ignorant and can't use google to look for answers to your own questions. It's not that hard but you'll catch on as long as you can spel rite.

BecauseHeLives wrote:The hissy fits are ALL being thrown by the atheists here. They don't like the good answers being given to them.

You're missing the point. Your "answers" appear "good" only to you. We've pointed out why they are inconsistent with reality and unreasonable. Calling those responses "hissy fits" is not exactly showing a mature attitude.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:The hissy fits are ALL being thrown by the atheists here. They don't like the good answers being given to them.

You're missing the point. Your "answers" appear "good" only to you. We've pointed out why they are inconsistent with reality and unreasonable. Calling those responses "hissy fits" is not exactly showing a mature attitude.

Actually I don't feel you haven't refuted my answers at all. Simply because there a large number of atheists in forums that agree with you doesn't make your claims any more valid. In fact I believe I have made my points quite well on most all of my posts. Reality and what is reasonable always seem to be our biggest points of disagreement. Reality to you includes only the physical world in which you can see, touch, or measure scientifically. To me reality includes the physical world and the spiritual world. To me you are only comprehending part of what's available. It's also the least reliable part. "Reasonable" is a relative term and to use that in a refutation is kinda silly. You, any other people, think I'm unreasonable and I, and other people, think you are unreasonable. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

As far as hissy fits go I believe that the constant barbing by AP in numerous recent posts of my using another website as an aid to an aswer would certainly qualify as a hissy fit. I'm sure that we ALL have used other sites to educate us on particular points. I'm sure that AP is probably the biggest user of us all.

"using another website as an aid to an aswer" would be - "I agree with gotqestions position X because of Y, Y and Y'

Saying "I'm sure you could find the answer on Gotquestions,org, go look" is an avoidance of an answer.

Otherwise discussions would be reduced to:

BHL: Go read gotquestions.org
AP: Yeah - well you go read Wikipedia

Not very productive.

A Person wrote:Not: Afterward Jesus findeth them in the temple, and said unto them, Behold, he art made whole: sin no more,

So while it is an explanation, which is more than Gotquestions, it's hardly a convincing one.

Then why would the Holy Spirit record that one instance? Jesus performed more miracles then recorded, why would this one be significant? Because of its deeper meaning.

Well that's certainly a novel interpretation of "Assembly of the Lord". It also seems rather unnecessary - that's something wouldn't think would need any prohibition - let alone such an oblique one; - let's see no penis, no testicles - ooh let's have sex.

You'd be surprised.

Anyway, those with a penis, but no testicles are still capable of sex.

This attitude has always disturbed me. Medical problems are not the fault of the victim any more than natural disasters are because God hates fags.

Neither are you and I responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve. But, yet, we pay the consequences.