Talk:Skeptics Annotated Bible

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

refutation

Thank you Fox, but the refutation appears to need rewording to suit an encyclopedic style.--Heffalump 19:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Feel free to do so. I was just off to put the kettle on, so edited rather hurriedly. File:User Fox.png Fox (talk|contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The refutation also makes no direct material claims that can be or are sourced...Would it be possible to show a refuted example? --Ctv 20:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I've added one for your edification. And by the way, I came up with this one by thinking of what I consider to be one of the all-time silliest criticisms of the Bible, and started editing this article accordingly, convinced that the SAB would be silly enough to repeat it. Sure enough, they do. Tektonic's description of the SAB is spot on. Philip J. Rayment 10:24, 19 August 2008 (EDT) P.S. Actually, the rebuttal to the pi claim that I linked to mentions that the SAB listed it, but I had forgotten that. Philip J. Rayment 10:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Skeptics_Annotated_Bible"
Personal tools