Talk:Skeptics Annotated Bible

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. 10px 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)

Given that The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is well over 3,000 pages in length with quite literally thousands upon thousands of claimed contradictions, acts of cruelty, conflicts with history and science and misogyny, I think it is quite disingenuous to dismiss it as being the "equivalent to a brick wall scribbled with graffiti." The author has stated that it took him nearly twenty years to write the book and to claim that the book contains no valid arguments because one of the thousands of claims may be incorrect is a poor refutation of this work. I have read it and while I'm not prepared to add to the main page, I highly recommend that those who do actually read the book and come up with more and better examples than the single example presented here. It isn't enough to merely assert that someone is wrong. It must be demonstrated. --Aaronratner 22:10, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

Scoffer, if that's what you think is contained in the Bible, it's because you tried to grasp it with an unclean mind. VargasMilan 23:01, 24 June 2015 (EDT)

You really should re-read what I have written. I never said I agreed or disagreed with the SAB. I only suggested that debate from emotion is a poor approach. Shooting down one example out of literally thousands is meaningless. Finally, please don't proclaim that I don't grasp the Bible as I was a professional biblical scholar for over two decades and read, write and understand the original Hebrew text as well as I do English. I have written extensively on the subject. My point was that my opinion or anyone else's opinion should be irrelevant and the arguments must be debated on their merits, not emotion. So instead of rebuking me, perhaps you should pick up a copy of the book and address its claims rather than merely spouting your opinion. If you value the Bible then you would take it seriously. --Aaronratner 00:57, 27 June 2015 (EDT)

Aaronratner, if you were a true scholar, you would realize that thousands of claimed contradictions is not the same as contradictions. The are manufacturers who have to recall a product which has thousands of customers because quantity is no substitution for quality.

Second, the Flat Earth society has been around for almost 60 years, so I hope you can understand why I am not impressed by the SAB being the work of 20 years of effort. Length of effort is not synonymous with quality of effort.

Third, your appeal to your alleged professional Bible scholar background is an appeal to authority and I am not impressed. By the way, the vast majority of professional economics professors, did not predict the 2007/2008 economic crisis! On the other hand, there were economists in the Austrian school of economics, who did predict this crisis. See: List of people who predicted the 2008 financial crisis Conservative 15:28, 27 June 2015 (EDT)