https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=AaronratnerConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-10-08T08:37:12ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Skeptics_Annotated_Bible&diff=1162012Talk:Skeptics Annotated Bible2015-06-27T04:57:27Z<p>Aaronratner: /* refutation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== refutation ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Fox, but the refutation appears to need rewording to suit an encyclopedic style.--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 19:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Feel free to do so. I was just off to put the kettle on, so edited rather hurriedly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 19:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The refutation also makes no direct material claims that can be or are sourced...Would it be possible to show a refuted example? --[[User:Ctv|Ctv]] 20:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
: 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
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 [https://nexuszine.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/interview-steve-wells-from-the-skeptics-annotated-bible/ 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. --[[User:Aaronratner|Aaronratner]] 22:10, 24 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Scoffer, if that's what you think is contained in the Bible, it's because you tried to grasp it with an unclean mind. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:01, 24 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::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. --[[User:Aaronratner|Aaronratner]] 00:57, 27 June 2015 (EDT)</div>Aaronratnerhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Skeptics_Annotated_Bible&diff=1161781Talk:Skeptics Annotated Bible2015-06-25T02:10:57Z<p>Aaronratner: /* refutation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== refutation ==<br />
<br />
Thank you Fox, but the refutation appears to need rewording to suit an encyclopedic style.--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 19:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Feel free to do so. I was just off to put the kettle on, so edited rather hurriedly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 19:34, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The refutation also makes no direct material claims that can be or are sourced...Would it be possible to show a refuted example? --[[User:Ctv|Ctv]] 20:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
: 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
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 [https://nexuszine.wordpress.com/2008/09/10/interview-steve-wells-from-the-skeptics-annotated-bible/ 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. --[[User:Aaronratner|Aaronratner]] 22:10, 24 June 2015 (EDT)</div>Aaronratner