Skeptics Bible

[daniel_1012]

Well, this was asked in the locked topic... but the skeptics anotated Bible is just very good for one thing... showing the willful ignorance of a Christ rejecting society.

 

Iprayican and Daniel look at this website and tell me what you think of these verses

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

102066[/snapback]

 

I've actually been to that site before... and it's a jumble either purposely contorted, misread, and willfully ignorant interpretations, or the person is amazingly incapable of comprehending forms of speech. Either way, the person(s) responsible should not be propagating lies... but what do you expect? Their hearts are at enmity with God.

 

I just so happend to click at random a certain book when I went to the site... I clicked on 1 Cor -- http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/1.html

 

I'll tell you what I think of them.

 

1) (1:7-8)

"Be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers.

 

No he didn't, and that's pretty ridiculous that someone would claim that.

 

2 Peter 3:3-5, tells us...

 

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

Peter knows that men in the future, will be wondering where is He? Is He not coming?

 

Regardless... Paul makes NO IMPLICATION that the "day of our Lord Jesus Christ," returning will be in his lifetime. I don't even know what the person that uses this as a contradiction is talking about... how does he gather that Paul said He is coming in his (Paul's own) lifetime, as a doctrine fact? He doesn't... and is just another intentional lie by a "skeptic."

 

 

2) (Jehovah's Witnesses)

"Now I exhort you, brothers ... that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."(NWT)

The Governing Body uses this verse to control the thoughts and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are instructed not to accept or read the religious literature of others, not to listen to criticism of the Watchtower Society's teachings, and to fight against independent thinking.

 

What is the point? Without my personal opinion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' *supposed* interpretation/use of this verse (it is inconsequential) -- the skeptics here are claiming another man's interpretation of the Bible is proof of its error... do they even realize what they are saying? Do they think Christians are not already aware of this poor interpretation (again, not giving opinion to this interpretation, because it would distract from the heart issue here)? Perverting the word is something Christians fight against.

 

Furthermore, that verse could be used for good or bad causes, which is entirely dependent upon the heart of the user... not the verse itself. Just like many things in this world that can be used for good. For instance, if I said, "stick together... be strong, press on, and do what must be done." For one person, they may be speaking of genocide of another race, such as Hitler did. They may use that inspiration/command to do evil. For another person, they may be speaking of trying to establish a network of soup kitchens and shelters to help the homeless. Just because a bad man uses an independently neutral statement for a bad cause... doesn't make the statement in error.

 

These skeptics are really grasping for straws, and are already, and will continue to prove as unreliable sources of "skepticism." It's nice when a skeptic makes a point... but I see the people who wrote these are simply just making incredibly ignorant claims about the Bible.

 

3) (1:14-16)

"I know not whether I baptized any other."

Poor Paul is confused. First he says that he baptized no one. Well, except for Crispus and Gaius. And maybe Stephanus and his household. He can't remember if he did it to anyone else.

 

He doesn't say, "whether or not," he just is recorded saying, "whether." Why is this important? This is important because word here is, *whether*: This comes from the Greek word ei, which is a particle of conditionality; such as if, whether, that, etc.:--forasmuch as, if, that. It is not used in conjunction with an alternative, "or not," so obviously it can be determined to take the meaning of what we would normally say, "that." For *that* reason, it would probably be better if the word whether were that... just so a person who doesn't understand that without an alternative (or not), whether is simply implying conjuctive forward thought, THAT.

 

The word "know," also from the Greek, means aware of... Paul is simply saying he isn't aware that he baptized any other, meaning... he didn't baptize any other. He isn't literally saying he is without knowledge of if he did or if he did not, as if he has forgotten... This is just more propaganda, of which I’m not sure would be better… if they are intentionally doing this or if they are truly this ignorant. He is saying he is without knowledge, *because* he did not baptize -- I don't know that I ever said... I don't know whether (I am not aware that) I have ever done such a thing -- the reason he is not aware, is simply because he is saying he has not baptized any other. This is a common form of speech used in English dialect, though I don't know its specific terminology... perhaps someone here does? Appearently the makers of this site are oblivious of it, and should take up a much more serious class in English before trying to interpret terminogy for legitimacy.

 

4)

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise."

Is wisdom a good thing?

 

Yes another dialect of speech. God is wiser than all, even the wisest man is nothing compaired to God. "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise." Or, those who consider themselves wise but are not. Even those percieved to be wise by others... it is inconcequential. This is simply to say, "God is wiser than all." God is the maker of wisdom.

 

5)

"It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

God saves fools and is pleased with their foolishness.

Is it good to be foolish?

 

Once again, another form of speech. Who perceives the preaching foolish... but those that do not believe. Outsiders such as yourselves, look in and see it as foolishness. Yet for those that believe, they will be saved. It's not saying preaching is foolish... why would Paul tell people that it is foolish to preach? Are the makers of this Bible skeptics site truly this inept? Appearently so, but it's miserably sad.

 

6)

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise."

Is God the author of confusion?

 

The word "confound" here in 1 Cor, comes from the Greek word kataischuno, which means to shame down, i.e. disgrace or (by impl.) put to the blush:--confound, dishonour, shame.

 

The link they use, to 1 Cor 14:33 speaks of confusion, which comes from the Greek akatastasia, meaning instability, disorder:--commotion, confusion, tumult.

 

Firstly, right off the bat they are speaking of two different words entirely and using them as contradictory statements.

 

Secondly, since it's already well established this is a very poor "contradiction," I'll tell you what I personally get out of, "God is not the author of confusion." -- All those that follow God will not be confused... Just as a man who leads another down a straight path, though those following can still choose to veer off, God walks THE straight path which is clear in due time to the faithful. I say to the faithful, because I don't always have the answer... and indeed I am confused at times. If I lose faith before God makes it clear, I will think He has left me... I will be confused. However, I know that He will never leave me nor forsake me, so I continue on in faith... and in due time, every time He has made the path clear, and proven once again He does not want me confused... but is leading down a clear path, which in sovereignty demands faith -- for it is impossible to please God without faith. However, just because there are things along the path that can confuse me, God has set before me a sovereign path that will be perfectly clear if I have faith, and it will be delivered. Anyone that seeks God finds Him. God is not the author of confusion, but he is sovereign in His giving men of free will.

 

That was just one page... the very first page I clicked on. There are zero contridictions... just all hideous interpretation of what I would consider to be every day speech. The makers of this site display a willful ignorance that is not easily matched... that is my humble opinion of the site.

[Guest TruthofChrist (Rameus Spoof)]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well. They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist.

[Amethyst]

No, the difference between us and you is that you are brainwashed and we are not.

[Antlerman]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist. 

102587[/snapback]

I am a skeptic. I am an atheist. I do not have willful ignorance as you accuse me. I was a fundamentalist and wanted to believe. I did not want to disbelieve. I had no choice because of the level of errors I could not excuse away in a system claiming infallibility. I fought turning from what I wanted to believe was true. I hung onto it for many years trying to keep it a part of my life. So please don't make things easier on yourself at the expense of my integrity! I'm guessing you want to see me and those like me as just hard hearted and willfully ignorant, but it is false of you to say so.

 

BTW, if you wish to persuade anyone, you may take a less sarcastic and demeaning tone with us. We are quite intelligent and know what the Jesus of the Bible is supposed to represent as far as manners. I frankly am not seeing that from you here towards us. You do not make me want to join you in your belief club. You seem rather ill-mannered and un-Christlike, but I may be misreading you.

[Sofia]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist. 

102587[/snapback]

 

Truth of Christ......

 

Why are you being so sarcastic and mean spirited?

[Hero of Hyrule]

and it's a jumble either purposely contorted, misread, and willfully ignorant interpretations, or the person is amazingly incapable of comprehending forms of speech. Either way, the person(s) responsible should not be propagating lies... but what do you expect? Their hearts are at enmity with God.

 

I agree that half the wrongs that look at the bible gives are distorted. It IS propaganda. But so is the bible itself! (And almost every christian website.)

 

They have a view, different from yours and they express that view in their way. Most religious websites(And political ones) want to say that they are right and to do so, facts are distorted. That happens.

 

But the other half or so from the sceptics bible is a good arguement for the unbelieving view.

 

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well. They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

True. Still, some faith are more reasonable than others.

 

Correction, I dn't mean people here are willfully ignorant.

[BlueGiant]

If god is not the author of confusion, then how do you reconcile that with the story of Babel?

 

The SAB is meant to be damn near exhaustive, so, yes, nitpicking is included.

 

Betcha can't give a straight answer to this question either, Danny-boy. Too much willful ignorance of the truth tends to do that, kid.

[BlueGiant]

Truth of Christ......

 

Why are you being so sarcastic and mean spirited?

102640[/snapback]

 

Because he is, indeed showing us the truth of christ, and all kinds of christian love at the same time.

[Caretaker]

Truth of Christ......

 

Why are you being so sarcastic and mean spirited?

102640[/snapback]

I suspect it is a tactic to try to get us to ignore him, so he can claim victory.

 

Have you seen his arrogant proposal in the Arena??? Talk about overconfident and condescending. I want to say he is not even worthy of a debate at all. He just wants to play games. He refuses to address our skepticism. He only attacks it.

[JeffXL]

Well, [blah blah blah]

102584[/snapback]

 

Don't lie here-- we are familiar with all the mistranslations of the BuyBull. Je$u$ *did* say he'd be back soon, which does not equal 2,000 years. (Check your contradictory bible again. Ask for the verses if you must, though I wonder why you're believer if you don't know your own holy text).

 

Also, the ol' Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew "real meaning" is just a waste. Why is God so clumsy and stupid that he can't even get out his message?

 

Besides, Paul had absolutely no knowledge of the Gospels. He attributes a quote to Jesus that Jesus never uttered; and was unfamiliar with Jesus making all foods clean in Mark, but still had to make up Peter's dream. What crap.

[quicksand]

Well, this was asked in the locked topic... but the skeptics anotated Bible is just very good for one thing... showing the willful ignorance of a Christ rejecting society.

102584[/snapback]

Rejecting Christian society? Daniel, what does that mean? Do you believe that all cultural and governmental institutions should be under the dominion of your religion and therefor a theocracy?

 

Please clarify what you mean by this statement.

 

I've actually been to that site before... and it's a jumble either purposely contorted, misread, and willfully ignorant interpretations, or the person is amazingly incapable of comprehending forms of speech.  Either way, the person(s) responsible should not be propagating lies... but what do you expect?  Their hearts are at enmity with God.

102584[/snapback]

Ah, you were doing so good in actually trying to frame an argument but, however, as we always see with people like you, you allege persecution and offer ad hominems toward the site’s author.

 

It’s great those who agree with you a priori, and is nothing but an a great appeal to the faithful (ie. Apologetics) but does little and nothing to advance the promising start of an argument that you could make.

 

...bible stuff....

102584[/snapback]

Daniel, your life would be a lot easier if you could just realize that #1: each tradition which took a name of an apostle (for which there is no agreement to the number of apostles or their exact names) did not have each other’s books or traditions to read before they penned; #2 Paul never read the NT and never met the alleged supernatural Jesus; #3 and that even if each apostle did exist according to Christian folklore, they did not share the same mind.

 

This is simple common sense Daniel.

 

 

Anyone that seeks God finds Him.  God is not the author of confusion, but he is sovereign in His giving men of free will.

102584[/snapback]

And of course, when a member of this site say that with faith they did seek your God, it only led to their non-belief in such a mythological being you will throw a fit and tell them they were never real Christians etc.

 

And God is the author of confusion - he said so himself. You people so often like to yell “free-will” every time when you are beaten by the absurdity and ridiculousness of your reasoning for those beliefs., which is the faith that Augustine advocated. Augustine argued that this faith, faith by fiat, subsumes reason above all and especially when reason roots out the very absurdity of those beliefs. Despite all that, you should acknowledge that God does creates confusion to necessitate the use of our freewill. But, since you are so damn married to this work of fiction, you have to deny or equivocate God’s own words to shoehorn him into this idol of him that you have created in your poor pathetic wishful thinking mind.

 

Sorry cock, but you’ve made matters worse for yourself now arguing against god’s plainly stated word. However that’s the peril of category errors and special pleads.

 

That was just one page... the very first page I clicked on.  There are zero contridictions... just all hideous interpretation of what I would consider to be every day speech.  The makers of this site display a willful ignorance that is not easily matched... that is my humble opinion of the site.

102584[/snapback]

Ad hominem and an extraordinary claim that only uneducated apologist (there are no other types btw) could make without a deeper understanding of the times for which the earliest scriptures were finally penned.

 

You poor thing you.

[Asimov]

Um...since when has anyone referenced the SAB?

[Mr. Neil]

Well, this was asked in the locked topic... but the skeptics anotated Bible is just very good for one thing... showing the willful ignorance of a Christ rejecting society.

Jesus isn't of the house of David. You ran away from this argument and started a new one, because you're a coward. Therefore, any remark you make about "Christ rejecting societies" is meaningless and hypocritical.

 

Furthermore, nobody here abides by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a reputable, scholarly source, so your criticism of it here is worthless and doesn't need to be disputed. If you have any criticism of that site, you'll have to take it up with Steve Welles. Not us.

 

Of course, you won't do this, because it's much easier to bunch all atheists together.

 

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

Laugh it up, boys. We all know know that the only reason you make giggle-snort posts like this is because you don't actually have an argument to speak of.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist.

So it's faith to reject extraordinary claims? Since when?

[Caretaker]

Um...since when has anyone referenced the SAB?

102699[/snapback]

Perhaps he wanted to try to shoot it down before we use it.

[Asimov]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist. 

102587[/snapback]

 

 

ToC, maybe you need to put out a bit more in regards to debate before displaying gloating victory.

[spamandham]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well. 

 

Interestingly, I agree with your conclusion. Now fuck off and get lost.

[Kuroikaze]

1) (1:7-8)

"Be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers.

 

No he didn't, and that's pretty ridiculous that someone would claim that.

 

2 Peter 3:3-5, tells us...

 

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

Peter knows that men in the future, will be wondering where is He?  Is He not coming?

 

Regardless... Paul makes NO IMPLICATION that the "day of our Lord Jesus Christ," returning will be in his lifetime.  I don't even know what the person that uses this as a contradiction is talking about... how does he gather that Paul said He is coming in his (Paul's own) lifetime, as a doctrine fact?  He doesn't... and is just another intentional lie by a "skeptic."

 

 

 

 

Acctually it is you who are wrong, go and ask any theologian, heck even your own pastor would probably be able to tell you, that paul cleary thought that Jesus would return in his lifetime. this was why he told christians not to bother getting married, and incedentally most theologians argue that his advice against getting married doesn't need to be followed BECAUSE he thought Jesus would return soon. They alsot reason that this does not marr the inspiration of the bible because paul did not claim to speak for God in this matter but was only stating his own opinion, which was bassed on the "false" idea that Jesus would be returning soon.

 

Come on now, do you even read the Bible, Heck I was taught this stuff in sunday school and bible study back when I was a christian.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Hate to tell ya this Dan, but I fear not a single ExC user gives a rats ass about what you *think* about SAB and contents within.

 

That you use a book of Extreme Fairy Tales mixed in with years of human tradition turned in to a faith system that is groundless and ignorant, then call for us to respect your opinion of a book that helps de-mystify the original text is boggling to my mind..

 

In the words of Geo. A. Carl, my riding mentor, one of the last living real 1%-ers, "..you want a blowjob and a fucking donut for that useless information?"

 

None of either served here, this thread..

 

k, mean_old_man, L

[Fweethawt]

In the words of Geo. A. Carl, my riding mentor, one of  the last living real 1%-ers, "..you want a blowjob and a fucking donut for that useless information?"

 

None of either served here, this thread..

 

k, mean_old_man, L

 

Nivek,

 

Does that mean that you would give him a blowjob and a donut anywhere else besides in this thread?

 

 

 

[Kuroikaze]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist. 

102587[/snapback]

 

whatever....

 

Christians display willful ignorance, they hide behind pretty words like Faith, Love, and God, while telling people they are going to hell. Deep down you all know there is no God but you pretend there is and try to drag us all down to your level.

 

 

 

In case you are wondering, I was being sarcastic there....mostly

 

The reason I said it was because christians like to say similar stuff to us.

 

Let me ask you a question. and take it seriously because I'm not trying to mock you.

 

What is Faith? can you answer me. If you have to think about it for more that 30 seconds or so to come up with an answer its because you are not even sure yourself. You hide behind words just as anyone else does.

 

whether or not we hold our positions on faith alone depends on how you define faith.

 

If faith is believing in something with no proof, then I would have to say you are wrong because I can provide ample evidence that proves that it is highly improbable that the christian god is real. Of couse it is not 100% certain....but only a fool would claim to be 100% certain of anything. Still we must act as if we are certain about many things to live our daily lives. So we chose the options that seem most likely.

 

However, even if nothing proves your Gods existance, or lack of existance. Then both of us just hold opinions which cannot be verified. So why are you so mad at us for simply taking the opinion opposed to your own?

 

I think the real problem is that most christians think there is much evidence to support Gods existance.

I could argue against that, but thats not really the point I'm trying to make. If there is evidence to support Gods existance then how can you say you believe out of Faith? Unless you are redefining faith. You are just chosing the option that seems most likely to you, which is also what we are doing.

 

So yes perhaps we are doing the same thing as you, but it still leaves you with the job of presenting us with that evidence of God's existance that you found so convincing, that is if your trying to convernt us Of couse it doesn't mean that we will find your evidence as convincing as you. We are not you so what was convincing to you might not be for us. And we will question you, not because we dislike you, but because we question everything, even ourselves, which is why we left xianity in the first place

 

If it offends you to have your beliefs questioned then this probably isn't the place for you.

[Kuroikaze]

for it is impossible to please God without faith

 

Why? Have you ever asked yourself this rather than just believing it because the bible said it?

 

Why is God so pleased at us for believing in things...in particular him, without proof?

 

 

that is my humble opinion of the site.

 

Since when have you ever been humble?

[MQTA]

If god is not the author of confusion, then how do you reconcile that with the story of Babel?

 

The SAB is meant to be damn near exhaustive, so, yes, nitpicking is included.

 

Betcha can't give a straight answer to this question either, Danny-boy.  Too much willful ignorance of the truth tends to do that, kid.

102646[/snapback]

 

There are some errors in their finger pointing, and there are some verses that should have a notation but don't. But over all, it's a great reference tool, a good starting place. When someone quotes a passage I always look for SAB comments.

[daniel_1012]

If god is not the author of confusion, then how do you reconcile that with the story of Babel?

 

The SAB is meant to be damn near exhaustive, so, yes, nitpicking is included.

 

Betcha can't give a straight answer to this question either, Danny-boy.  Too much willful ignorance of the truth tends to do that, kid.

102646[/snapback]

 

What do you believe it means, when it sas God is not the author of confusion?

[Ouroboros]

102584[/snapback]

Daniel, I'm impressed... no, seriously ... you actually went to one of the links we have, and you read something that wasn't just one of the traditional apologetic websites! You're starting to look into things.

[daniel_1012]

Come on now, do you even read the Bible, Heck I was taught this stuff in sunday school and bible study back when I was a christian.

 

Yes, I do read my Bible... therefore I don't necessarily have to rely on what I was or wasn't taught in Sunday school.

 

Paul said he thought it was better that you remain as you were when you were saved. However, he also says that it's better to be married if you can't control your lust. However, there is no implication whatsoever that should lead anyone to believe he taught a doctrine that Christ would 100% factually return in his or the church's of that time lifetime.