Skeptic's Annotated Bible - Disappointment

[jobear]

I was hoping for intelligent commentary about the contradictions and scientific and historic inaccuracies in the bible, but I'm several chapters into Genesis and so far a large percentage of the annotations are comments that show a lack of reading comprehension.

 

For example: I do not believe that God made a 90-year-old woman capable of having a baby, but it's clear that's what the story says happened. The author's comment is that Abraham didn't need help having children later with other wives, so why does he need help with Sarah? There are so many problems with this story, but that isn't one of them; it's obvious why his post-menopausal wife couldn't have a baby without intervention but younger wives wouldn't have that issue.

 

Another example: Lot offers the Sodomites his 2 virgin daughters for raping instead of the angels (what a nice guy :|). Next he "goes out into the city" to try to convince his sons-in-law to take their families out of Sodom, and they refuse. Lot comes home and the angels tell him to take his wife and the two daughters who live with him out of the city anyway. The author says that Lot lied - his daughters were married, not virgins. But it's quite clear that the married daughters are *different* daughters than the 2 who live in his house.

 

This keeps happening. Has anyone else read this? Does it get better? There are too many actual problems in the bible for me to waste my time reading something that just complains of things that aren't the real problems.

[miekko]

I was hoping for intelligent commentary about the contradictions and scientific and historic inaccuracies in the bible, but I'm several chapters into Genesis and so far a large percentage of the annotations are comments that show a lack of reading comprehension.

 

For example: I do not believe that God made a 90-year-old woman capable of having a baby, but it's clear that's what the story says happened. The author's comment is that Abraham didn't need help having children later with other wives, so why does he need help with Sarah? There are so many problems with this story, but that isn't one of them; it's obvious why his post-menopausal wife couldn't have a baby without intervention but younger wives wouldn't have that issue.

 

Another example: Lot offers the Sodomites his 2 virgin daughters for raping instead of the angels (what a nice guy :|). Next he "goes out into the city" to try to convince his sons-in-law to take their families out of Sodom, and they refuse. Lot comes home and the angels tell him to take his wife and the two daughters who live with him out of the city anyway. The author says that Lot lied - his daughters were married, not virgins. But it's quite clear that the married daughters are *different* daughters than the 2 who live in his house.

 

This keeps happening. Has anyone else read this? Does it get better? There are too many actual problems in the bible for me to waste my time reading something that just complains of things that aren't the real problems.

There's a lot of it. And no, it doesn't get better. Alas, as it's based on a really good idea.

[jobear]

That's a real shame. Ah well, thanks for saving me some time.

[mymistake]

They didn't have viagra back then.  Ramesses II did live into his early 90s but he was a fluke and he lived in a palace and had the best medicine known to man.  Nomads who lived in tents would die of old age in their 30s or 40s.  The Bible description of 100+ year old men climbing mountains and getting women pregnant are ridiculous.  Genesis is a novel.

[Roz]

I don't think the SAB was meant for scholastic research and serious refutations, its general tone is like the cult of dusty or the amazing atheist on youtube.

However, I do read the SAB from time to time when I need a laugh.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks for saving me a little money there, guys.

[miekko]

Thanks for saving me a little money there, guys.

It is freely available online though, where's money enter into it?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Thanks for saving me a little money there, guys.

It is freely available online though, where's money enter into it?

 

I was considering purchasing a copy from Amazon.  I prefer real books over online books or Kindles and such.

[Bhim]

I've read some of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and was likewise unimpressed. To reiterate what I said in the snobbery thread, there's a subset of atheists who incorrectly believe that their atheism imparts intelligence to them, and summarily attempt to comment on issues on which they are unqualified. I believe that's what's happened here. The Bible may be an amateurish piece of literature, but Christians have been writing apologetics for two millennia, and they're quite good at it. Opposing the philosophical machinery of the world's largest and most well-funded religion is not something that anyone should take lightly. Especially when people like us are struggling to free ourselves of ideas we've believed in for years. Patently false arguments like those in the SAB are, I believe, more harmful than helpful.

[mymistake]

I'm sorry to hear that so many people don't care for SAB.  I guess I must be a New Atheist, whatever that means.  I personally don't think my atheism imparts intelligence, though perhaps some people do have that attitude.  But I do find that my atheism allows me to have clear thought.  I now realize I have never had that before.  In my experience I have been able to cut through thoughts that have held me in bondage for decades.  The SAB was never intended as a scholarly work but I do use it as a reference simply because somebody bothered to do the whole Bible it makes this easy to find contradictions.

 

As for apologetics I now see that every one of them is based on faulty logic.  I was one of those apologists.  I was the Christian every other Christian turned to to silence their doubts.  Yet today when I review my notes from back then all my ideas were childish.  And in the time I have been here I have destroyed the ideas of every Christian visitor.

[miekko]

I'm sorry to hear that so many people don't care for SAB.  I guess I must be a New Atheist, whatever that means.  I personally don't think my atheism imparts intelligence, though perhaps some people do have that attitude.  But I do find that my atheism allows me to have clear thought.  I now realize I have never had that before.  In my experience I have been able to cut through thoughts that have held me in bondage for decades.  The SAB was never intended as a scholarly work but I do use it as a reference simply because somebody bothered to do the whole Bible it makes this easy to find contradictions.

 

As for apologetics I now see that every one of them is based on faulty logic.  I was one of those apologists.  I was the Christian every other Christian turned to to silence their doubts.  Yet today when I review my notes from back then all my ideas were childish.  And in the time I have been here I have destroyed the ideas of every Christian visitor.

There is apologetics that isn't based on faulty logic - not all arguments against Christianity are coherent or correct. So, when an apologist debunks a mistaken argument against Christianity, his argument is not necessarily wrong! (However, the fact that every argument against Christianity isn't correct doesn't make Christianity correct - quite a sufficient number of arguments against Christianity are correct.) If all your arguments were wrong, that's either because you've only been exposed to those arguments that genuinely are problems for Christianity, or you're bad at debunking mistaken claims.

 

Alas, SAB has quite a number of mistaken arguments against Christianity among the good ones it has - it lacks in quality assurance.

[mymistake]

If there is no correct argument for Christianity than the case for Christianity adds up to a big fat zero.  At this point I think there is no correct argument for Christianity.

[miekko]

If there is no correct argument for Christianity than the case for Christianity adds up to a big fat zero.  At this point I think there is no correct argument for Christianity.

Not all apologetics is arguments for Christianity, a substantial amount of it is arguments against arguments against Christianity. 

 

An argument against something false can still be false. (I.e. I claim 2+2 is 5. You claim this cannot be true since addition cannot produce numbers larger than 3. If your claim were true, my claim would be false - but your claim is false and thus has nothing to say regarding the truth-value of my statement that 2+2 is 5. (My claim is coincidentally false, but for an entirely different reason.).) It seems people fail to understand this fact when it comes to Christianity.

 

When we produce false arguments against Christianity, we inflate the feeling Christians have that their religion is being unfairly dismissed. It would be much better if the arguments we produce against it were sound.

[Kris]

And some people just like to argue.

[Kris]

Also-- who exactly is supposed to decide who is right or wrong in an argument such as these? You can't go back in time and prove one group right or wrong. The best one can do is make educated guesses and proposals. If they seem logical and plausible, then people could support the premise. You may never be able to prove that 2+2=4 when it comes to arguing the bible. But, you can still point out why an apologist argument is invalid. Truth can be stranger than fiction as we all know. The most unlikely scenario is sometimes the correct one.

[Thackerie]

I'm sorry to hear that so many people don't care for SAB.  I guess I must be a New Atheist, whatever that means.  I personally don't think my atheism imparts intelligence, though perhaps some people do have that attitude.  But I do find that my atheism allows me to have clear thought.  I now realize I have never had that before.  In my experience I have been able to cut through thoughts that have held me in bondage for decades.  The SAB was never intended as a scholarly work but I do use it as a reference simply because somebody bothered to do the whole Bible it makes this easy to find contradictions.

 

As for apologetics I now see that every one of them is based on faulty logic.  I was one of those apologists.  I was the Christian every other Christian turned to to silence their doubts.  Yet today when I review my notes from back then all my ideas were childish.  And in the time I have been here I have destroyed the ideas of every Christian visitor.

 

I like SAB for the same reasons. I use it for quick reference because it's convenient, and I like the way it's written.

 

I don't care that it's not intended as a scholarly work because I don't intend to engage in formal debates with Christians (waste of time) so I don't need a scholarly work for backup.

[mymistake]

 

 

When we produce false arguments against Christianity, we inflate the feeling Christians have that their religion is being unfairly dismissed. It would be much better if the arguments we produce against it were sound.

 

 

That just goes back to their own perception problem.  Christians can make a million wrong predictions about the Second Coming and the true believers go ahead and keep believing anyway.  They can make a million false arguments against evolution, cosmology and just about anything else that conflicts with what their pastor says and that still won't faze the hard core believers.  They don't count it when Christians mess up.

 

In my opinion the grip of Christianity is emotional in nature.  Even though my reason sent me on my journey my emotions anchored me to Christianity for years after I realized the religion is untenable.  I've found the New Atheists with their memes to be invaluable in my deconversion process.  My fear had to be fought with humor.  I'm glad we have the logic to demonstrate what is true and known but that isn't what the Christian mind traps are based on.

[xtify]

I've read some of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and was likewise unimpressed. To reiterate what I said in the snobbery thread, there's a subset of atheists who incorrectly believe that their atheism imparts intelligence to them, and summarily attempt to comment on issues on which they are unqualified. I believe that's what's happened here. The Bible may be an amateurish piece of literature, but Christians have been writing apologetics for two millennia, and they're quite good at it. Opposing the philosophical machinery of the world's largest and most well-funded religion is not something that anyone should take lightly. Especially when people like us are struggling to free ourselves of ideas we've believed in for years. Patently false arguments like those in the SAB are, I believe, more harmful than helpful.

 

The SAB is a great reference for contradictions.  It is helpful for people who have been brainwashed into believing the bible is infallible.  It isn't meant to be 'scholarly'.  How could it be?  It is only offering annotations and topical links for the bible, not verifying the authenticity of the actual text, just simply adding commentary from one skeptic's viewpoint.  I don't think it is fair to say these arguments are 'patently false'.  The Author of the SAB is making his best attempt at pointing out the absurdities, contradictions and inconsistencies of the bible.  He did a lot of work and published his work for free for anyone trying to escape the mindfuck of christianity.  How is this doing more harm than good?  And, who is being a snob here?

[Bhim]

I'm sorry to hear that so many people don't care for SAB.  I guess I must be a New Atheist, whatever that means.  I personally don't think my atheism imparts intelligence, though perhaps some people do have that attitude.  But I do find that my atheism allows me to have clear thought.  I now realize I have never had that before.  In my experience I have been able to cut through thoughts that have held me in bondage for decades.  The SAB was never intended as a scholarly work but I do use it as a reference simply because somebody bothered to do the whole Bible it makes this easy to find contradictions.

 

As for apologetics I now see that every one of them is based on faulty logic.  I was one of those apologists.  I was the Christian every other Christian turned to to silence their doubts.  Yet today when I review my notes from back then all my ideas were childish.  And in the time I have been here I have destroyed the ideas of every Christian visitor.

 

Actually I quite applaud the New Atheist movement, and if that's the intellectual camp you fall into you'll get no complaints from me.  To be sure, it's certainly not the position I hold.  But as you are well aware of my belief that evangelical Christianity should be given no respect whatsoever, I often find myself sympathetic to the arguments of the so-called New Atheists.

 

 

 

The SAB is a great reference for contradictions.  It is helpful for people who have been brainwashed into believing the bible is infallible.  It isn't meant to be 'scholarly'.  How could it be?  It is only offering annotations and topical links for the bible, not verifying the authenticity of the actual text, just simply adding commentary from one skeptic's viewpoint.  I don't think it is fair to say these arguments are 'patently false'.  The Author of the SAB is making his best attempt at pointing out the absurdities, contradictions and inconsistencies of the bible.  He did a lot of work and published his work for free for anyone trying to escape the mindfuck of christianity.  How is this doing more harm than good?  And, who is being a snob here?

 

 

Three things you might want to consider.

 

1.) I did not say that all arguments in the SAB are patently false as you seem to think.  But several are.  Jobear started this thread specifically to point out two of them.

 

2.) Making your best attempt at arguing against the Bible is commendable, but one really shouldn't publish something unless it is correct.  A rough analogy is a textbook with many typos.  They don't invalidate the content of the entire book, but they take away from the author's credibility.  A recovering evangelical might read the SAB and think "gee, I guess atheists really are as dumb as my pastor and Psalm 14:1 told me...maybe I will go to eternal hell if I reject Jesus."  The logic isn't correct, but when you're freaking out about the state of your eternal soul it's important to be presented with certainty.  Do you think bad arguments against Christianity would sway a backsliding evangelical who's on the fence about Jesus?  Had I been the indecisive type, they certainly wouldn't have swayed me!

 

3.) Snobbery, or more generally arrogance, can only be labeled as such when one believes himself to be in a superior position without just cause.  Observation of inaccuracy is not snobbery because said inaccuracy constitutes just cause.  Elsewise a Christian could label all of us snobs every time we cite our various reasons for not believing in the Bible.  The OP has stated two examples in which the SAB clearly gets the interpretation of the text wrong and grasps at straws to criticize the Bible.  I'm no friend of Christianity and I very publically hate Jesus, but it does no one any good for me to pat someone on the back when they do a bad job of attacking the Bible.  Not everything in the SAB is bad.  I haven't read the entire commentary and thus can't tell you what the ratio of good to bad is.  But the commenter's criticisms are often quite a stretch, and are not convicing.

 

Finally to answer your question of how the SAB could possibly be scholarly, I'll just say this.  There is a glut of evangelicals with PhDs and ThDs in various branches of theology, and I guarantee you that they'll line up to offer their defenses of Christianity.  I'd be willing to bet there are reams of apologetics with counterarguments against every word in the SAB.  Anyone who dares the undertaking of an anti-Christian Bible commentary (again, a commendable task) had damn well better be scholarly, because the evangelicals have scholars in droves.

[xtify]

 

I'm sorry to hear that so many people don't care for SAB.  I guess I must be a New Atheist, whatever that means.  I personally don't think my atheism imparts intelligence, though perhaps some people do have that attitude.  But I do find that my atheism allows me to have clear thought.  I now realize I have never had that before.  In my experience I have been able to cut through thoughts that have held me in bondage for decades.  The SAB was never intended as a scholarly work but I do use it as a reference simply because somebody bothered to do the whole Bible it makes this easy to find contradictions.

 

As for apologetics I now see that every one of them is based on faulty logic.  I was one of those apologists.  I was the Christian every other Christian turned to to silence their doubts.  Yet today when I review my notes from back then all my ideas were childish.  And in the time I have been here I have destroyed the ideas of every Christian visitor.

 

Actually I quite applaud the New Atheist movement, and if that's the intellectual camp you fall into you'll get no complaints from me.  To be sure, it's certainly not the position I hold.  But as you are well aware of my belief that evangelical Christianity should be given no respect whatsoever, I often find myself sympathetic to the arguments of the so-called New Atheists.

 

 

 

The SAB is a great reference for contradictions.  It is helpful for people who have been brainwashed into believing the bible is infallible.  It isn't meant to be 'scholarly'.  How could it be?  It is only offering annotations and topical links for the bible, not verifying the authenticity of the actual text, just simply adding commentary from one skeptic's viewpoint.  I don't think it is fair to say these arguments are 'patently false'.  The Author of the SAB is making his best attempt at pointing out the absurdities, contradictions and inconsistencies of the bible.  He did a lot of work and published his work for free for anyone trying to escape the mindfuck of christianity.  How is this doing more harm than good?  And, who is being a snob here?

 

 

Three things you might want to consider.

 

1.) I did not say that all arguments in the SAB are patently false as you seem to think.  But several are.  Jobear started this thread specifically to point out two of them.

 

2.) Making your best attempt at arguing against the Bible is commendable, but one really shouldn't publish something unless it is correct.  A rough analogy is a textbook with many typos.  They don't invalidate the content of the entire book, but they take away from the author's credibility.  A recovering evangelical might read the SAB and think "gee, I guess atheists really are as dumb as my pastor and Psalm 14:1 told me...maybe I will go to eternal hell if I reject Jesus."  The logic isn't correct, but when you're freaking out about the state of your eternal soul it's important to be presented with certainty.  Do you think bad arguments against Christianity would sway a backsliding evangelical who's on the fence about Jesus?  Had I been the indecisive type, they certainly wouldn't have swayed me!

 

3.) Snobbery, or more generally arrogance, can only be labeled as such when one believes himself to be in a superior position without just cause.  Observation of inaccuracy is not snobbery because said inaccuracy constitutes just cause.  Elsewise a Christian could label all of us snobs every time we cite our various reasons for not believing in the Bible.  The OP has stated two examples in which the SAB clearly gets the interpretation of the text wrong and grasps at straws to criticize the Bible.  I'm no friend of Christianity and I very publically hate Jesus, but it does no one any good for me to pat someone on the back when they do a bad job of attacking the Bible.  Not everything in the SAB is bad.  I haven't read the entire commentary and thus can't tell you what the ratio of good to bad is.  But the commenter's criticisms are often quite a stretch, and are not convicing.

 

Finally to answer your question of how the SAB could possibly be scholarly, I'll just say this.  There is a glut of evangelicals with PhDs and ThDs in various branches of theology, and I guarantee you that they'll line up to offer their defenses of Christianity.  I'd be willing to bet there are reams of apologetics with counterarguments against every word in the SAB.  Anyone who dares the undertaking of an anti-Christian Bible commentary (again, a commendable task) had damn well better be scholarly, because the evangelicals have scholars in droves.

 

 

I'm not giving these evangelical PhDs and ThDs respect just because of their doctorates.  So they have a doctorate in bullshit... so what?  The apologetics on almost all biblical cruelties are stupefying. Whether the SAB sucks or not has nothing to do with this.

Anyone looking into the Christian answers to biblical contradictions and ethical questions will soon notice that there aren't any non-delusional vantage points and, eventually, the excessive amount of excuses will overwhelm them.  They might actually turn to the SAB at that point, and I wouldn't guess that they would be driven back to the christian answers by the supposed incompetency of the SAB.

[Brother Jeff]

I love the SAB for what it is, imperfections and all. But I also love this site:

 

http://bibviz.com/

 

It uses the SAB as a source, but also infidels.org and evil-bible.com. I think it's gloriously awesome to have a graphical representation of the hundreds of contradictions that exist in the Bible. Glory!

[Darkillusion]

I agree with Bhim. It can cause harm when they are foolish arguments grasping at anything to discount the bible. When I was a Christian I would see such arguments often and think to myself "gee my pastor really was right, these people ARE deluded by satan, enemies of god, and will find any excuse not to believe!" Then I would go along my merry way and look no further into it, confident my position was the most logical and correct. I would say such shoddy arguments at times even kept me from looking into the meatier issues because I just automatically dismissed the atheist position, thinking it made no sense and was just grasping for straws.

 

Of course there are plenty more scholarly sources one can use and I'm sure SAB serves its purpose (haven't read it myself).

[Bhim]

 

 

I'm not giving these evangelical PhDs and ThDs respect just because of their doctorates.  So they have a doctorate in bullshit... so what?  The apologetics on almost all biblical cruelties are stupefying. Whether the SAB sucks or not has nothing to do with this.

Anyone looking into the Christian answers to biblical contradictions and ethical questions will soon notice that there aren't any non-delusional vantage points and, eventually, the excessive amount of excuses will overwhelm them.  They might actually turn to the SAB at that point, and I wouldn't guess that they would be driven back to the christian answers by the supposed incompetency of the SAB.

 

 

I think I may not have fully communicated my point to you.  Forgive me, I'll make another attempt.

 

The truth or falsehood of the subject material is immaterial here.  Technically people who get a PhD in Greek mythology are also studying what you might term "bullshit" in that it doesn't correspond to reality.  Believe it or not, there are evangelical seminaries out there that are rigorous (so obviously I'm excluding diploma mills from our discussion).  The only difference is that the PhD in mythology knows that what he's studying isn't real, and the evangelical theologian doesn't.  But as those of us who have earned PhDs can attest, the exercise requires a good deal of study, analytical thought, and synthesis.

 

I'll bottom line it for you, lest I bloviate.  An evangelical with a PhD knows the Bible very, very well.  He definitely knows it better than the guy who wrote the SAB commentary.  A professional evangelical theologian probably also knows how to defend a thesis very well, since that's how he earned his doctoral degree in the first place.  If one wants to take on these people, a similar degree of intellectual rigor is needed.  Sloppy arguments against Christianity simply embarass the person making the arguments, and reinforce the beliefs of Christians.  To someone who's struggling with trying to free himself of Christianity, this reinforcement is highly detrimental.

 

In additional to the professionally trained seminarians, don't forget that many Christians spend years studying the Bible in their personal time.  I was only a Christian for six years, and in that time I got to know it quite well.  Let me be clear in saying that I don't like evangelicals.  I think they are scumbags who are peddlers of poison.  But I do respect my enemy's power.  I wish the commentator of the SAB would too.

[xtify]

I

 

 

I think I may not have fully communicated my point to you.  Forgive me, I'll make another attempt.

 

The truth or falsehood of the subject material is immaterial here.  Technically people who get a PhD in Greek mythology are also studying what you might term "bullshit" in that it doesn't correspond to reality.  Believe it or not, there are evangelical seminaries out there that are rigorous (so obviously I'm excluding diploma mills from our discussion).  The only difference is that the PhD in mythology knows that what he's studying isn't real, and the evangelical theologian doesn't.  But as those of us who have earned PhDs can attest, the exercise requires a good deal of study, analytical thought, and synthesis.

 

 

I appreciate the restraint in your response.  I do concede to one of your points.  I was being dismissive of an entire realm of academia.  I was a bit snarky, and I'm sorry.  At the same time, no one I've ever met personally, with a PhD in Greek Studies, nor any of the educational campaigns I have ever been exposed to, have ever tried to convince me that Zeus is real.  

 

 

 

 

I'll bottom line it for you, lest I bloviate.  An evangelical with a PhD knows the Bible very, very well.  He definitely knows it better than the guy who wrote the SAB commentary.  A professional evangelical theologian probably also knows how to defend a thesis very well, since that's how he earned his doctoral degree in the first place.  If one wants to take on these people, a similar degree of intellectual rigor is needed.  Sloppy arguments against Christianity simply embarass the person making the arguments, and reinforce the beliefs of Christians.  To someone who's struggling with trying to free himself of Christianity, this reinforcement is highly detrimental.

 

I just don't think it's that detrimental.

 

For fundamentalists, raised where the bible is held up as the infallible word of god, reading about contradictions is always helpful, even if the source is in a somewhat beta version.  I don't agree that the SAB is that inacurate.  Yes, it has possibly some commentary that might be inacurate, but it also quickly and easily references many of the contradicitions.  Looking up apologist's arguments on each contradiction or brutality, and researching the evolution of these arguments: how they tend to lag just behind the moral tone of the times, will only reveal the non-"infallible"-ness of the bible.

 

 It isn't as if we are the ones hiding the truth.

 

 

In additional to the professionally trained seminarians, don't forget that many Christians spend years studying the Bible in their personal time.  I was only a Christian for six years, and in that time I got to know it quite well.  Let me be clear in saying that I don't like evangelicals.  I think they are scumbags who are peddlers of poison.  But I do respect my enemy's power.  I wish the commentator of the SAB would too.

 

You are giving them the power.  You are crediting them with tremendous arguments.  Really, where are these incredible arguments hidden?  I want to know.  I have searched for them my whole life and they have continued to evade me.  I was made to memorize the bible as a child and I had a great memory at the time.  Then I studied it for over a decade as an adult, searching for justification wherever I could find it and I even financially supported the apologist university outreach group called "Stand to Reason" for years.  I know that to have the task of defending the book as (1) scientifically accurate, (2) historically correct, and (3) ethically superior is a mindfuck.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I'm not giving these evangelical PhDs and ThDs respect just because of their doctorates.  So they have a doctorate in bullshit... so what?  The apologetics on almost all biblical cruelties are stupefying. Whether the SAB sucks or not has nothing to do with this.

Anyone looking into the Christian answers to biblical contradictions and ethical questions will soon notice that there aren't any non-delusional vantage points and, eventually, the excessive amount of excuses will overwhelm them.  They might actually turn to the SAB at that point, and I wouldn't guess that they would be driven back to the christian answers by the supposed incompetency of the SAB.

 

 

I think I may not have fully communicated my point to you.  Forgive me, I'll make another attempt.

 

The truth or falsehood of the subject material is immaterial here.  Technically people who get a PhD in Greek mythology are also studying what you might term "bullshit" in that it doesn't correspond to reality.  Believe it or not, there are evangelical seminaries out there that are rigorous (so obviously I'm excluding diploma mills from our discussion).  The only difference is that the PhD in mythology knows that what he's studying isn't real, and the evangelical theologian doesn't.  But as those of us who have earned PhDs can attest, the exercise requires a good deal of study, analytical thought, and synthesis.

 

I'll bottom line it for you, lest I bloviate.  An evangelical with a PhD knows the Bible very, very well.  He definitely knows it better than the guy who wrote the SAB commentary.  A professional evangelical theologian probably also knows how to defend a thesis very well, since that's how he earned his doctoral degree in the first place.  If one wants to take on these people, a similar degree of intellectual rigor is needed.  Sloppy arguments against Christianity simply embarass the person making the arguments, and reinforce the beliefs of Christians.  To someone who's struggling with trying to free himself of Christianity, this reinforcement is highly detrimental.

 

In additional to the professionally trained seminarians, don't forget that many Christians spend years studying the Bible in their personal time.  I was only a Christian for six years, and in that time I got to know it quite well.  Let me be clear in saying that I don't like evangelicals.  I think they are scumbags who are peddlers of poison.  But I do respect my enemy's power.  I wish the commentator of the SAB would too.

 

 

The SAB isn't for theologians.  It's for laypeople.  To that end it focuses on absurdity rather than academics.  And the idea that Abram became a sex stud some sixty years after he must have died of old age is absurd.  No amount of miraculous hand waving or blaming infertility entirely on women is going to make the story reasonable.  And if Lot had four daughters then a first grade teacher would have given that story an F.  It fails in writing composition despite being often presented by believers as a book that is so well written that only a God could have done it.

 

Even an average person can defeat the best theologian in the world if they are aware of the burden of proof and the existing evidence.  That is the kryptoninte to Christianity's house of cards.  You don't hear many sermons begin with how much we hope that Jesus was an ordinary guy who was insane because otherwise Jesus didn't exist at all.  Those theologians must rely on fallacies and lies to give the impression that Christianity has substance.  And they all know on some level how the Gravy Train will come to a screeching halt if the whole thing is a myth.  There isn't an ex-Christian market for Jesus comic books.