Bad Biblical Criticisms

[Seasanctuary]

There are a lot of criticisms thrown at the Bible, of varying quality and stickiness. Today's challenge is to name and explain a Biblical criticism that you think shouldn't be used by skeptics.

Perhaps there's an Biblical contradiction that you not only think is possible to harmonize but that the non-contradictory reading is actually likely/legitimate/etc. Or perhaps there's a charge that's often made which carries no weight if a powerful deity is assummed. Think of this as an exercise on level with Young Earth Creationists admitting the Paluxy tracks thing wasn't such a great idea after all.

Cheers,
Seasanctuary

[C. D. Ward]

By far, the absolute worst, most stupid Biblical criticism I ever heard was "In the Bible, Pi is equal to 3, therefore the Bible is false."

:lolo:

[Seasanctuary]

By far, the absolute worst, most stupid Biblical criticism I ever heard was "In the Bible, Pi is equal to 3, therefore the Bible is false."

:lolo:
True. I was kind of hoping respondants to this thread would provide a link or two of examples of skeptics employing the criticism...then explain why it ought not be used. *cough nudgingly*

[C. D. Ward]

True. I was kind of hoping respondants to this thread would provide a link or two of examples of skeptics employing the criticism...then explain why it ought not be used. *cough nudgingly*Search TWeb for the user "Johnny Skeptic". Just about any of his posts should qualify...

As for "why it ought not to be used", it seems to me so utterly obvious that a clear case of imperfect construction or simple rounding (it could be either) isn't even close to a marginally good reason to toss out the entire Bible. It's the kind of objection that makes biblical skeptics look like idiots.

[Sacrificial Ram]

There are a lot of criticisms thrown at the Bible, of varying quality and stickiness. Today's challenge is to name and explain a Biblical criticism that you think shouldn't be used by skeptics.

Perhaps there's an Biblical contradiction that you not only think is possible to harmonize but that the non-contradictory reading is actually likely/legitimate/etc. Or perhaps there's a charge that's often made which carries no weight if a powerful deity is assummed. Think of this as an exercise on level with Young Earth Creationists admitting the Paluxy tracks thing wasn't such a great idea after all.

Cheers,
Seasanctuary
One that irks me is the 'bats are birds and insects have 4 legs' arguments.
So, they weren't using the same view of science we had.. .. There are certainly enough problems that can be addressed without manufacturing things.

[Didaktylos]

"The Bible says rape is ok if the girl is unmarried and the rapist offers to marry her afterwards".

It's my considered opinion that this provision was intended to make it possible for a young couple who wished to marry to find a way around a paternal veto.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Oh, I got one, I GOT ONE!

See this thread:
http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5825&st=0

Of course, now I've let on to my other hang out. :blush:

Christians are not allowed to post in this area.

NO POST FOR YOU!

[MikeWC]

Well, a lot of people say that the OT God is wrathful while the NT God is loving and forgiving. Not entirely true; there's tons of forgiveness in the OT, and lots of wrath in the NT. ie Ananias and Saphira, and especially Revelation.

[sylas]

Search TWeb for the user "Johnny Skeptic". Just about any of his posts should qualify...

As for "why it ought not to be used", it seems to me so utterly obvious that a clear case of imperfect construction or simple rounding (it could be either) isn't even close to a marginally good reason to toss out the entire Bible. It's the kind of objection that makes biblical skeptics look like idiots.

Even so.... and it is worse than that. If you look at the passage in question, you can see that the diameter of 10 cubits is for a different and larger circle than the circumference of 30 cubits. The diameter is measured across the top of an ornametal vessel, which is explicitly described as having a lip folding out like flower petals; and the circumference is around the trunk, below the lip.

That is, it is actually quite sensible to think that the construction was effectively perfect, and the measurements precisely as given.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Timothy Leary]

There's one used about a verse that - in the KJV - says that God couldn't defeat an army of iron chariots, which is completely mistranslated. It's somewhere in numbers.

There is also the issue of the dating of the nebuchadnezzar's seige of jerusalem, where it lists 2 different dates. they disregard that a seige could easily take more than one day.

There are also verses that they use to say that there will always be priests @ the temple and kings on the throne, but ignore that the verse actually says that there will be priests and kings who *can* do such. I.e. the lineage will not die out.
Yup, he is not an atheist, same for the two below posts as well.

[Seasanctuary]

I didn't realize you were an Atheist, Karaite. :wink:

[Timothy Leary]

I'm not. Was i not supposed to post here? (If so, i apologize!)

[Timothy Leary]

Oy Vey, my apologies! I thought I was in the Apologetics section! (tabbed browsing gets to you sometimes)

[Archimedes]

I think it's embarrassing when atheists try to portray Christianity as a violent and warlike religion based on New Testament quotes. Jesus may have had a bad temper, but I don't see any credible passages in NT that would condone Christians using violence to advance their goals. For example, Luke 19:27:
]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
This is part of a parable where Jesus compares himself to the King, which is often pointed out by the atheists, but it's also obvious from the parable that the King does not order anyone to be slayed before he is back. The parable is specificly about the kingdom of God and is not a justification for violence by Christians now.

Then there is Matthew 10:34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
which is about the strife that people converting to Christianity will bring, but we're talking about families here, so it's reasonable to assume that the "sword" is a metaphor (that's also used elsewhere in NT) of the ridicule and isolation that CHristians have to endure and not a call to arms.

EDIT: I'm an atheist, honestly. Don't delete this post.

[John Powell]

SEASANCTUARY:
There are a lot of criticisms thrown at the Bible, of varying quality and stickiness. Today's challenge is to name and explain a Biblical criticism that you think shouldn't be used by skeptics.


POWELL:
Perhaps the examples that have been given (pi = 3, bats are birds, insects walk on four legs, Jesus supports assasination, Jesus supports bloodshed) shouldn't be used since there are better examples of Biblical errancy. However, I think they are still examples of errors that shouldn't be there if the Bible were the inerrant word of an omnibeing.

SEASANCTUARY:
Perhaps there's an Biblical contradiction that you not only think is possible to harmonize but that the non-contradictory reading is actually likely/legitimate/etc. Or perhaps there's a charge that's often made which carries no weight if a powerful deity is assummed. Think of this as an exercise on level with Young Earth Creationists admitting the Paluxy tracks thing wasn't such a great idea after all.

Cheers,
Seasanctuary


POWELL:
Ok, my examples? Here are two examples from Genesis 1 that are seldom if ever used and shouldn't be.

1. Arguing that Genesis 1 has Heaven and Earth created twice or has two heavens and two earths created. What's more likely is that v. 1 is not part of the narrative, but is an introduction to the narrative. Light is created on day 1. Heaven is created once on day 2. The Earth is created once on day 3.

2. Arguing that Gen 1 is wrong because it has evening + morning being equal to a 24-hour day. What is more likely is the writer meant to say that the evening (late afternoon) after God finished working for the day + the morning before God started working for the day + the part of the day that God worked, counts as a whole 12-hour day. The night was probably ignored in this calculation.

John Powell