Skeptics Annotated Bible

The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a website that goes through the whole Bible with verse by verse annotations on why modern skeptics take issue with ideas in the text. The Bible will always be offensive to many, and many of the issues presented are very unfair to the text, but a resource like this in Logos would help pastors in post-Christian nations be aware of and address issues that their hearers are surely facing or thinking. For many Pastors this would be a very helpful resource (even if it was just as a PB).

Would anyone else be interested in this?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert M. Warren

I've seen this site a time or two over the years. There was a time when I would have said that it's such a dog's breakfast that no one would take it seriously. Now, I'm not so sure about that. Maybe there are now so many post-Christian, post-Modern millennials who have never been taught to read any literature in context, much less the Bible, and who haven't been taught critical thinking in their educational institutions that having this as an apologetics tool might be useful.

DMB

First, it's not a book. So, extra work. And the prepub would die a quick death, if I read Logosians correctly.

I like the idea of the ones on Mormonism, and the Quran. I'd suspect Ben would quickly demur, since one-liners are rarely accurate.

But, all 3 do note dissonances that folks raise their hands on, in Bible class, especially when pastors/teachers aren't in place to frown. It's not rocket science.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/928877#Comment_928877

Not sure I would even want it as a PB, looking through several psalms I was shocked to see how often things were labeled boring stuff. This has likely some value but from what i saw arguments are week and juvenile at best... with no explanation of the opinion beyond this is absurd or this is a contradiction.

-dan

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/928923#Comment_928923

Not sure I would even want it as a PB, looking through several psalms I was shocked to see how often things were labeled boring stuff. This has likely some value but from what i saw arguments are week and juvenile at best... with no explanation of the opinion beyond this is absurd or this is a contradiction.

-dan

At first I thought it might be worth a look but some of it is pretty weak. Commenting on Judes claim to be the brother of James their response was that he lied - with no supporting reason for the claim.

J. Remington Bowling

No point wasting time, resources, money, on the dregs of internet atheism. This stuff can be answered off the cuff with the most basic reading of apologetics (e.g., try here or here) Getting some atheist material into Logos might not be a bad idea (as part of the Noet or Philosophy packages). But let's make it serious/sophisticated stuff. We already have David Hume. Why not add Neitzsche, Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew, etc?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929084#Comment_929084

No point wasting time, resources, money, on the dregs of internet atheism. This stuff can be answered off the cuff with the most basic reading of apologetics ...

Now, Remington. Let's not portray the 2nd Temple jews, and even the early church fathers as complete idiots. People could read then, as also now. Their solutions at the time were pretty radical ... re-write the OT (jews) and re-write the NT (early church fathers).

I wouldn't recommend this particular site, but a resource cataloging the problems (historical/ modern) would be useful.

Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/928923#Comment_928923

To be sure, there's a lot of it that's unfair. Even ridiculous. But there's also interspersed, some thing's that I think would be good concerns for preachers to address, such as the differing order of creation in Genesis one versus Genesis two, or the question of the Justice of God in giving sinners over to more sin in Romans one.

J. Remington Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929229#Comment_929229

To be sure, there's a lot of it that's unfair. Even ridiculous. But there's also interspersed, some thing's that I think would be good concerns for preachers to address, such as the differing order of creation in Genesis one versus Genesis two, or the question of the Justice of God in giving sinners over to more sin in Romans one.

But one doesn't need *this* resource the raise/answer those questions. Your basic Bible commentary already raises and addresses these issues.

Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929240#Comment_929240

Your basic Bible commentary already raises and addresses these issues.

Well I don't know of another resource that is sourced from a large group of non-Christians, has really every thinkable problem a non-Christian might have with a Biblical text, and goes from Genesis to Revelation.

If I am in the dark here, and you know of one that's better than this, please do tell...

On the other hand, if this is about censorship, I don't think censorship is a productive policy for Christians to have in the Information Age. But that's a debate for another thread...

J. Remington Bowling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929316#Comment_929316

Your suggestion that this has something to do with censorship is bizarre given that the explicit reason given by myself and others is about the low quality of the work (& even moreso since I specifically mentioned atheists whose works if like to see in Logos). The fact that it’s “sourced from a large group of non-Christians” seems irrelevant if the level of quality isn’t worth the trouble of putting it in Logos, and given that there are already works available in Logos that answer those challenges which are common or worth addressing.

Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929326#Comment_929326

Hey J, my apologies. I missed the links in your previous comment. Hard Sayings does look like a good resource. I also own When Critics ask which is a good resource. However I still think this would have a use and a place in Logos for a few reasons:

The sheer volume of it. One would be hard pressed to find a paragraph of Biblical text without something touched on. The resources I mentioned above on the other-hand are lucky to have more than 5 or so articles per Bible book.
The fact that it is actually written by non-christians. Yes Logos has works of this kind already, but they're always written by Christians. As a Christian, I don't see as many hardships with the Bible. In a way I have some blinders to how a non-christian thinks. And I'd be willing to bet there is much that this resource touches on that are valid issues for a preacher to address for those in his congregation, which the others don't.
The fact that it's a Bible commentary. Many of the non-Christian resources within Logos probably don't have any Bible references in them. This may in fact be the only Bible commentary ever written by self pronounced skeptics. For that reason it has a value that is different from someone who argues from a merely philosophical angle, say Neitzsche, or Russell.

I'm sorry if the censorship comment was off-putting. It was just the only other reason I could see of someone rejecting something like this, and it's all too common here on the forums unfortunately.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929329#Comment_929329

I wouldn't characterize commentaries as a good source of dissonances, nor for their answers. Mainly the more obvious ones. Usually, the journals are necessary, for any limited discussion.

Over the years, I've collected one-liner textual issues by verse, and have maybe 5-6,000. I collected for cross-reference. Some Bible books are slow going, due to so many problems.

And watching pastors for decades, plus Bible college, my impression is pastors are really the least equipped for Liam's suggestion, presuming they're doing their job.

I really agree with the NT pastoral writer. If you can't explain the problem after 3 questions, call it a day.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929329#Comment_929329

This may in fact be the only Bible commentary ever written by self pronounced skeptics.

Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Volume One, The Old Testament and Aamov's Guide to the Bible: Volume Two, The New Testament was a very fine commentary by a skeptic.

-dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/929470#Comment_929470

I should note Asimov goal was more a literary analysis than a decrying on the text itself so in that effect it is not saying this or that didn't happen just speaking of verified facts from archaeology and given insight to the literary nature of the text, rereading the Cana wine story he never declares absurdity just accepts it as the facts of the story.

______________________________________________

Once back in Galilee, Jesus performs his first miracle-one which is found only in John. It takes place at a wedding festival:

John 2 :1 . ...there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

John 2:2. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

Cana, mentioned only in John, is close to Nazareth. It is usually identified with a site about four miles northeast, though some favora site some nine miles north of Nazareth. It is this town of which-Nathanael is a native.

Oddly enough, John's reference to "the mother of Jesus" is characteristic of him. Not only does he not refer to the virgin birth and make Jesus the son of Joseph without qualification, but he never names Mary. His is the only gospel in which Mary is not named; she is referred to only as "the mother of Jesus!'

Mary appears in the legends of Jesus' birth and childhood in Matthew and Luke. On one occasion she is mentioned by all three synoptic gospels. This is when she and other members of the family of Jesus try to see him when he is surrounded by his disciples, and Jesus turns them away. That is all.

In John, however, Mary plays a somewhat greater role; and, as is characteristic of John's new of things, she is aware of her son's role and of his ability to work miracles. She tells Jesus that the party is out of wine and instructs the servants to do whatever he tells them to do. Jesus then proceeds to turn water into wine (and, as the gospel carefully explains, into very good wine indeed).

_________________________________

So much milder than a skeptic picking apart every detail would be but according to wikipedia "Isaac Asimov was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. He did not oppose religious conviction in others, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs that tried to pass themselves off as genuine science. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, though not as stringently as they had in Petrovichi; they did not, however, force their beliefs upon young Isaac. Thus, he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Torah represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology. When he was 13 he chose not to have a bar mitzvah. As his books Treasury of Humor and Asimov Laughs Again record, Asimov was willing to tell jokes involving God, Satan, the Garden of Eden, Jerusalem, and other religious topics, expressing the viewpoint that a good joke can do more to provoke thought than hours of philosophical discussion.^"

-dan