Pathfinders

It may seem silly to provide a response to the FAQ; I originally thought so but I figured I should look over as much as possible of the SAB and found that there were interesting portions of it where least one would expect them. The SAB FAQ, I think, shows a glimpse of the SAB at its best.



Q: Is The SAB available in book form?

A: Not yet, but I hope it will be someday. When it is available in print, I'll announce it on the SAB homepage.

Response: Sounds like a good idea to me. I would think that there would be a market for it beyond the reaches of the Internet. The problem I would have with it is if it were made for profit. Thousands of so called Christians have peddled their wares making fortunes off of the dumbing down of Christianity. The Left Behind series being the most obvious. The atheists have their own peddlers as well. If it were non profit, the price only covering the costs of production and publishing I would buy it. I also wouldn't produce a response to it in book form unless those were the conditions.



Q: Is the SAB available in a form I can access from my hard drive?

A: Yes, it is now available in CD-ROM.

The CD-ROM version may be of interest to those who don't have access to the internet or would like to limit their time online. In addition, depending on the speed of your internet connection and your CD reader, you may find that some of the files load faster with the CD-version.

The SAB CD-ROM may be ordered here.

Response: My response to this is pretty much the same as above with the book form. The CD costs $15.00 which seems fair with the cost of the CD itself, as well as the cost of the website. Even with donations I would be surprised if anyone is making a profit from the hard work involved in the making of the SAB. That price includes postage and handling from the U.S., Canada and Mexico. A $5.00 charge for shipping outside of those countries and possible larger sum for larger orders.



Q: Why do you use the King James Version?

A: For three reasons:

1. There are no copyright restrictions on the KJV.

2. It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only "authentic" version.

3. It has not been subjected to cosmetic editing, as have some of the more modern versions.

Most of the Bible's problems, though, are unrelated to the particular version that is read. Still, it is a good idea to compare the various versions, and to help with this I have provided links to some of the more common ones.

Response: I have no problem with using the KJV, though it is, in my opinion, the worst translation available. The first two reasons are good ones for using the KJV and it is also good that the importance of comparing various versions and translations is pointed out here, with links. Bible links will also be supplied on The Pathway Machine Links page.

I do disagree somewhat with the third reason. The KJV has had a considerable amount of editing throughout its history. The original 1611 Bible contained portions of William Shakespeare within the text, among other problems. I also see no problem with "cosmetic editing" of other more modern versions any more than I would the necessary editing that websites such as this one and the SAB would need.



Q: What do you have against sex, anyway? Sex is an important part of human life, so why shouldn't the Bible contain passages dealing with it?

A: I have nothing against sex. It is included as a highlighted category for the following reasons:

1. Bible-believers often complain about sex in library books, television, movies, and art museums. These complaints, when successful, result in censorship. Christians should realize, however, that if any book is removed from the library because of its sexual content, then the Bible should also be removed from the library because of its sexual content, then the Bible should also be removed.

2. I do object, though, to the Bible's sexual ethics. For example, in Genesis 19 Lot (who is called just and righteous in 2 Peter 2:7-8) gets drunk and impregnates his two virgin daughters. There is no indication that God disapproved of Lot's behavior.

3. Some of the material in the Bible is filthy by any standard. Yet Ezekiel 23:20 is part of the "pure word of God." (Psalm 12:6; 119:140 / Proverbs 30:5)

Response: I agree completely with the first response. Couldn't have said it better myself and would only add that nowhere in the Bible did Jehovah God or Jesus Christ appoint Christians as the moral police of the world.

I disagree with any objection being made in the second response pretty much for the same reason as I agreed with the first. The Bible is an unusually candid and honest work about its subjects for good reason. One may object to what happened in the case of Lot but it did happen. God didn't show any disapproval of it because he probably understood the circumstances. Lot's daughters had just seen a great deal of destruction and thought that they, along with their father, were the only ones left alive on the entire earth.

On the third point, Ezekiel 23:20 refers to Oholibah as an allegory to Jerusalem's unfaithfulness. The name itself means "My tent [of worship] is in her" in reference to Jehovah's sanctuary in Jerusalem. Oholibah's sister was Oholah, an allegory to Samaria who suffered a similar punishment earlier.



Q: History is filled with violence and the Bible is, at least in part, a history book. So why shouldn't it contain violence?

A: It's not the violence per se that bothers me; it is the biblical god's role in the violent acts. The god of the Bible ordered Saul to kill "both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" in 1 Samuel 15:3. And the Bible contains hundreds of other cruel acts of God, any of which, if true, would be enough for me to reject the Bible and its vicious God.

I do object, though, to the pointless violence in the Bible, even when God doesn't seem to be directly involved. Judges 19, for example, is one of the most disgusting stories in all literature. If God was trying to communicate something in this chapter, I think I'd rather not know what it was.

Response: The Amalekites, mentioned at 1 Samuel 15:3 were a group of nomadic marauders. When Israel left Egypt the Amalekites were centered around the Negeb desert south of Palestine with camps reaching over a great distance into the Sinai peninsula and northern Arabia. They lived by plundering their neighbors.

The Israelites first meet up with them at Rephidim, near Mount Sinai. They made an unprovoked attack upon Israel. Jehovah was with the Israelites and they prevailed. (Exodus 17:8-13 / Deuteronomy 25:17, 18)

Due to the fact that God knows the intention of the Amalekites in opposition to his purpose of setting up a nation which would produce the Messiah, he determined they should be destroyed as a nation. (Exodus 17:14-16 / Deuteronomy 25:17-18)

What sort of an effect God could foresee these marauders having upon his people can be seen by the encounter with them at Kadesh. (Numbers 13:29; 14:25, 39-45) They caused the Israelites to rebel against Moses and prevented them from entering the promised land. They were, from God's perspective, a threat to the future of mankind and God's own purpose that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever in peace upon it.

Judges 19 tells of the faithless people of Gibeah who ravaged a woman to death. When this vile act was condoned by the people there it spread out through the tribe of Benjamin, who failed to do as the other tribes demanded, not putting the perpetrators of the crime to death.

In the end, the faithful who stood up for this injustice prevailed and the nation was purged of such vile acts.



Q: Most Christians are not fundamentalists. Why do you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible?

A: I don't insist on a literal interpretation, but only that all of the Bible be taken seriously and that none of it be ignored. It seems to me that most non-fundamentalists Christians don't really believe in the Bible; they only pretend to do so. Some don't even pretend -- yet all claim to base their beliefs upon it. This seems dishonest to me.

There is no figurative way of interpreting Leviticus 20:13 or Exodus 22:18, for example. You either think it's a good idea to kill homosexuals and witches or you don't. If you don't, then say so -- and then be honest enough to admit that the Bible is neither a good moral guide nor the inspired word of God.

Response: This is really a far more interesting statement than it might appear at first glance. At least to me it is. The first portion of it is absolutely true. To the average Christian the Bible isn't really relevant. It is more of an icon to them. It is the function of modern day Xianity to judge for themselves what is good and bad, with the Bible being nothing more than an afterthought. They don't seem to have grasped the similarities in their thinking with that of Adam and Eve who decided they would judge for themselves what was good and what was bad over what God thought.

The only real difference between a believer and an unbeliever in this regard is just what it implies. One believes and the other doesn't. Neither one searches out the true meaning behind what the Bible says, they just believe or don't believe. The effect of this is that both groups form an opinion without looking very deep. This is why Xians often object to skeptics, claiming that they insist upon a literal interpretation and skeptics often object to Xians as "cherry picking."

So what do I believe regarding Leviticus 20:13 and Exodus 22:18? I believe that Jehovah God created us and that was without doubt to the people of Israel when the law was established, and accepted. God, the lawgiver of those people had good reason to give it. What I think is good or bad is of no import. I also believe that that law ended with the arrival of the Messiah, Christ Jesus. (Jeremiah 31:31-34 / Hebrews 8:6-13) So the killing of homosexuals and witches is no longer approved of by God under law as it was in Israel before Christ.



Q: Since you are a skeptic and don't believe in the Bible, why have you spent so much time creating the SAB?

Because so many people believe it to be the Word of God -- most of whom have never read it and are not familiar with its contents. I'd like people to look carefully at the Bible and decide if it is worthy of their belief. That's all. When, if ever, people stop believing in the Bible, I'll take my site down.

Response: Not only that, but is it not as dishonest to take a position of disbelief without careful examination as it is belief? The effort is an admirable one. The objective of a true Christian is to set before anyone who will listen, the possibility of eternal life through Christ Jesus. Most will reject it. Even if one does believe in the Bible this doesn't necessarily imply that they wish to adhere to or endorse it, or accept the promises therein.



Q: What training do you have?

A: I am often told by believers (and even sometimes by skeptics), most of whom have never read the Bible, that only those who know Hebrew and Greek, have studied hermeneutics, exegesis, linguistics, etc. are qualified to discuss the Bible. Since I am not an expert in any of these fields, they tell me I have no right to criticize the Bible.

It reminds me of Hans Christian Anderson's wonderful story, The Emperor's New Clothes, where only the "stupid and incompetent" failed to admire the emperor's new, but nonexistent, clothes.

But it was obvious to a child who "could only see things as his eyes showed them to him" that the emperor had no clothes. Similarly, it is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read the Bible that, whatever else it might be, it is not a book that was inspired by a good, just, loving, and all-knowing god.

Still, I am not completely uneducated. I have a B.S. in Botany and a more than 50 semester hours of graduate credit in Chemistry and Mathematics, with 20 years of experience as an industrial statistician. And although I am not a Bible scholar, I have spent many years studying the Bible, and I rely on and cite the work of scholars, updating the SAB with the most recent and best information available.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying (nor have I ever said) that education is not required to see the flaws of the Bible. Education is absolutely crucial. The more, better, and broader the education, the more apparent it will be that the Bible was not inspired by a kind, loving, omniscient God. What is obvious to a little child should be even more obvious to an well-educated adult.

Response: I agree with the sentiment but, of course, not the result. In other words educate yourself using all of the tools available to you. The work of scholars is a great help but even they can be biased to unscriptural traditions. The final decision will not necessarily be belief, or disbelief, but it will be an educated one. (John 17:3 / Acts 17:11)



Q: Why should I believe what you say about the Bible?

You shouldn't. Read it yourself and decide for yourself what you think about the Bible. That is the whole point of the SAB.

Response: Well said.



Q: You say that the Bible is not inerrant. What do you mean by that? How do you define inerrant?

A: How do I define inerrant? Well, I'd say something is inerrant if it has no errors.

I should tell you, though, that I don't believe there are any inerrant books, although many come very close. My old Physical Chemistry book, for example. Written by Peter Atkins and published in 1982, that book and I spent a lot of time together when I was taking P-Chem. And though I loved the book and I know of no errors in it, I don't think it's inerrant. I'll bet there are a few spelling or grammar errors and maybe a typo or two. And in its 1000+ pages there is probably an important mistake in an equation somewhere - maybe an exponent left off, or something. And since it's been 20 years, it could probably use some revising to get it caught up with recent advances in Chemistry. And, of course, as with any book, there are probably some errors in structure, presentation, and style.

But if you want to call Atkins' book inerrant, well I won't argue about it. And I promise not to start up a Skeptic's Annotated P-Chem site or anything. But if I did, I wouldn't have anything to highlight and nothing to say. Atkins need not worry about my snide remarks.

There are a lot of books that come close to inerrancy, but the Bible is not one of them. And its errors are not confined to missing exponents and poor choice of words. Of all the books that I know of, the Bible is the most errant. It is by far the worst book I've ever read (with the possible exceptions of the Quran and the Book of Mormon). I know of no other book, for example, that commands you to kill homosexuals, Sabbath breakers, nonbelievers, rape victims who don't cry out loud enough, relatives if they believe differently than you, etc. These are serious errors; they should be taken seriously, especially since two billion people believe the Bible to be the inerrant word God.

Response: It is pretty obvious isn't it. To be inerrant means not having errors. There are errors so it isn't inerrant. What you are talking about is the Bible though, not the Word of God. The Word of God is inerrant, the Bible is not inerrant. The writing was inspired but the copying wasn't, which is why I can demonstrate most of the alleged errors to be misunderstandings on the part of skeptics and the few errors made by copyists can be demonstrated as such by a comparison of manuscripts.

Copyist errors can and has been tested with the Bible - not the Word of God - The Bible itself passing with flying colors.

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix give the results of this study in A General Introduction to the Bible: "Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light,' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. . . . Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission-and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage."

You, on the other hand, are judging the morality of an ancient people and arriving at the conclusion that the Bible is errant based upon that?



Q: Why do you highlight the nitpicky stuff? The Bible has plenty of serious problems out. By including the marginal verses you make it easy for believers to discredit the site.

Yes, this is a problem. No one doubts, for example, that 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Ezekiel 23:20, and Leviticus 19:18 are cruel, filthy, and good, respectively. But many other passages are not nearly so clear. Some think they are important and should be included; others think they are trivial and should be left out.

Although I would like make the site as comprehensive as possible, I can't include everything. So I try to apply the O'Connor test when deciding what to include or leave out. How would an "objective observer" view the passage? Would she view it as cruel, absurd, intolerant, or good? If so, then I mark it accordingly. If not, I leave it out. (And when in doubt, I leave it out.)

Response: I would be counted as those who think they are important. It doesn't matter whether the objective observer finds them cruel, absurd, intolerant or good because it doesn't matter if they were at the time of their inclusion. They were included nevertheless.



Q: Do you allow believers to present opposing views?

A: Yes, whenever possible I provide links to responses from apologists, and two Christian apologists are currently responding to the SAB notes. Links, when available, can be found at the bottom of chapter and contradiction pages. The same opportunity will be provided for the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

There is also a discussion board where both believers and skeptics can discuss the Bible and suggest changes to the SAB.

Response: For which I am personally grateful.


Main

Navigation

Subcategories

Bibles