Your opinion on this site.

Irishchick

People in A&A are using this website with bible quotes,saying that the bible supports abortion and that God sometimes aborts young as punishment to parents.

Here is the link to the site:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Do you think it has been interpreted incorrectly?

Sarky

Is there a specific way to interpret, say, "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."

Benny_Cake

Irishchick wrote: »

People in A&A are using this website with bible quotes,saying that the bible supports abortion and that God sometimes aborts young as punishment to parents.

Here is the link to the site:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Do you think it has been interpreted incorrectly?

I've come across that before, truly remarkable to see an atheist taking an approach to the Bible that is so literal it would put the most rabid fundamentalist to shame! Really he is just grabbing at random passages without putting them in any context or making any effort to see what Christians believe or why.

doctoremma

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
This seems to say that a grown woman's life is more important than an unborn child's (as judged by the differential punishment).

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
Presumably, the measure of "one month old" is open to interpretation? Is a four week old fetus "one month old"? Or should it mean from birth?

Also, females are less valuable than males

There are some passages that definitely say that god kills unborn/very young children. However, it doesn't really say that god is OK with people choosing to kill unborn/very young children (without his say so).

Benny_Cake

Sarky wrote: »

Is there a specific way to interpret, say, "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."

Given that Judah was the ringleader of the brothers who sold Joseph into slavery, I think we can say he is hardly presented as being the model of virtue!

Sarky

Ok, and he said "let her [and her unborn child] be burnt" because he was a douchebag, or because it was the law?

looksee

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've come across that before, truly remarkable to see an atheist taking an approach to the Bible that is so literal it would put the most rabid fundamentalist to shame! Really he is just grabbing at random passages without putting them in any context or making any effort to see what Christians believe or why.

What kind of context would you suggest would make any of those passages ok?

neemish

Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose.

This is exactly why basing our morality solely on the Bible is a dangerous road to take. Each of the given statements must be taken within context. I'm not a Biblical scholar, so wouldn't be able to give accurate interpretations but just taking "Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts" from Hosea. This looks like someone calling a curse from God, some what like Job in his book. It doesn't appear to me that "God sometimes approves of killing fetuses" (from the website).

Benny_Cake

Sarky wrote: »

Ok, and he said "let her [and her unborn child] be burnt" because he was a douchebag, or because it was the law?

Yes, he was acting like a douche at that particular moment in time.

Benny_Cake

looksee wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've come across that before, truly remarkable to see an atheist taking an approach to the Bible that is so literal it would put the most rabid fundamentalist to shame! Really he is just grabbing at random passages without putting them in any context or making any effort to see what Christians believe or why.

What kind of context would you suggest would make any of those passages ok?

From the context of the passage quoted above, it clearly isn't approving of Judah's statement. It later emerges that the unborn child is actually Judah's, showing him to be a hypocrite. If something is described in a book it doesn't following that it is being endorsed. I read an autobiography of Pol Pot recently, but I didn't take it as an endorsement of the Cambodia genocide. I'm not sure what the guy behind that site is trying to prove to be honest, perhaps he is looking to provoke a reaction from the small fundamentalist fringe who believe every word of Scripture describes literal historical facts. Since I don't believe that I'm not going to defend that position.

neemish

Look, not everything in the Bible is pretty and nice and all love. We had a much quoted lecturer in uni - "the God of the Old Testament is an ANGRY God" (growl on the angry!).
In Old Testament culture, women were less valuable than men. It was (and is) the same in many cultures. I'm not saying its right, but its the way it is.
What we need here is an online Bible study course. It's all about the context.

Sarky

Being angry about your daughter in law seducing you in disguise is clearly no defence. And she was right to blackmail him, I suppose.

Of course, none of this would have happened if God hadn't gone and murdered her original husband-to-be. Interesting to note that Onan was murdered by God because he would rather not have had sex with his dead brother's fiancé.

neemish

When I looked up this passage on "AGAPE BIBLE STUDY", this chapter wasn't covered. However, Chap 37 is and the title for the lesson is "Jacob's dysfunctional family in the Land of Canaan" - this might be a good starting point for how we approach Chapter 38!

Doctor DooM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not sure what the guy behind that site is trying to prove to be honest, perhaps he is looking to provoke a reaction from the small fundamentalist fringe who believe every word of Scripture describes literal historical facts. Since I don't believe that I'm not going to defend that position.

I'd listen to a podcast where there are regular callers from religious fundamentalists from the South of the USA.

There seems to be rather a large amount of them who do indeed claim to be biblical literalists, and this is the basis for the near constant campaigning to destroy the science curriculum in schools there in the name of young earth creationism. I would assume sites like this pop up in reaction to that.

I think it's easy to dismiss these people as small finge crackpots when you're sitting here without them being very close to ruining your children's education!

Benny_Cake

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I'd listen to a podcast where there are regular callers from religious fundamentalists from the South of the USA.

There seems to be rather a large amount of them who do indeed claim to be biblical literalists, and this is the basis for the near constant campaigning to destroy the science curriculum in schools there in the name of young earth creationism. I would assume sites like this pop up in reaction to that.

I think it's easy to dismiss these people as small finge crackpots when you're sitting here without them being very close to ruining your children's education!

Trust me, I wouldn't want creationism (young earth or otherwise) taught in school either. I do think that sites like this are a rather clumsy response to that, and serve only to reinforce someone's existing stereotypes regarding religious believers. The books of Karen Armstrong (The History of God in particular) would be a far better source for someone with a genuine interest in Genesis and how it came about.

PDN

The site's misinterpretations of Scriptuire are, at times, truly mindboggling. But if anyone wants to discuss specific examples we already have an Atheist/Christian Debate Thread.

Sarky wrote:

Is there a specific way to interpret, say, "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."

One very specific way to interpret this passage in Genesis Chapter 38, and one that would be followed by anyone who was interested in genuinely understanding it rather than trolling or quote-mining, would be to read on and see what the following verses say.

Two verses later Judah is confronted with the evidence of his own moral failure and admits, "She is more righteous than I".

So, when read in context, it is a perceptive commentary on how women were often subjected to hypocritical expectations of purity by men who failed to apply similar standards to themselves.

The setting of this episode (smack bang in the middle of the story of Joseph) also sets up a deliberate contrast with Joseph's moral purity at the beginning of the next Chapter. Whereas Judah is revealed to be a rotten douchebag (and other brothers were even worse when we read Chapters 34 & 35) Joseph resists the seduction of a pwerful and beautiful woman, even at the cost of being sent to jail on a false allegation of attempted rape.

This in turn sets the stage for the reunion between Joseph and his brothers in Genesis 42:8. They fail to recognise him (because he has changed from the cocky young boy they knew) but he instantly recognises them (because they were the same sleazy scumbags who had sold him into slavery years before). So Judah's hypocrisy and moral failing also teaches a lesson about the need for believers to develop and grow.

And this, ultimately is the failing of sites such as the Skeptics Annotated Bible. It's not just that they are theologically and philosophically illiterate (a mirror image of Creationist websites that pretend to be scientific). Their real failing is that try to reduce complex and carefully crafted narratives into smartass sound bites.

philologos

When people resort to using the Skeptics Annotated Bible rather than their own thought in a discussion one starts to really question how willing people are to actually read and consider the Bible for themselves.

The quotes aren't even referring to abortion for a start. I wouldn't even call that a "literal" reading of the Bible. Whereas there are passages explicitly saying that God formed us in the womb, and while we were still in the womb God knew us.

J C

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Trust me, I wouldn't want creationism (young earth or otherwise) taught in school either.

... and neither would I ... many very important things (about how the World really works) aren't taught in schools ... so I don't see any reason why Creationism should be taught in schools either.:)
... indeed few teachers are qualified to teach Creation Science anyway.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And this, ultimately is the failing of sites such as the Skeptics Annotated Bible. It's not just that they are theologically and philosophically illiterate (a mirror image of Creationist websites that pretend to be scientific). Their real failing is that try to reduce complex and carefully crafted narratives into smartass sound bites.

A lot of it is irreverant and when there is a scope for a cheap shot it will make it. But, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I had a copy of some NIV version where every page had a explanation for what the scripture meant. In my opinion, they were going thru all sorts of hoops and mental gymnastics to make the unplausable plausable.

I would consider it healthy that there is a range of interpretation on the literature. Because it is literature it is not Science. So I would reject the comparison with Creationists.

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A lot of it is irreverant and when there is a scope for a cheap shot it will make it. But, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I had a copy of some NIV version where every page had a explanation for what the scripture meant. In my opinion, they were going thru all sorts of hoops and mental gymnastics to make the unplausable plausable.

I would consider it healthy that there is a range of interpretation on the literature. Because it is literature it is not Science. So I would reject the comparison with Creationists.

Creationists don't consider the Bible to be a scientific book. They do consider the Creation account and the Flood account to be historic events - with physical evidence of their occurrence, which therefore can be scientifically verified.