Talk:The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is supported by WikiProject Biblical Criticism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Biblical criticism. Please participate by editing the article The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. All content added to Wikipedia may have to be edited mercilessly to be included in the encyclopedia. By submitting any content, you agree to release it for free use under the GNU FDL. 1
Wikipedia articles are not:
Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. --Jack Lose 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC) This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
- Inline links as references for quoted material are not link farming. The policy you quote is not applicable here as it is in reference to long lists of external links as endmatter and not those within and directly supporting an article. Vsmith 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Check "Jack's" edit history. Then take a look at this. - WarriorScribe 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A fair point, of course...when it hasn't been abused. ;) - WarriorScribe 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] converting refrences...
Can someone who knows about useing the "ref" tag and the citation templates convert the expernal links into "refrences"? It would look nicer and it would be the more correct way to do it... yeah yeah someone's gonna tell me {{gofixit}}... but I don't realy know how to apply those templates or the "ref" tag. Thanks! ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could use tweaking
"This is because the site's primary intent is not to better understand the meaning and history of the Bible, but to criticize the reliance (particularly by Biblical literalists) on Biblical moral and empirical statements which contradict modern humanistic ethics or scientific facts."
This is POV. He states the literal meaning of Biblical passages as written in its current translation. Compare this to those Christians who pick and choose which passages to take literally and which passages to view as allegory or view as being somehow reliant on the time period in which it was written... No, I don't think it's fair at all to say that he is not trying to better understand the meaning of the Bible. In my view, his annotation is the most accurate I've ever seen. So, I'm removing that bit because it's very clearly POV. It's saying that his literally truthful interpretation is somehow inferior to Christians' subjective/allegoric interpretation.
- There's nothing wrong with POV, provided it's somebody other than the wikipedia editor's POV, it's cited, and its notable, and the person being cited is notable for that particular area of knowledge. So far as I can tell, none of that applies, so I've put up a citation requestion, and if it doesn't appear soon, it's oh-so-gone. ;-)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also I think that the whole eisegesis/exegesis/apologist fixation needs to be toned down. You don't need to be trained in exegesis or apologism in order to respond to something at face value. Many people take the Bible at face value, and VERY few Christians bother to examine the historical context of every single ethical teaching in the Bible, so I think it's pretty unfair to stress over and over that he hasn't taken into account the history of the Bible. So what? The vast majority of Christians haven't, either. For the most part, they don't acknowledge non-canonical texts, they gloss over edits and changes and additions to the Bible, they ignore misleading translations, etc. I'm not going to rewrite this section (yet) because I'm not quite sure how to do it fairly; obviously, the exegesis argument CAN be made because it seems as though other people are using it, but I believe the article repeats their fallacious argument too frequently and doesn't offer a coherent rebuttal. --Lode Runner
[edit] Good work all
Haven't been by in almost a year- and I am delighted at how the article looks. Sethie 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy and criticism revision explained
When properly parsed, the second sentence of this section conveys the following information: "Christian fundamentalists insist some Bible scholars believe education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages are required to do Bible exegesis." More accurately, Christian fundamentalists themselves maintain this belief, and are not making this claim in proxy for Bible scholars. Hence my excision of the unnecessary words "insist some Bible scholars." Chasuk 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
This is an excellent website and I agree with everything it says, however it doesn't satisfy notability (WP:WEB) in my opinion, unless there are multiple reliable sources talking about the site in a non-trivial manner which I dont see. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree and have added notability tag. Three of four references are to the site itself, so it should certainly be deleted if nothing else can be provided soon. Richard001 (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- SAB is referenced a lot by Christian media. It's not hard to find those references. First and foremost is Gastrich's own response. There are many bloggers and Christian groups who talk about it, mostly in order to refute it. There used to be a virulent edit war in this article with many of those refutations of the SAB, but now those refutations are considered link spam. I do not know how to highlight the notability of the SAB amongst Christian apologetics without again running afoul of the accusation of link farming. Swap (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fundamentalist Response?
Is calling all those who criticise the Skeptic's annotated Bible a fundamentalist accurate or neutral? My understanding is that not all Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible are fundamentalists as fundamentalism is a bit more specific (see the Wikipedia articleWikipedia article). Moreover many liberal Christians may disagree with some of the annotations and criticisms on the SAB. The claim that it isn't considered scholarly could even be made by an atheist (would an atheist theologian happily use it as a reference in a paper?)Often the word fundamentalist is used to mean someone who isn't open minded and therefore I wonder if whoever wrote this article is trying to imply that anyone who doesn't think that the SAB is amazing can't be open minded etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.225.206 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it works for neutrality, but perhaps not accuracy, although I do not know. As one of the people who actively responds to the SAB, I suppose I could be called a fundamentalist (with a lowercase f, "Fundamentalism" is indeed more specific), but while I have on a couple occasions responded to note in the Skeptic's Annotated Quran, I am not a Muslim. I guess the question is whether all who respond are fundamentalists, or Christians, for that matter. BBrucker2 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I've removed the uncited parts (tagged since Dec 2007), as well as the adverts and the big section of quotation fluff, which did nothing to establish notability and just presents as more self-important than warranted. --Faith (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
