Talk:The Skeptic's Annotated Bible/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Gastrich and his lies about Harvestdancer

Harvestdancer has a vendetta against Jason Gastrich, so he'll likely continue to remove his name from this entry. However, the contrib by Duncharris accurately cites Gastrich's rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and it should be kept. Will take this to admins if more vandalism occurs.--Bobby Lou 00:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Gastrich, it's amazing how you sashay into a community and start deciding what the rules are and are not. Not to mention your little campaign to get your name into the Wikipedia for the purpose of self-promotion is seriously pathetic. Keep it up and I'm betting you'll get yourself bounced out of here. Mark K. Bilbo 00:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Is vandetta a new buzz word. I got one on my user:talk page too? By the way what is a vandatta? Is it like a moped? David D. (Talk) 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Gastrich, I mean Bobby Lou, I mean Gastrich, answer this. Should we include a mention of EVERY attempted rebuttal of the SAB? If yes, how should we prioritize them? If no, why should yours be listed? I'll tell the admins if you continue to vandalize this page by the mention of your irrelevant book! Harvestdancer 17:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Gastrich, you should know, I'm a very religious person. Religion, all religions, mean a lot to me. The only "vandetta" I have is against religious frauds.Harvestdancer 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Authors

Is there any way to identify the author of an article? I have reasons to suspect that this article exists merely to advertise a product linked within it, hence violating the Wikipedia dictum: "do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a PRODUCT, or a business. "Chasuk 03:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be I. At the time, I felt that a contemporary resource would be a useful addition to Category:Biblical_criticism. Also, this resource is freely and completely downloadable. In any case, I have no affiliation to this website.
Days later, I'm pleased that other wikipedians have added "opposing views" information to it. For example, someone identified the annotator. Duncharris, though, was the one who cited a book and its ISBN.
The article is still a stub, so I invite you to expand it. On the other hand, we could take it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you think the article should go. --Perfecto 03:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
While anyone is more than welcome to put this article on VfD, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is quite notable and is very well-known. I'm fairly certain it would be kept. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some info added to the article about it's notability. I'd hate to nominate it for deletion, only to have those facts come out there. I'd rather avoid the hassle. --DanielCD 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Spam

Bobby Lou has reverted my deletion of a spam link with another link to what I consider to still be a spam web site.

Even if the above site did not contain spam why would we need to examples of two web sites that rebutt the SAB. Isn't the one below more than enough? We don't want this to end up be a mass of apologetic links.

I'm going to go ahead and delete it if opthers agree it is spam. David D. (Talk) 06:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It does seem "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" site is merely meant to sell something rather than inform. There are tons of apologetics pages out there to send the reader to that don't require a purchase if people feel there need to be rebuttal links included. I know if I come to the Wikipedia looking for information, I resent being sent to a site that wants cash. Mark K. Bilbo 14:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I read the page at the Holding link and it doesn't even make sense, let alone add anything to the article. No information there at all. I'm 100% for removing it. --DanielCD 21:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich stuff

I removed this stuff because I did some searching and this guy is not a recognized biblical scholar. I can find no research or other serious work in the realm of bible scholarship or history by him. The work he wrote and it linked here is a very minor work. It has not been peer reviewed by other scholars. The only copies I could find were plastic comb-bound. I firmly believe that this stuff adds nothing to the article. It is simply someone trying to sneak a word in sideways. To put it back, I expect someone to tell how this person is recognized as an authority by the community at large, and why this minor work deserves mention.

Anyone can write a book and have it comb-bound. It's not important enough for an encyclopedia article. --DanielCD 21:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you're not me, and you're not anonymous, I will simply say that it's good that this has happened. Be prepared, this is going to turn into a revert war between most of Wikipedia and the 8 sock puppets of Gastrich. Harvestdancer 22:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I am confindent that all 8 socks will agree that these edits were quite objective. However, I would be happy to hear their arguments as to why the deleted information is:
  • 1) not SPAM,
  • 2) why it is more informative than the apologetic resource that is currently cited as an example of a rebuttal to SAB?
Any coherent and well supported arguments would go a long way to making the community reconsider their objections, assuming the 8 socks do object.
Didn' t the Hydra at the gate of Hades have eight heads? David D. (Talk) 22:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If the current cited resource you mean is the Holding link, I voiced my opinion on that in the above section. I definitely think there should be criticisms, but they should come from a reputable source. Are there any out there? Perhaps some research is entailed; perhaps the article is not really complete without some reponse. But come on, we can come up with better stuff than this. The thing is, I think most people who take the Bible seriously aren't concerned with trivial stuff like this.
I wasn't aware the actual Gastrich was watching, but if he is interested in improving the article with some legitimate criticisms from reputable sources, he should do some research and find them. They would be welcome. There must be some scholar or well-known person who has voiced criticism. Has Billy Graham said anything about it? He might be an authority whose opinion would be worth including. Still, seeing that Gastrich has written this book, he's going to have to change the mindset of self promotion to be objective. --DanielCD 22:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Bobby Lou is Gastrich, one of quite a few sock pupets he uses. I did not notice your Holding comments above. I do not know of any scholarly rebutal for the SAB. i think you may be right that serious scholars see it, but ignore it. David D. (Talk) 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting My Entire Contribution

Daniel,

I have several problems with you reverting my entire contribution. First, I alphabetized the tags and I cannot fathom why you'd revert that. I also see value in mentioning the rebuttals and some things about them.

Based on your past, public antics, I anticipated your revert, so this issue has been brought to an administrator. I don't anticipate your understanding. Forgive me if I assume too much.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

  • I'm not sure what that link is to, but I don't see anything there that has anything to do with me. Did you misspell something? Also: I'd be happy to discuss this openly and frankly with any administrator.
  • Why can't you defend your contribution here and now? Rest assured, an admin will visit, but you'll need to tell him/her your reasons for reverting. You might as well state them. BTW, that link above is to your usenet posting history. --Jason Gastrich 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Also: what does alphabetizing the tags have to do with anything? --DanielCD 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a peculiar question. I spent time to improve the entry. I know you just want to silence me and oppose Christianity, but certainly even you can see the value of alphabetizing.--Jason Gastrich 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
  • Please stop moving the new entry to the top of the page.
I don't use usenet and have NEVER used usenet. Mr. Gastrich, It's not me who has anything to defend. I've already said my piece. You keep saying irrelevant garbage that doesn't answer any of the criticisms. You don't seem to even know what you are talking about. I never said anything whatsoever about silencing Christianity. Saying things like this is not going to endear you to the community any quicker. --DanielCD 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're not the daycd@hotmail.com (who goes by DanielCD) on Usenet, who seems to have the same interests and posting history as you, then it's a huge coincidence. Be that as it may, you should defend your revert. My intentions are obvious. I wanted to provide rebuttal information and improve the entry. What were your reasons for the revert? I purposely avoided commercial links to my works. I didn't even write their names, so it certainly doesn't qualify as spam. In fact, you removed my name when an admin first added it.
  • Disagree. It qualifies as spam. Further, it smacks of vanity and original research. Even without links. And why on earth are you so convinced these two users are the same person? Got evidence? Mark K. Bilbo 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems highly coincidental that daycd@hotmail.com (Daniel) and you are buddies on Usenet, then you and someone named DanielCD are here, too. I just posted the link to show that daycd@hotmail.com generally opposes all that I say and do; namely because I threw him off the JCSM Forum. Everyone already knows that you oppose all I say and do; namely because I posted your atheist/agnostic list online and encouraged people to pray for those unbelievers. Therefore, what you two think on this matter should matter very little to the admin who decides the fate of the rebuttal paragraph. You have no objectivity in the matter.--Jason Gastrich 02:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
  • Gastrich, that's down right paranoid of you. No, I don't know DanielCD. You have him confused with someone else. This has nothing to do with you swiping things off my site. And you still don't "get it" at all how this place works. No admin is going to swoop in and spank people you just happen to be mad at. You, like everybody else, have to justify your edits here. Sorry but that's the way it works. Mark K. Bilbo 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My contribution was informative and relevant. If you avoid defending or explaining your revert, it won't endear you to the community any quicker. Furthermore, by not wanting the tags to be alphabetized or pertinent, rebuttal information to be revealed, you're thumbing your nose at the community.--Jason Gastrich 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Yawn. Rebuttle...hmm let's see. I refer you to Jason Gastrich stuff above where it's all spelled out. Whatever this "alphabetized" stuff is, I don't even know what your talking about; I've never said a word about it. I don't see anything else here that needs response. I'll acknowledge future comments, but won't respond to them unless thay have some substance. --DanielCD 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yikes. You don't know what alphabetized is? Well, in case you didn't notice, I made several improvements to the SAB entry. One improvement is that I alphabetized Wells' "tags" that are listed. You reverted them and now they're not alphabetized.
I'll respond to the paragraph you wrote above.
  • I removed this stuff because I did some searching and this guy is not a recognized biblical scholar.
What qualifies one as a "recognized Bible scholar"?
  • I think we have to admit that the criteria is fairly subjective, but if we try to make it as objective as possible, we might consider that a "recognized Bible scholar," as opposed to a self-declared Bible scholar, is one who has attained a significant level of education and experience in the Bible and those issues and subjects related to the Bible, such as associated history, languages, and cultures, and the scholar applies these aspects to his or her examination of the Bible with as little bias and subjectivity as possible. He or she almost certainly possesses an advanced educational credential on the subject--a master's or a Ph.D.--from a recognized, accredited institution that encourages critical thinking, not one that hands out advanced degrees for towing the party line. He or she has some respect in the academic and intellectual communities, he or she has been published and peer-reviewed, and he or she is considered an expert in the field by a reasonable portion of the academic and intellectual world. - WarriorScribe 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can find no research or other serious work in the realm of bible scholarship or history by him.

Can you find other works by Steve Wells? Is he a Bible scholar? *chuckle* I've actually written a number of articles that you can read biblelessons.jcsm.org here and devos.jcsm.org here; not to mention ada.jcsm.org here.
  • You own that site and can post anything you want. That hardly qualifies you as a scholar of any kind. Mark K. Bilbo 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, it's a bit disingenuous to refer a site that one owns and tightly controls and at which anything that one writes may be posted, and then pretend that this is qualifying as Biblical "scholarship." I think the jury has been in on this one for a long time, and the "scholarship" at JCSM, that is, what little at the site is actually put together and written by Gastrich (most of the material at JCSM comes from other sources, copied, reformatted, and pasted into the site (e.g., the Catholic Encyclopedia)) is of little or no intellectual or academic value when it comes to actual Biblical scholarship. - WarriorScribe 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The work he wrote and it linked here is a very minor work.

What qualifies something as a "minor work"? My work is a full and complete rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
  • The SABCE is a piece of superficial fluff, of no real value to anyone who doesn't already hold to fundamentalist beliefs, and even then, the utility is questionable. It's loaded with exceptionally bad thinking, poor logic, and wild stretches as attempts to harmonize. There have been a number of articles published on the web and in discussion areas that have taken several of the attempted harmonizations and they have shown how easily they are dismantled. Not surprisingly, the author has waved off these examinations or ignored them completely, and there is at least occasion in which he refused to sell the SABCE to someone he knew to be a skeptic. I think that says something about any real confidence that he might have in just how well it will stand up to scrutiny. - WarriorScribe 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It has not been peer reviewed by other scholars.

This is untrue. For instance, see here.
  • Reviews are not peer review.Mark K. Bilbo 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Very true. Single-line blurbs used as promotional comments on a site intended to sell the product hardly qualify as "peer review." Peer review is a much more involved process. Book reviews, especially when limited to those that are favorable, are not peer review. - WarriorScribe 15:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The only copies I could find were plastic comb-bound.

Then you were confused. My rebuttal is on CD-ROM and bundled with some other resources. My workbook is comb-bound, but we aren't talking about it.

I firmly believe that this stuff adds nothing to the article. It is simply someone trying to sneak a word in sideways. To put it back, I expect someone to tell how this person is recognized as an authority by the community at large, and why this minor work deserves mention.

Looking objectively at my education and ministry, without blowing my own horn, there are plenty of similarities to JP Holding and his Tektonics ministry. Why should his rebuttal be mentioned, but not mine? Do you think he is a "recognized Bible scholar"? The simple fact is that both works are noteworthy and should be mentioned because they both rebut The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

--Jason Gastrich 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

  • Still don't grasp the concept Gastrich? You can't just pronounce your "contributions" to be "informative and relavent." You have to persuade people they are. That's how this place works. By the way, alphabetizing the topics makes no sense. They were arranged in the order found on the website. Why change that order? Mark K. Bilbo 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides, the tektonics rebuttal is freely available online. The Gastrich referral is to a site at which he is trying to sell his "book."
I think I left my coffee cup in the kitchen again. --DanielCD 02:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Amusing that you think I'm this person. I'll have to read what it's about and decide if I should be flattered or not. When I have time for such nonsense. I'm not opposed to anything other than what I've clearly stated. --DanielCD 02:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that a lot of the above commentary was scrambled by Gastrich as he went through it, and not everything is exactly in order. But I don't want to go through a lengthy formatting since the gist is apparent. --DanielCD 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • "WarriorScribe" replied to my replies to you, but they weren't written to him. Incidentally, that's Dave Horn and he tries to shoot down Christians like me for sport. He's hardly an objective source. At any rate, those replies were written to you. I know this isn't a debate, but you made certain claims and said certain things that should be qualified, explained, or expanded.
    • I am completely confident that any discerning reader is capable of examining both of the links that Gastrich provided above, and making up their own minds. Gastrich is quite right about one thing: I shoot down Christians like him "for sport," well, sort of. All one needs to do is check out this forum to see why that is. Christians, in general, are generally left to their own devices. "Christians" using Christianity and the generally gullibility of Christians and whom use dishonest, underhanded, and cynical means to deceive and bilk others are another matter. Meanwhile, Gastrich's spin cannot be taken at face value. He's fully capable of lying and making things up, forwarding them as facts, and not allowing rebuttal or examination of his "facts" as long as it serves his purpose. The fact is that I don't really shoot down Christians like him "for sport," but I do it to keep a promise.
    • Since Gastrich feels that he is within his rights to comment so that "certain things" are "qualified, explained, or expanded," I, too, reserve that right.
    • And since Gastrich's original comments were written to a talk page, which implies discussion and which is publicly available and editable, the fact is that those comments were, in essense, to everyone and open to anyone to reply.
    • Finally, I think it's telling that Gastrich chose to whine that I replied to comments presumably directed at someone else, instead of dealing with the substance of what I had to say. That's typical, too. - WarriorScribe 14:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a team player in the Wiki community. If the consensus is that no rebuttals should be mentioned, then so be it. Of course, I wholeheartedly disagree that the mention of the two primary rebuttals shhould be omitted. --Jason Gastrich 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find the consensus is not "no rebuttals". The real issue is are the rebuttals scholarly. SAB, itself, is shadowy in this regard too, however, two wrongs don't make a right. The secondary reason is that your own book is not available without purchase and therefore not really a useful resource for a link. Thirdly, SPAM (any web site trying to sell a product will come under this unmbrella) is usually given the boot quite quickly. If this is something you really want to do you should see how similar books/resources are referenced to avoid the pitfalls I have described. I expect there are similar examples on the evolution/creationism pages that you could use for precident. David D. (Talk) 03:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite right. The issue is not whether or not rebuttals should be mentioned. Gastrich simply saw it as an opportunity to advertise his "book," just as he sees Wikipedia as a means to get free advertising for his "ministry" and his "books." What do you expect of a former telemarketer whom, it appears, once persuaded Dennis Tio (Shepherd Bible College) to allow the offering of multi-level marketing courses through his "Bible school?" - WarriorScribe 14:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals to rebuttals?

I think Holding and Gastrich may actually be relieved that the rebuttals to rebutals have not been published re: Gastrichs last edit. A look at the amazon.com reviews for Gastrich's CD shows that the reviews scored as the most useful by customers are also the most scathing in their assessment of his scholarship. If the Holding and Gastrich rebuttals had peer review from real biblical scholars that would go along way to help persuade editors they are a useful entry, otherwise there is no way of knowing if they are reliable or relevent. Certainly the amazon reviews make me wonder if Gastrichs is a useful rebuttal.

  • Incidentally, there are more positive reviews than negative ones. --Jason Gastrich 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
  • Yeah, yeah but you've been astroturfing them. Mark K. Bilbo 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (edit clash with MKB)Yes, i agree. I was looking at the class of reviews for which the amazon readers voted "I found this review useful". I was not considering the ones that were voted as "not useful". Of course, any of this type of assessment is subjective and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. A review from an independant professional bible scholar would go a long way to persuade people it is a good rebuttal. David D. (Talk) 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also add that many of the "positive" reviews are as lacking in substance as the work, itself, with respect to the comparative understandings of useful work and useful review. It is also strongly suspected that many of the positive reviews were written by Gastrich, himself. In fact, it was pretty firmly established that there were a couple of incidents of Gastrich using the "Kid's review" feature to post anonymous reviews that only serviced to slam his critics as "confirmed atheists" whom "hate" him (instead of dealing with the book, itself, which is what a review should do). - WarriorScribe 13:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, I deny that I am DanielCD, or some guy kicked off the JCSM forum and the fact that Mark Bilbo has posted to they same usenet forum is hardly evidence that we are in league. However, it does seem to me that Mark and myself do agree on many issues. This, though, is not evidence for a conspiracy. David D. (Talk) 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I understand that you two are different people, now. Sorry for my error. --Jason Gastrich 02:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
  • Thank you for the apology, I think it is good it cleared up sooner than later as DanielCD was starting to get very confused. David D. (Talk) 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my head is still spinning. Thanks Jason. --DanielCD 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

  • I agree that a rebuttal link should go to a site where there is a full, online rebuttal, not a site trying to sell you a CD. If there is such a site, I think it ought to be included in the external links section. On a separate point, the author of a rebuttal is not the best person to decide if that rebuttal is scholarly or significant enough to be included. If it is, other people will add it. The author adding it him/herself smacks of vanity or advertising. (FWIW, I am an atheist, and I think the quality of scholarship and commentary of the SAB is very low indeed.) Squiddy 13:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Squiddy. A rebuttal link should not (a) be added by the owner of the site (since it looks like self promotion) and (b) should not be to a commercial site. Guettarda 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "...a rebuttal link should go to a site where there is a full, online rebuttal, not a site trying to sell you a CD." Agreed. - WarriorScribe 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --Enlad 23:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In a sense, this is a strawman. There was no link to my commercial rebuttal. The name wasn't even mentioned. I think the core issue is whether or not rebuttals should be mentioned and if they should, should the rebuttals be described/articulated or not. --Jason Gastrich 03:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
  • After playing the AfD game and being a wannabe deletionist (ooo, jargon!) most of today, I'm with the above by Squiddy and Guettarda. For Gastrich to be trying to insert links to his own site and work (particularly when something is for sale) is running into WP:VAIN and I haven't seen self-promotion go over well around here. My sense--so far--of this community is it's a just not done kind of thing and should be rejected here. Mark K. Bilbo 03:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Why would rebuttals not be mentioned?

BTW, what is the status of this page, I came here via RfC, however I am not finding a conflict?Sethie 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Notable?

I would like to put the question on the table as to the notability of the work that is the subject of this article. I don't see it referred to in many places other than blogs and such. Is it an important enough work to merit an article? I'd just like anyone who knows more about it to add some info as to what its import is. --DanielCD 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the notability of the SAB, I'd like to address the alleged notability of the "rebuttal," since there is allusion that it is by the author. According to some of the comments from people who know far better than I, in terms of numbers, and irrespective of its "value" as an "apologetic," it doesn't exactly bring the house down and won't be on any best-seller lists. Tom Clancy won't be looking over his shoulder and seeing Gastrich there, any time soon. I'm told that the numbers indicate less than a dozen sales at Amazon in a year. Of course, we'll never know how many Gastrich has actually sold through is web site, though we can be fairly sure that any numbers he might provide are inflated. As an apolgetic, it's, well, terrible. There's really no other word for it. It's poorly conceived, poorly constructed, it assumes a very great deal (not the least of which is that the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a "major atheist work"), and consists mostly of nay-saying, gain-saying, and made-up "facts" created in order to harmonize the errors found in Scripture. It certainly is not an intellectual work, as it starts from the a priori presumption that the Scriptures, at least in their original manuscripts, are without error. As I understand its history, the SABCE started out as an expository writing project for a Christian college and grew from there. The "A+" comment by Roy Wallace on Gastrich's promotion site is, in all probability, not from a review, but from a grade given to the project. Useful reviews (as opposed to those written by the many Gastrich sock-puppets at Amazon, something that should surprise no one here) have been consistently negative, and even a few Christians have panned it. It seems to me that, for a work of this sort to qualify as "notable," it must either contribute value or, at least, be a best seller in its field. SABCE is neither of these things, and doesn't qualify as "notable" in any other respect that I can think of, either. - WarriorScribe 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to the work Gastrich is responding to, the one that is the subject of the article itself. I don't know much about it and since it's only available on a website, I would like someone to add this information. Why is this book important? It doesn't seem like anyone of note has even acknowledged it. At least one person above has said that yes, it is "notable". I want to know why. A better question might be: Why shouldn't this whole article be nominated for deletion? --DanielCD 16:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Right, and I was unfortunately, not clear about that, so I added my qualifying comment. The SAB, itself, has some notability, though not much, in being among the first free, online efforts to address the issue of the Bible and its many inconsistencies and errors, but I wouldn't consider it necessarily "notable" much beyond that. While the effort is laudable, there are quite a few "errors" noted that are not really errors, and there are a few episodes of pedantry and nit-picking. Don't get me wrong, however--the Bible is loaded with errors. I just find some at the SAB to have been added as a bit of a list-padder, if you will. It's important in the sense that it prompts discussion of the issues it addresses, and, as far as I know, it's one of the very few online resources that, at least, presumes to be as complete as it is, and readily-accessible and free for anyone to use. Whether or not the article should be deleted is something I'm not sure I'm qualified to address. That might depend on how we're defining "notable" with respect to inclusion of a critical, skeptical work at Wikipedia.
Thank you for that response. --DanielCD 16:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've seen it referred to in online discussions on religious matters fairly often, and it has been online since 1999. My guess is that it would probably survive an AfD. It has an Alexa rank of about 103,000 (whatever that means). Squiddy 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't find SAB all that "notable" myself. There are better works definitely. Still, the SAB is free, something you can point to online, something people don't have to run to a bookstore (or even Amazon) to shell out cash for. It's a moderately decent "intro" to skepticism about the bible. And, you know, given that the Wikipedia gives considerable space to the Klingons, I think SAB is notable enough for a mention (though not much more). Mark K. Bilbo 21:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine; I'm not planning on nominating it for deletion. Thanks for the responses. (Klingons...hyuck) --DanielCD 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I am. Seriously. Playing around in the AfD world, I'm not sure I think the SAB is notable enough. I'm starting to think the entry at Inerrancy is about all it should have. I definitely don't find it worth all of the back-and-forth going on here and now. Mark K. Bilbo 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
As i wrote above with regard to the rebuttals "The real issue is are the rebuttals scholarly. SAB, itself, is shadowy in this regard too, however, two wrongs don't make a right."". Of course, no wrongs makes a right, so I'd be happy to vote delete if you do go for it. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd prolly vote to delete. I'm just not going to nominate. --DanielCD 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"skeptic's annotated bible" brings 110,000 hits on google. Don't even bother nominating it... Jules.LT 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Prophesies

Re: Duncharris' last edit: "no it clearly says alleged... false prophecies". I don't see why it has to be false prophesies. A prophecy is a nebulous thing, subject to interpretation. If anyone at all disputes it, then where's the falsity? It seems to me it's all going to be opinion in the end; the idea of "prophecy" isn't really meant to be true or false. Why can't this be shown as a point of view? --DanielCD 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of style as much as anything else. Because "false prophecy" is a useful compound phrase that emphasises that is is wrong. The Bible warns against false prophecy, if I remember correctly. Compare 52,800 hits for "false prophecy" v. none for "prophecy seen as failed". — Dunc|☺ 16:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you'll get a lot of web hits for heresy too, but no true scholar is going to use that term seriously. They will say "seen as a heretic by...so and so." Prediction can be right or wrong, but prophecy? One man's "failed prophecy" is the next man's "answered prayer". There is no final word on prophecy in the sense that you can say it's definitively true or false. --DanielCD 16:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I can see it as a case of simplified wording. I'm not going to press this anymore unless someone else has a problem with it. Thanks for the response. --DanielCD 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm, I managed to miss this when I made my last changes. But, then, I think regardless of the possible utility of the phrase "false prophecy/ies," it's a POV. I think softening the phrase is warranted. Mark K. Bilbo 16:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I think the way it is now, as "...he believes false", is a good way to say it. --DanielCD 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Common Sense and Rebuttal Samples

Just to summarize, we have above WarriorScribe (Dave Horn, who was one of the handful of people to write a negative review on Amazon.com) claiming my rebuttal is poor and we have Daniel saying I'm not well known enough for my rebuttal to matter.

    • It seems to me that both of these things are true. The "rebuttal" is poor, and Gastrich is also not well-known enough to matter. Apparently, he thinks he is (and so is his "rebuttal"), or he would not expend so much energy trying to advertise and sell it through whatever mechanism he can find (as long as it's free, of course). However, I'd suggest that the former will contribute to the latter. Most sales of published works occur due to "word of mouth," which explains, in part, the existence of critics. If the general word of mouth about a published work is that it's poor, it won't sell very well, at least theoretically (there is a lot of trash out there). If the critics can rightfully point out at the author put together a piece of shoddy material and is generally incompetent, and the author never makes a sincere effort to correct those problems in subsequent editions (keep in mind that the SABCE is about to enter its 4th edition, and it's only three years old or so), that says something pretty dramatic about the value of the work. It stands to reason that the work--and the author--are unimportant if they add nothing to the scholarly discussion. That is true of Gastrich and the SABCE. That Gastrich feels that it is "splendid" and a "masterpiece" is entirely inconsequential. No one expects a narcissist like Gastrich to see that the "book" simply doesn't come close to living up to the hype he's generated for it. - WarriorScribe 13:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick summary.

Now, for those that are interested in the content of my rebuttal, I'll post a few examples.

  • "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" claims:

Genesis 37:28 - The verse says the Ishmaelites sold Joseph into Egypt, but 37:36 says that the Midianites sold him.

"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:

According to Genesis 37:27, 28, and 36 (and 39:1), there were Ishmaelites and Midianites with the band of traders that bought and sold Joseph. They both bought and sold him.

Incidentally, these two tribes of Arabian traders are used interchangeably in places like Judges 8. They were difficult to distinguish and worked together.

Midian and Ishmael were brothers and sons of Abraham.

  • "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" claims:

Genesis 36:12 - Amalek was born many years after his ancestors were "smitten." (14:7)

"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:

Genesis 14:7 says the Amalekites were attacked and not that they were eradicated.

  • "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" claims:

Genesis 36:2-3 - Esau (Isaac's son) had several wives (continuing the tradition of polygamy, with no editorial comment from the Bible). One of his wives, according to 36:2, was Adah the daughter of Elon, but in 26:34 her name is given as Bashemath the daughter of Elon. Yet verse 3 says Bashemath is the daughter of Ishmael.

"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:

Genesis 36:2 states that Esau took many wives. In Genesis 26:34, it lists some of them: Judith and Bashemath. In Genesis 36:2 it lists some more: Adah, Aholibamah, and Bashemath. One passage says she is Elon's daughter and one says she is Ishmael's daughter. This Hebrew term for "daughter" can be used figuratively. Therefore, Bashemath was likely Elon's daughter and Ishmael's servant or step-daughter.

In the book of Leviticus, God forbids polygamy. However, early in history, while the gene pool was relatively clean and while the Earth was becoming populated, God allowed polygamy.

  • "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" asks:

Genesis 36:2 - Was Zibeon a Hivite or a Horite?

"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:

The Hivites were a branch of the Hittites. The word "Horite" meant "cave dweller" and was a specific name for a Hittite and Hivite. Therefore, Zibeon was both a Hivite and a Horite. This would be akin to saying someone is both an American and a Californian.

  • My rebuttal has nearly 4,000 responses like these. There is one (and often several) to each assertion that the SAB makes.

Each week, I put one of these in my devos.jcsm.org weekly devotional message]. Feel free to examine them if you want more.--Jason Gastrich 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

    • Some of us are quite aware that these snippets from the "book" are posted each week in the "devotional," and some of the comments and content, such as it is, have been challenged, examined, analyzed, and dissected. Once that happens, Gastrich is out of the pool--he simply doesn't say anything more on the subjects because he can't say anything more. There used to be a site called "gastrich.org" that dealt with his harmonizations in detail. That site seems to have disappeared, for the moment, at least, but it had, at last count, 16 detailed refutations of Gastrich claims and harmonizations. Gastrich would acknowledge that the site existed (alternatively calling it a "hate site" and a "weak rebuttal site," neither of which was true) but would never deal with or even discuss the specific items that were being examined. In the maleboge.org group, the real one that existed before Gastrich loaded a series of fantasies and lies in his typosquatted group, several of the items in Gastrich's "book" were likewise examined, dissected, analyzed, and rebutted or refuted, and though Gastrich was and is a member of the former group (and has been for quite some time), he never took an opportunity to engage in discussion of these matters. This is typical of Gastrich and his intransigence. However, the facts remain: Gastrich's "book" is a poorly constructed rebuttal of a marginally competent collection of errors and contradictions. - WarriorScribe 13:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Right, right, right. My rebuttal is so "non-notable" that you've spent hours and hours of your life commenting on it. And so has the author of that old site (well, he commented on ~16 / ~4000 responses) that is now defunct. If you really believe yourself, then maybe you should find some notable hobbies instead of wasting so much time on nothing. --Jason Gastrich 07:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
        • As usual, Gastrich would rather try to be clever than actually respond intelligently to the point. Speaking personally, I have not spent "hours and hours" of my life "commenting" on his "rebuttal," nor am I aware of anyone who has. It certainly never seems to take more more than a few minutes on the part of anyone, and even the only time I've personally rebutted one of his "corrections" took only a few minutes. I doubt if I've spent even an hour, all told, even "commenting" on the SABCE. - WarriorScribe 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • We don't know how much time the author of the "defunct" site took with his responses. It didn't even appear to be a single author, given some of the style differences between some of the articles, but in the case of the articles at gastrich.org, they were pretty well-researched, so some time was probably put into them. They effectively demonstrated what many of us have been saying all along, i.e., that it takes more than the hand-waving and assertion making of a Jason Gastrich to deal with the issues that have been raised. Regardless, the amount of time spent on something that appears to be "non-notable" or is even claimed or regarded to be "non-notable" doesn't make that thing notable, especially when it's not clear how much relative time is spent on it, and Gastrich's comments about how others have spent "hours and hours" on it is not only sheer speculation on his part, but simple rhetoric. - WarriorScribe 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Gastrich seems to want to make a point that the "defunct" site answered only 16 of the alleged 4000 "answers" in his "book." It's funny. On the one point, he wants to imply that maybe the people who rebut him should get a life, and on the other hand, it's almost certain that there were only 16 responses because the owner of the site did have other things to do. I think that the important point here is that if those 16 and the additional items that I have cited show how easy it is to expose Gastrich's book as unintelligent, superficial fluff, how much of this allegedly "notable" volume are of any value, at all? - WarriorScribe 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Since Gastrich has decided to post a few "examples" of the content of his "rebuttal," it might be fair to post responses, rebuttals, or refutations, as well. The problem there is that there would be concern that this could turn into a referendum on the SABCE rather than the SAB, especially since so many of Gastrich's harmonizations have been refuted elsewhere and, as I noted earlier, he never responds. Fortunately, despite the so far mysterious disappearance of gastrich.org, which was known also as "Inerrancy Exposed," we can still find specific examples of refutations to Gastrich's harmonizations. Other examples are quite readily available, as well. These should be sufficient to allow any reasonable person to doubt the veracity of Gastrich's claims with respect to his "rebuttal." - WarriorScribe 17:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No attempted rebuttals are necessary. You're missing the entire point. The point is whether or not a paragraph on rebuttals is notable enough to include and by the amount of time you've spent trying to rebut my rebuttal, I think we all see that the answer at this junction is yes.--Jason Gastrich 07:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
        • Gastrich is, of course, wrong that the time spent is an indication of notability. Relatively speaking, I don't think it's much time, at all. Perhaps that the time spent in resisting the inclusion of such things is more about the integrity of the site and the resources than it is about the notability of any one item under discussion. Gastrich wants it included because, if the SAB is included, then his "rebuttal" must be included, as well. It's a 'round-about way to get the free advertising that he wants. - WarriorScribe 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it's interesting that Gastrich started off by trying to tell us that "no attempted rebuttals are necessary," even though he certainly felt it "necessary" to include examples of his "corrections" and "explanations." The rebuttals are necessary to show that, if Gastrich's work is notable (which is what this is really all about, as far as he's concerned), it's only notable in how inept it is. - WarriorScribe 15:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Who's on first?..No he's on third. But One is on second. No he's on first. Who's on first? But he can't be on first if he's on second!? Rebuttal. No rebuttle necessary, Six is on second and Four is on first. But I thought Two was on first. No wait, One was on second, and now you saying Six is on second?

Wheew. --DanielCD 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tweaks

Cut 'It is a work in progress.' What isn't?

Cut 'freely available online on its website, in Plucker format for PalmPilots, and sold online on CD-ROM format' and 'The website is also linked into the Brick Testament.' and 'The website has particularly riled '. For consistency with other articles.

List of tags adds nothing

Wells uses the following tags:

Cut 'Subsequent to the success of the annotated Bible, ' Borderline fan cruft.

Cut 'There have been various responses by Christians. ' Adds nothing.

Regards, Ben Aveling 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Do any scholars cite the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?

I do not know any Bible scholars with doctorates who cite the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and that applies both for the Bible believers and Bible unbelievers sides of the aisle in terms of scholarship. Perhaps someone can inform me of scholars who cite this work.

It is awfully hard to find PHDs etc to offer criticism of the work when it appears it is not on their radar. Perhaps, they feel it is beneath them to even comment on such a poorly done work. ken 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


Myabe.

Thanks for your theorizing and mind-reading of scholars, now what is it you wish to discuss about the ARTICLE?Sethie 16:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe its a question about WP:BITE

What are Steve Wells the author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible credentials?

Bible exegesis is requires scholarship (knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, the limits of a Bible passage, etc.).[1] What exactly are Steve Wells the author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) credentials? No credentials are listed in this article and I saw no listing of his credentials at the SAB website. If Steve Wells has no scholarly credentials in regards to the Bible is this noteworthy and mention of this should be done in the article? If not, why not? ken 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


I looked into your question, and found this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/faq.html#clothes I summarized his position on this in the article.

I looked at your link and Wells says he uses the work of scholars. Wells writes, "But I am not a Bible scholar; I rely on the work of scholars and I try to update the site based on the most recent and best information available." If this is true then why doesn't he cite them? I saw no citations in his work. It is also not surprising that I have seen no scholars cite Wells work. I don't see anything worth citing. ken 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Notable Amount of Spelling Errors in SAB

The amount of spelling errors in The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is unusually high. I think this should be mentioned in the entry. If anyone doubts this fact, I'd be happy to list a bunch of them. I'm not sure why I'm being accused of "backdoor POV". I wrote a full rebuttal to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. If the original SAB could be seen as more scholarly, it would only benefit me and my rebuttal. (I even use spell check.) It should be obvious to most that I'm simply reporting the facts.

As some know, I update my rebuttal each year. I go through the "New Stuff" for the past year and rebut it. As I was doing this today, I noticed more spelling errors and concluded they should be mentioned in this entry. There are certainly more spelling errors in this work than any other similar work that I've read.

Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 06:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Jason, rest assured, I would never accuse you of backdoor POV.  ;-) But how high is high? If it's not much higher than normal, I'm not sure it's notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say- make your case here. How many exactly? And compare it to others works.
Sethie 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Gastrich, spelling flames are nothing but a childish, petty "dig" at the author. Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Mark K. Bilbo 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm CDTheime has declared that the spelling errors are factual and relevant. I have challenged him to provide some refference other then Gastrich.... Sethie 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just gone and read (at random) all the annotations in the Books of Nahum, Micah, and 2 Corinthians, and the first 7 chapters of Isiah (and the introduction/highlights section of Isiah). I didn't notice any spelling errors, and the grammar and punctuation was OK too. (I might quibble with the word 'disfellowshipped', but it may be a JW thing.) So I don't think the claim of an unusual or noteworthy level of spelling errors is factual, particularly by the general standards of the internet. --Squiddy 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Were those the only samples you read or did you read others where you did find errors? Those are three very small sections/books and they seem like an odd, representative sample. I found no errors in those as well. However, there are still a large number of errors within the other 63 books/responses by Steve Wells.--Jason Gastrich 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that was all I read. Please WP:AGF. --Squiddy 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It would help a lot to make a decision if you actually document some of the evidence you are using to make your case. Our only source at present is your own original research. Point us in the right direction, what specific parts of the SAB are referring too? David D. (Talk) 19:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel wording corrected

Wikipedia doesn't like vague references.

Formerly it read:

There have been various responses by Christians.

It now reads:


There have been various responses by Christians. [2]

ken 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Riled - POV.

I got rid of the Christians are riled by Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB). I mostly saw dismissive pieces on SAB by Christians. The SAB is not exactly seen as lofty by Christians. Christians have fought lions in arenas and Wells just creates weak diseased rats in his work which doesn't cite many (if any) scholars. I think this is why no scholars cite Wells work.

ken 22:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

SAB Rebuttals

Newbie 68.105.109.121 says, "Second link removed. "Clarification" doesn't mitigate the fact that Wiki does not exist to provide free advertising.)" I'm sure someone who just made their first post on Wiki could potentially know why Wiki exists, but I'd to discuss Wiki policy and whether or not this link and rebuttal should to remain off/on the site. I've seen countless links to books by various authors. Isn't this the same as linking a rebuttal site that charges for a CD-ROM? Can someone quote Wiki policy? --Jason Gastrich 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

You know very well you, yourself, own the site you keep trying to link to and you--and/or an organization run by you, yourself--obtains money from the sales. See: Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines (particularly "Vanity edits: examples"). Mark K. Bilbo 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
The RfC section above also shows near unanimity supporting the view that you, JG, should not be using this page to flog your product. --Squiddy 10:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether or not I should post the link. I think that was made clear above. The issue is whether or not the link should exist or whether or not a mention of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained should exist without a link. In other words, is it ok if someone else posts? Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Face it, it's obvious you're trying to sell your book. Everybody sees it. Deal. Mark K. Bilbo 21:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Face it. You only post on talk pages, Bilbo. 90% or more of your posts are in rebuttal to my posts. On the contrary, look at my contribution history and you'll see that I'm seriously contributing to Wikipedia. People can also see, even in this situation, that I'm willing to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. Deal.
Now, back to the issue at hand. I could email some people (like people who have my rebuttal CD) and they'd repost the link within the hour. However, I haven't done this because that's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm waiting for those who actually contribute to Wikipedia to have an honest discussion about this issue. The issue isn't me posting it's whether or not inclusion is appropriate. --Jason Gastrich 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Yeah I haven't contributed a lot to anything anywhere. I dunno. Watching a city be destroyed and having to the be the excutor of the estate of your best friend (in the Katrina aftermath no less, his will was in a condemned building and we almost couldn't get it out) kinda puts you in a mood. And there's not a thing to do around here with New Orleans destroyed and now, so help me, the TV broke. Sometimes watching certain games online at least keeps my mind off how bad things are. So I dabble. I certainly can't work up the attention to do the compulsive twiddling you've been occupying yourself with.
These people aren't stupid. They're not going to let you spam the Wikipedia. Attacking me is pointless. I'm just observing how futile your little game is. Mark K. Bilbo 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't let Gastrich's complaints about your comparative contributions sway anything. The fact is that he does appear to be contributing, but let's face it, when I looked at the contributions for the period 21 December through 25 December, and changed the page to reflect 500 notations, well, let's just say that averaging 100+ edits a day for that periods says that something is up. Who has that kind of time? Gastrich is clearly loading up on "contributions" (and I wouldn't be surprised, given the revelations in the newsgroup, that a number of those were not, in fact, written by Gastrich, but were written by others encouraged by Gastrich) for numbers, not quality, which is par for the course for him. He's impressed by superficialities like that, and he's dismayed when the rest of us are not. WarriorScribe 00:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, don't forget Wiki's rules on good faith. You're launching false accusations at me and assuming bad faith. The Wiki community assumes good faith. --Jason Gastrich 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
In a pig's eye "false accusations." It's your site, it's your book, you charge money for it, and you're hell bent on getting a link into the Wikipedia. It's called "link spam" and every time you've tried this, you've been told "no." The last time you were told "no" is on this very page. Get real. Mark K. Bilbo 00:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and imagine the temerity that we would have in even doubting good faith on the part of this individual, who, time after time, has perpetuated lies and fraud on the readership in newsgroups and on websites. Whatever are we thinking, that he would try to do the same to readers of Wikipedia! For shame! For shame! WarriorScribe 01:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Right, right, right. Take it from this guy: deemed a disruptive troll from a Wikipedia admin and by his own admission, pulled a rifle on a Christian who knocked on his door. --Jason Gastrich 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Once again, Gastrich demonstrates how quickly he will lie. Yes, an admin called me disruptive and a troll, and I asked just how that was. No one had an answer. And I never pulled a rifle on a Christian who knocked on my door. Where's his evidence? Gastrich took a quick comment and turned it into something it was not. He deliberately extrapolated "details" of which he has no knowledge, and posted them as "facts." In short, he lied. That's what Gastrich does. When he has no facts, and he's annoyed with a person, he makes up "facts" and forwards them as "facts." He lies. The man has no integrity, should never be an admin here, and shouldn't be running a ministry. WarriorScribe 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's still link spam

I don't agree with your "compromise" WarriorScribe. It's *still spam. And there was already a discussion about this (see RfC section above) and the comments ran against including a commercial link at all. I'd say if Gastrich wants to make a case of it, he should go to mediation.Mark K. Bilbo 02:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not spam at all. It's a relevant link for the entry. What is your criteria for spam? It would seem that, with your criteria, we'd have to delete every link to a book for sale (of which, there are many on Wikipedia). --Jason Gastrich 02:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Gastrich, you're trying to put a link to your site where you sell something into the Wikipedia because--and don't even try denying this--you know the Wiki has high levels of traffic and ranks high in Google. The discussion about this went against including a commercial link. Mark K. Bilbo 02:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes...I see the discussion. Okay, removed. And I agree. Gastrich needs to make his case. We don't need to disprove the need...he needs to prove the need...and the value...of a commercial site being used as a reference. WarriorScribe 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll wait for others to contribute their input. Dave Horn and Mark Bilbo care very little about Wikipedia, its guidelines, or objectivity in general. Furthermore, I have nothing to say or to prove to unbelieving, trolling, spin doctors like them. --Jason Gastrich 03:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
It's not just us. Read this very page. The link keeps getting rejected and you keep trying to shove it in. What you're doing is so transparent. Do you deny the site is yours? Do you deny you wrote the book in question? Do you deny that you and/or an organization run by you receives the money from purchases of the book? Mark K. Bilbo 03:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I would add that Mark and I care more about the objective value of the Wikipedia project than Gastrich ever will. Check so much of the case against him that has been built to date. Gastrich never does anything like this unless there's an ulterior motive, and his motive is pretty clear to those of us who know about him. WarriorScribe 03:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
And I guess I shouldn't bother asking what "unbelieving" has to do with anything. However, I'll point it out because it's at the core of Gastrich's participation here. Through multiple socks, hundreds of substanceless edits to build "contributor" numbers, and other mechanisms, Gastrich hopes to ingratiate himself into Wikipedia, perhaps become an admin, and control the content. As for "trolling" and "spinning," one would be hard-pressed to find a more flagrant hypocrite than Jason Gastrich. References available on request. WarriorScribe 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
To those who care to know about the one launching these allegations, WarriorScribe, they can go here. I'll let that link and our contributions speak for themselves. --Jason Gastrich 03:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Right...a link to a series of articles that contain laughable accusations and quite a few outright lies, not the least of which was Gastrich's pretense that he and "Fraud Buster" were not one and the same. Pretty funny stuff, actually. Among Gastrich's "expose" material of me was the afore-mentioned misrepresentation of a time when I had to defend my home and my wife against a dangerous lunatic, my view of my education compared to John Wolf (and "Uncle Davey"), as well as the created "fact" that I live in an "inner city" apartment. Of course, Gastrich has always been able to post these things in an open forum or in the maleboge.org group, where they could be rebutted; but Gastrich doesn't allow for that. No rebuttals are allowed in his group, so I posted rebuttals in maleboge.org. And need I point out that Gastrich cybersquatted the group name? And why did he do that? Because we were and are exposing him as the opportunistic fraud that he is. Gastrich is a liar, folks. By all means, read through the articles that he's posted at his stolen-name group...then read the rebuttals. You will find that the commentary that he has put there, mostly made up, does not stand on its own. Once refuted, Gastrich did what he always does--he ran. And remember...there's no "our." There's just him. We figured that out long ago, but he was also outed by his erstewhile partner in crime, John Wolf, and the game was exposed here and here. WarriorScribe 03:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls
Please do not feed the trolls

I do not think it is possible to link to the web site. it is definitely a comercial site. However, since the CD does have a ISBN number I don't see why that cannot be cited. I made some changes to the article to conform with my compromise David D. (Talk) 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

My apologies to all of you on behalf of christians everywhere. It is christian's like Gastrich that make the rest of us ashamed to be known by that distinction. Personally I stopped calling myself a christian a long time ago, I've called myself a follower of Christ for quite a few years now. I am actively involved in the ministry (and I don't mean a web-based ministry) and it shames me and hurts me deeply to see the rhetoric and judgemental-ism that Gastrich is passing off as characteristics of Christianity. If any of you are trying to find the truth of Christ, please don't pay any attention to any edits by Jason Gastrich, he gives GOOD Christians a BAD name. --Icj tlc 17:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Refutation of the "Rebuttal"

http://www.gastrich.org/

Check out the word count breakdown at the bottom, and given copyright law (and I asked this before a long time ago, and never got an answer), if Gastrich included the entire SAB in his "rebuttal," did he violate "fair use?" WarriorScribe 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Wells' alleged botany degree and masters work

If Steve Wells indeed has a degree in botany and some masters work, we need a citation. I've never seen this and his work begs to differ. Furthermore, WarriorScribe saying it should be included on "good faith" is absurd. Wiki's good faith policy doesn't assume credentials.

Does anyone have a citation for Wells' degree and masters work? If not, please don't add them to the entry. --Jason Gastrich 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

We don't need a citation for a simple statement about academic credentials. What would Gastrich accept? A copy of transcripts, sent to him, personally (since a graphic of that kind of thing can be faked--whole web businesses do exactly that)?
Once again, Gastrich exposes his POV agenda. The good faith policies of Wikipedia assume good faith on the part of participants, as I was lectured by more than one person, including Gastrich. If someone possesses the information, it's fair to present it, and while I agree that it's for the person to prove and not for anyone to disprove, we can get rather pedantic and silly about the whole thing, and we need to avoid that.
This is why it's a POV that Gastrich is trying to push here: Remember that it was Gastrich who couldn't get his encyclopedia page kept at Wikipedia, and his "rebuttal" to the SAB is only worthy as a note on the page for the SAB. In retaliation of sorts, Gastrich tried to belittle and marginalize the SAB by making comments about the "spelling" errors that it contains and trying to make an issue of that. Now he wants to question the issue of Wells's academic credentials. We post about those things in lots of article about lots of different people. We don't go through all of them and remove references to those credentials, pending a "citation," and that's reasonable. Gastrich's problem is that he needs to continue to marginalize Steve Wells and the SAB. If it turns out that Wells has an academic credential in the sciences and, indeed, has completed graduate level work in that and mathematics, that indicates a trained, skilled analytical, science-minded person, prone to attention to detail and to evidence. This actually makes the SAB more credible, which is something Gastrich does not want.
Once again, we don't go through every biographical note or comment an author's academic credentials, as a matter of course, and demand "citations." If we do this to Wells, we must do it with everyone credited with an academic credential that is note "cited" or "referenced." If it's to apply to one, it must apply to all. WarriorScribe 06:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just one more example of what I have said frequently and elsewhere: If Gastrich had any integrity, at all, he'd stay away from these articles in which he has a clear ax to grind or has something to gain or lose by what appears in the article. He'd recuse himself from commentary because he has a conflict of interest. It is Gastrich whom cannot maintain an nPOV. WarriorScribe 07:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And I can't help but comment on the bit about how Wells's work "begs to differ" with the idea that he has an academic credentials that include graduate level work. Gastrich claims a master's degree and claims to be within months of a Ph.D. But his own writings would also "beg to differ" far more than anything Wells has done. Gastrich's "rebuttal" to Wells's work is a joke, of no more intellectual value than a junior high school paper. Even Gastrich doesn't seem to be as confident in it as he'd like us to believe, since there's been at least one occasion when he refused to sell it to a known skeptic, and there's no indication that there will be any "reviewers copies" of the "new edition" alleged to be coming out this month.
There are a number of rebuttals to Gastrich's commentary and his writings that demonstate thinking processes that are not well developed, and critical thinking skills that are all but non-existent--not to mention the lack of maturity that has been demonstrated over and over again in his writings and, frankly, his tantrums. I'm afraid that this is yet one more area in which Gastrich needs to learn that there's such a thing as an unexpressed thought, not to mention the old adage, "'tis better to remain silent, and be thought a fool..." WarriorScribe 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
WarriorScribe doesn't seem to understand what Wiki good faith means. It doesn't mean that someone can assert that someone else has an advanced degree and we all accept it without evidence. That's not good faith. That's stupidity. If we made those same assumptions on all the entries, it would bring the level of this Wiki down to a very low level. The person who says another has an advanced degree needs to support the claim with evidence. If they can, then it should stay. If they can't, then it should be removed. For now, let's not worry about how good the evidence is. Let's just see some evidence to evaluate. Heck, maybe Wells is a rocket scientist or a member of Mensa. Wouldn't bother me any, bit it still doesn't belong in the entry unless it can be verified. --Jason Gastrich 09:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I thought Gastrich wasn't reading my commentary...
I find it amusing that Jason Gastrich, known for his dishonest and disingenuous behavior both in Wikipedia and a number of other venues, wants to presume to lecture someone else about "good faith."
No one asserted that anyone had an "advanced degree." What was said was that Steve Wells completed a bachelor's degree (which is not an "advanced degree," watch out for Gastrich "spin") and some graduate work. As it is, I've already explained the rationale for leaving the entry as it was written, with the note about the education left intact--removing it means we go through every biographical or informational article on Wikipedia and, if we can't find a "citation" for the claims and comments about educational credentials belonging to, well, whoever, we have to take it out. Wikipedia, as I have been told a couple of times (including by Gastrich, who conveniently wants to forget about that, now), assumes good faith on the part of article editors. While there are some things subject to verification and reference, it's silly and pedantic to expect that a comment about someone's education requires a "citation." And notice that Gastrich doesn't bother to tell us what he will accept as a "citation." How is the party whom made the edit supposed to prove this to Gastrich's satisfaction? Gastrich won't say. There's a reason he won't say.
The facts stand as I explained them. Gastrich cannot allow this to stand because it means that the SAB and its author have more credibility, and that cannot be allowed. However, there is no good cause to doubt the veracity of the claim. Gastrich claims that it's because Wells's "work" doesn't show that level of education, but I beg to differ, if only because the quality of Gastrich's "work" has shown time and again that he's not qualified to judge. WarriorScribe 09:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I decided to have a look for myself to see if I could find any reference to Steve Wells's educational credentials. It didn't take long, at all, it's right here. I've put it in the article, but in the meantime, as I've written elsewhere, I have to wonder how Gastrich's "research" skills and attention to detail could be so poor that he could claim to write a "complete rebuttal" to the SAB (it's not, but that's beside the point at the moment) and miss something that easy to read and that elementary. If you're going to do a rebuttal to someone, wouldn't you want to research that person and his position, background, education, and other factors as much as possible? Surely, even someone as poorly-trained in research and investigation as Gastrich would think to check the FAQ link, knowing that somehwere, somehow, someone thought to ask some form of "just what makes you think you're qualified?" Oh, well... WarriorScribe 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On a different note: Personally, I don't see why we need to mention his graduate school credit or his undergrad degree. They kind of stick out to me in the article. It was fine without them. Anyway, not including them created a flow with the quote from him about NOT needing lotsa schooling. Sethie 10:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. He mentions it in the FAQ because it's either a question that he's been asked or it makes sense that someone would ask. I think it's fair to say that he's an educated man and, given his educational credentials and his experience, it's also fair to say that he would have a pretty good eye for detail and evidence. Scientific training does lead to a scientific mind-set, along with a good dose of logic, and that's not a bad thing to have when examining claims to inerrancy. On the other hand, it doesn't take any more than a bit of common sense to see that the Bible is loaded with contradictions and errors (and there's no reason not to expect that it would have those things). I wouldn't have a problem taking it out because it's not really necessary; but I would certainly resist taking it out because someone else has a conflict of interest with respect to the content. WarriorScribe 10:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
) I understand. My vote is take it out as not neccesary, and it just not really fitting in with the article. Sethie 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Edited, and even shows a bit of perspective. What do you think? Better? WarriorScribe 17:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me! Flows much more smoothly. Sethie 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Kewl! WarriorScribe 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich stuff #2

There is no original research, which includes citations of original research which links to personal websites, allowed to be posted on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Especially by a user promoting his website and lacks proper credentials. Without even a proper publisher to publish this original work by Gastrich, it seems Gastrich may have violated the US fair use policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs)

Anon AOL IP user, here is the definition of original research "material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." The person who added my CD-ROM was right in doing so. It does not qualify as merely "original research." Here's why:
  • I will say this for Gastrich...he gets it right, this time: His CD-ROM doesn't qualify as "original research..." WarriorScribe 20:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
1) The CD-ROM and e-book has an ISBN number (#0973279729, 3rd Edition, #097327977X, 4th Edition).
2) The CD-ROM and e-book are copyrighted by the U.S. Copyright Office (#TX-5-761-000).
3) The CD-ROM and e-book have been published and distributed throughout America and different parts of the world.
4) The CD-ROM and e-book is listed on Amazon.com.[3]
--Jason Gastrich 03:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
A ISBN makes you a scholar how? Your credentials are what? Who posted this? How is this not simply a way to plug your name? You are out to make a name and buck. That is not what Wiki is here for. Deceitful. Unscholarly.
No one considers you a credentialed scholar, which by itself is just fine. The fact that the Hovind and Wallace, who lack serious credentials (note how Hovind doesn't make clear his religious degree) supports it is fine.
Yet, you have repeatedly plugged your own webpages at LBU, started your own biography page (deleted), and linked your works to others webpages all the while purposely deceiving people. If someone else wants to cite it that'd be one thing. But the shameless self-promotion on every one of your edits is sickening. It is dishonest that people have to go through the edit history to find out that the very person who put the "e-book" on there the same who profits from it. If you go back through the page history, its clear you can care less about being neutral as long as you have your name on it. Deceitful. Unscholarly.
Some quotes from the Amazon link: 1# He "seems very egocentric." #2 "Dr. Gastrich did a very good job with this CD-ROM." #3 "worst apologetic ever" #4 "Dr. Gastrich has designated all of the proceeds from this CD-ROM to go to Jesus Christ Saves Ministries." (nice he gives money to an organization he runs) #5 "Not a good resource." #6 "Falls short of its ambition"
I could go on with those. As you can see the people who give you support are under the false impression you are a doctor. Others claim you do poor work. Deceitful. Unscholarly.
As for this page, if some person truly believes this work is relevant there would be no problem. The fact that it is the author that promotes that puts it on the page throws that into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs)
  • You need to get your facts straight, Anonymous user. User:Daycd added the citation to my rebuttal. [4] --Jason Gastrich 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You are a liar!!!!! Bobby Lou is a proven sock puppet of yours and Bobby Lou (Jason Gastrich) added Jason Gastrich to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&oldid=28281814
When YOU reverted the page to put YOUR poorly written work on the page, YOU put YOUR own work on the page twice. As for your David/DayCD comment. Please read:
I understand you deleting the link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained (a rebuttal to) The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is simply you trying to attack the author (Gastrich) and silence Christian thought and Christian replies to alleged Bible errors. Should anyone conclude otherwise?--user:Bobby Lou 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I think you'll find a policy against spam. i think you'll find i voted to keep LBU. I try to be objective. David D. (Talk) 06:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Daycd#Your_Vandetta_Against_Gastrich
By the way Bobby Lou has been proven to be a sock puppet of yours. You are so full of BS...
  • I replaced the (POV-driven) removal, by Gastrich, of the reference to the "Inerrancy Exposed" page. Gastrich removed it, apparently, under the "no original research" clause of Wiki policies, but it does not represent the original research or a reference to original research done by any of us, here, which is what the policy is meant to address: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say." The site provides relevant information (and is critical of both Gastrich and the SAB, though certainly investigates Gastrich's claims about both more deeply). It is a scholarly, intelligent dissection of Gastrich's claims, and that's why he wants it removed--clearly a POV edit and a blatant attempt at suppression of information. WarriorScribe 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed both because I fail to see how this stuff is relevant to article. If Gastrich's stuff is kept then yes keep both. Yet, it shouldn't. For the record I think User:Daycd and Gastrich might be the same person. He seems to be a moderate version of Gastrich in the sense that Gastrich pushes full POV and Daycd doesn't push that far and they seem to post around the same times in their logs. I could be wrong; meaning Daycd might just sympathize to an extent with Gastrich. Yet, I have noticed I am not the only one to think this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 (talk • contribs)
For the record, I have zero sympathy for Gastrich's agenda. David D. (Talk) 00:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
And I can assure you that Daycd is not Gastrich. He simply seeks what I hope we all seek--a reasonable and fair representation, within the limits imposed by the media, the standards for encyclopedia entries, and the rules for the site. [Disregard rest...working on two pages at once]... WarriorScribe 01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As below I have removed both. I see no compelling evidence that Gastrich's commentary is authoritative, we don't allow POV forks within the 'pedia and we should not allow offsite forks either. The second link has relevance only to the Gastrich link; either both shuld go in, or (better) both should come out. The fact that fundamentalists don't like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible is scarcely news, after all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

It's bad taste for any author to cite their own work in a Wikipedia article. Durova 23:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This has not been done. If you would have read up and checked the history, you would have realized this. The RfC was regarding the "no original research" rule, so feel free to comment on that and its application here. --Jason Gastrich 23:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
*Liar. Yes, Jason let's go over the page history. Bobby Lou, a proven sock puppet of yours, was the first to cite Jason Gastrich http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&oldid=28281814 So there you have it Jason Gastirich citing Jason Gastrich and then lying about it. Yes, DayCD cited you later on, only after many, many reverts and after you mislead all the wikipedia readers on who you were and why you posted your e-Book. What's the 9th commandment Jason?
  • The NOR rule is clearly intended so that Wikipedia editors and writers do not post their own original research on the site, because it is not the encyclopedia that provides a forum for such things--it is academia and the many professional journals. No doubt, Gastrich is annoyed by the reference to the "Inerrancy Exposed" site, which he has derided as a "hate site" and a "weak rebuttal" site, but the details of which he has never addressed. It serves well within the context of the site as one that deals with the inerrancy issue as it pertains to the SAB and Gastrich's alleged "rebuttals." Regardless, the citation does not refer to an article of original research, but is a reference to a site at which other original research on the issue of inerrancy, the SAB, and, specifically, the Gastrich "rebuttal," was posted. All research starts out somewhere, somehow, as "original research," but the "Inerrancy Exposed" site is not "original research" by anyone here. Gastrich's attempts to create an RfC about the site so that it may be removed constitutes yet another attempt (of many) to silence or conceal information that he doesn't like or that is less than flattering. It's the same philosophy that he has used to engage in frivolous lawsuits, threats of copyright infringement actions, and stolen and typo- or cyber-squatted domain name use. WarriorScribe 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It is true that a party other than Gastrich posted a reference line to his "book" in the SAB article, but it was Gastrich whom first posted, IIRC, a direct link to a page selling this "rebuttal," and after much contention, it was agreed that a note may be made of it. Claims by Gastrich that his "book" was not cited as a reference by him are a tad disingenuous. In effect, a compromise was reached in an effort to quell the issue; but if it's fair to make a reference to his "book," which is alleged to "rebut," "correct," and "explain" the SAB, then it's likewise fair to include a reference that, in turn, rebuts Gastrich's claims. WarriorScribe 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference link to "gastrich.org" (which is typosquatting/cybersquatting?) is a personally hosted web site and it completely and solely falls undr "original research" (from an anonymous/unnotable source), so it needs to be removed as wEEkipedia's rules say specifically "no original research"
    • Asked and answered above. It is an intelligent rebuttal to claims made, but it does not represent original research by anyone referring to it within the context of the article here, as a reference with respect to the article here, just as web sites are often cited in other articles, elsewhere. We, of course, don't always know who authors a web site--that information is not always provided. But we can certainly do a rudimentarly bit of research on our own (as long as we don't post it here [grin] and discover who owns the domain. Is it typosquatting or cybersquatting? Yes, it is--one or the other, at least, depending on how we're defining our terms. Should they have done that? Probably not. With respect to Gastrich, that issue has always been about him complaining that the name was "stolen" (and he's even gone so far as to state that the name is used illegally--a charge he has never supported) while, himself, engaging frequently and with malice in the use of either stolen-name or typo- or cyber-squatted domains. In other words, he's a hypocrite (and that's not the only example). Still, that's neither here nor there, is it? If we're going to RfC the issue of the reference to that site as the fruits of the original research of a Wikipedia author or editor, then by all means, point out that author or editor to me. WarriorScribe 01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, a third revert by Gastrich to cite a work by Gastrich. Durova, if you're interested check out the fun with Gastrich going on at Louisiana Baptist University and Kent Hovind. You'll have a better idea of what's going on.
It's about what I expected: same business that's been going on since November when AfD deleted Gastrich's bio. He's a good enough editor on some subjects. POV and self-promotion get in the way at other times. I hope his editing matures. Actions like this discredit him and his beliefs. Durova 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Add the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Skeptic%27s_Annotated_Bible&oldid=28281814 above to show Jason Gastirich (as username Bobby Lou) cited Jason Gastrich and then lied about it.
On further research Gastrich has been promoting his own webpages on Wikipedia for at least a year. An example: Anthony Flew he has put his link to his "non-profit" website domain squatting url www.anthonyflew.com on that article page until it had to be locked a year ago.
  • Comment: It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it: it seems ot me that if this goes in so does the rebuttal, but I'm equally happy with neither going in since neither is apparently a reliable source for the article itself. We don't allow POV forks internally and we shouldn't be allowing external ones either, which is what that is. As well as beiong vanispamcruftisement. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In reference to my full rebuttal to "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible," you said, "It seems to me that there is sufficient dispute about the authority of the Gastrich text that including it is unacceptable at this stage absent consensus on how to handle it." Can you support this? As far as I've seen, one man (Dave Horn, who is WarriorScribe) and a couple of his friends have attacked me and my book (yes, both, which makes their input highly suspect). Out of 28 book reviews, there are far more positive responses (indicated by 4 out of 5 stars)[5][6][7] than negative ones. So, you've got some "splainin" to do. --Jason Gastrich 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
        • I'm not sure what standard requires that placing Gastrich under scrutiny and writing a negative review of his "full rebuttal" (it's not) of the SAB makes anything or anyone "suspect." The fact is that quite a few of us are simply not as enamored of Gastrich as he thinks we should be.
        • While a number or reviews at Amazon are positive, most of the positive reviews are unsubstantive and fawning, and we suspect that quite a few of them were either written by Gastrich, using socks (as we see here) or he encouraged people that he knows to go to Amazon and post reviews (in other words, he stacked the vote, as we also see him doing here). The reviews with which Gastrich isn't too happy are substantive, but, as usual, Gastrich is more interested in quantity rather than quality, referring to the average number that leads to four of five stars. Well, if numbers are that important, let's consider that the review that I posted currently has a note that 57 readers found the review helpful. The next review below shows 23 "helpful" votes. I don't need to go any further to know that readers of the reviews overwhelmingly found the "negative" reviews to be more helpful than those that were "positive." The reality is that this doesn't mean a whole lot, but since Gastrich is so in love with numbers, he can chew on those for a while. - WarriorScribe 22:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
        • By the way, if including the web site for "Inerrancy Exposed" as a reference is a violation of WP:NOR, why is the inclusion of Gastrich's "full rebuttal" not also a violation of that policy?
        • Of course, no one, yet, has been able to explain why it's "spam."
        • Meanwhile, it's still hysterical as all "get-out" to see Gastrich or one of his socks complain that it's a cybersquatted site. Gastrich has quite a history of doing that -- or typosquatting (depending on how we're defining terms).
        • The dispute over the "authority of the Gastrich text" is quite simply that the text has no authority. It's a superficial bit of nonsense that serves no intellectual purpose with respect to either apologetics, in general, or as a "rebuttal" of the SAB, in particular. It's all but completely useless as a rebuttal volume, composed as it is mostly of the work of other people. The writers at "Inerrancy Exposed" quite rightly have pointed out that the relatively few, intelligently-argued rebuttals (which Gastrich does not want and cannot abide) compose over a third of the volume of Gastrich's superficial wave-offs of SAB points. Imagine what might happen if it took on all of Gastrich's claims. - WarriorScribe 22:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


      • This has been part of my argument, as well. If one goes in, the other should be there. If one is disallowed, the other becomes unnecessary. Gastrich claims that he's put together a rebuttal volume that deals with the arguments presented in the SAB and if the SAB has an article in Wiki, it should, at least, make note of his rebuttal. That's his POV. I say that his rebuttal is a piece of superficial, nonsense but, if it's to be included, we should also include the "Inerrancy Exposed" site, to show that POV (which is also shared by others), as well. It's not often that we see "all-or-nothing" propositions that should be cited, as such, but this is one of those times. - WarriorScribe 23:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the section divider removed?

I put it in there because the article was practically unreadable. The criticism about Wells' education had been tacked onto a completely unrelated paragraph. The article had no flow to it at all, but read like the back and forth volley of a childish argument. Having a section for the plain description and a section for the "Controversy asnd Criticism" kept the article organized and readable, while still allowing both sides to be presented in a more or less neutral form. Apparently some people don't want this article to be readable.JeffStickney 14:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wells' defence revisited

JzG, I do not see why you removed the "truth" comment as non-NPOV. It is not what I would like to read, but it is Ok to mention it, especially here in the article dealing with the SAB. The only thing I found wrong with the removed text was that it was not quite what Wells says. I've added a condensed version that, I hope, conveys what Wells really says in his defence here. AvB ÷ talk 22:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, has Steve been updating the SAB FAQ in response to the previous version of the WP article? It is my impression that he added Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying (nor have I ever said) (...) even more obvious to an well-educated adult. In any case, he failed to read his own words or forgot to remove the text quoted in the article: But it was obvious to a child (...) is not a book that was inspired by a good, just, loving, and all-knowing god so this section of his SAB FAQ is now self-contradictory.
I'll remove the relevant part from the article until he has sorted this out. (Another option would be to quote both versions, showing the current confusion in the SAB text). I also suggest that Steve remove the words "nor have I ever said" - otherwise he'll probably be challenged for having said so in his previous defence to the point that he does not hold a theological degree.
Since Steve may be changing the text in response to this WP article, I'm copying the relevant FAQ section below for future reference. AvB ÷ talk 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/faq.html 11 February 2006:

What training do you have?

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 15 years experience as a 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 based on 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.

I got carried away a bit when editing the article. I hope everybody (including Steve) will be happier with the new version. AvB ÷ talk 06:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The page has been updated/changed recently, I doubt Wells did it because of this article. Arbustoo 06:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, wasn't sure about that. It doesn't really matter as long as we don't misrepresent anyone's views, including any changes. Steve, if you're reading this, please tell us what you think. AvB ÷ talk 14:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section

The controversy and criticism section seems very generous and weak. Most sections like these do not include rebuttals by the subject in question. This section should be expanded and improved and the spin that Wells puts on it and the comment about fundamentalism should be moved to another section. --Chuck Hastings 07:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

We already know how you feel about it Jason Gastrich. Arbustoo 07:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You sound like you could write a whole book on the subject Mr Hastings. Oh wait, you did. --Malthusian (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Before this section was added, the article had no section dividers and very poor organization. Criticisms were tacked onto unrelated paragraphs, and it was impossible to read a general description without wading through the back-and forth volley of the arguments. I added this section to separate the general description from the arguments. I believe this made the article more readable than when everything was jumbled together with no section dividers. And putting the arguments into a section reserved for arguments serves somewhat as a neutrality buffer for their tones. If you wish to edit this section or to expand the article by creating an additional section to separate the criticisms from the defences, then by all means do so. Every article on Wikipedia is a work in progress, but please do not dump everything back into the disorganized mess that this article had been- and remember to keep it neutral.JeffStickney 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. Good idea on your part, by separating things. I just contributed to the section. --Chuck Hastings 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Chuck you should read WP:POV. Your recent edit included the following sentence: "Wells counters by saying education isn't necessary, but more of it still wouldn't change his perspective.". This is style of sentence is POV and will invariably get edited from the article. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk.origins is notable

Gastrich's attempted swipe at the archive was ill-advised. When periodicals no less reputable than Scientific American and several others make reference to and praise the Talk.origins Archive, that certainly speaks to notability. Meanwhile, I can't help but chuckle at his continued shenanigans. And his apparent claim that he would be "avoiding Wikipedia for a while" lasted...what? Four days? - WarriorScribe 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It sure is notable. The line/link "It has been cited by scholarly articles and is considered a useful resource for finding biblical error[8]" should be left in as evidence that a science-scholarly related group has cited the SAB. On this very page some deny this so it would be in the interest on the article to contain evidence of a scholarly citation. Arbustoo 08:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree - the line reads like a rather weak petulant defense to me (no offense meant, that's just how it reads). One reference on Talk.Origins does not make "cited by scholarly articles". Having the sentence there makes it seem as if the "lack of credentials/scholarliness" argument actually has some merit - when in reality it's an irrelevent argument. By arguing against their argument, you make it stronger - which is what they want. If they want to harp on "only a botanist" & "no citations", then let them, it only makes them look foolish. MickWest 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Link farm

The link farm posted by Arbustoo is inappropriate. See WP:NOT. --Chuck Hastings 06:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

I wonder if Gast...uhhh, I mean, "Chuck" will tell us exactly what is "inappropriate" about the links that Arbustoo provided? - WarriorScribe 07:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Those links show that the SAB is considered a good biblical resource (by certain school departments and science related websites), unlike what Jason Gastrich-Chuck Hastings-other Jason Gastrich sock puppets have tried to claim. As Jason Gastrich has proved in the past, he wants the links deleted so a a few days later, he claim no reliable group cites the SAB. Its a little game he plays to attack things he doesn't agree with. Arbustoo 00:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Jason likes playing games -- especially those that further his megalomaniacal agenda. The sad thing is, I doubt he realizes the harm he causes to real Christians -- they are tainted by his nonsense. Jim62sch 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples and the Bible, killing, and homosexuality

There has been an ongoing effort to modify this article to the point of uselessness. The excuses for doing such have been poor. In the event that this continues it should be noted that "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."(Leviticus 20:13) is directly from the Bible.[9] That a gay man should "be put to death" is a direct Biblical quote. In fact, some fundamentalists have used that verse to justify hatred and violent acts.

A few examples of the SAB are important to have in this article to offer insight into the SAB content. The Biblical articles and apologetic articles contain many biblical quotes to suit those article this one shouldn't be any different. Arbustoo 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can the party that removed this explain why it was removed? Arbustoo 02:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Probably because it was an inconvenient truth. Jim62sch 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Killing is not always wrong. There are just wars, etc. etc. Secondly, no rebuttals are being allowed so I deleted it. see: Homosexuality, is it wise or genetically caused ken 18:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
So your saying gay people should be killed for being gay? That's POV. Also your agreement with that verse does not give you the right to remove it. Please stop removing the quotes from the Bible. (it goes without saying it is morally wrong to kill someone and/or take anyway their rights because they choose to love someone that others disagree with.) Arbustoo 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum, this is the talk page for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Do not try to start a flamewar over homosexuality. --Malthusian (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wells, the botanist, and author of the SAB, needs to know his limitations

  • "Og, the king of the giants, was a tall man, even by NBA standards. His bed measured 9 by 4 cubits (13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide)." (#64[10]) (Being a botanist Wells may have not been familar with Meganthropus or other finds). [11]
  • On God being seen: "And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre." (Genesis 18:1) According to Wells the botanist who knows little of Hebrew culture and Hebrew and Greek language, this is contradicted later: "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) and "No man hath seen God at any time." (1 John 4:12)[12] Other commentary which does give commentary about Hebrew and Greek language says this is no contradiction. [13] ken 22:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


OK I apogise, I see you did use the talk page. What is you point with regard to the above? David D. (Talk) 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the footnotes? ken 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The examples section is there to give examples of the type of material that is in the SAB, as such it should have a representative sample of examples, regardless of whether you feel the examples contain errors or not. Your recent edits appear nothing short of POV vandalism.
The extreme (and highly disputed) estimate on height for Meganthropus is nine feet, still substantially shorter than 13.5, so Meganthropus would not be relevant even if this were the forum for debating such things, which it is not.
Also, I find your insistence on characterizing Wells as a "botanist" rather bemusing. The text stands up by itself, and I can't see that the average reader would care one whit for the credentials of the writer. MickWest 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually being a botanist would imply that he is intelligent and has been trained to think critically. As such it is a compliment. What are the qualifications for James Patrick Holding who bufalo cites. Is he a trained biblical scholar? David D. (Talk) 23:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Not POV vandalism. Wells, the botanist, is over his head. Offered some examples to show this. ken 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Response to: Other commentary which does give commentary about Hebrew and Greek language says this is no contradiction. Okay, so let's say it is a translation issue. That shows that the Bible (at least the Kings James version) has errors which are contradictions. That is the point of the SAB. Your edits are POV. Also it'd benefit your argument if you concentrate on the issue not the author. Arbustoo 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Ken, I do read classical Greek. The quotes are accurate (at least from a Greek perspective, including the quote from Genesis, as found in the Septuagint, which is hailed by many Christians as an accurate translation of the Torah). In fact, the first two words of John 1:18 are Θεον ουδεις, or "God by no man...". The Genesis version is too darned long for me to put in here as I have to use the "insert characters" feature, but it does match the KJV version. Jim62sch 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Since Ken is insinuating that the KJV is a bad translation, how does he know that the Greek and Hebrew translation of the 'original' text is any better than the KJV translation of the Greek and Hebrew. Ken, what i don't understand is why God managed to guide the Greeks and Jews to perfect translations but didn't help out the English scribes? Or are you saying that the KJV is a perfect translation but cannot be read without assumptions and assertions to keep it all straight? David D. (Talk) 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Response to "Meganthropus or other finds. [14] You're kidding right? Your using anthropology from the wrong era. Meganthropus is dated around 5.4 to 1.5 million years ago. The Bible, Old Testament, places the creation of earth around 4,000 years. Where did you come up with this? Arbustoo 03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbusto, show me a Bible scholar who places the earth at 4,000 years old. I don't think you can since young earth creationist say the earth is around 6,000 years old. Your reading of scholarship is poor. Secondly, a look though the scientific literature will see how fallacious your millions of years are. ken 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Hmm, there are no specific quotes at that link? What examples do you have in mind? Radiodating problems? David D. (Talk) 18:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The quotes show holistically though expert testimony the evolutionary position is fallacious. ken 18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Is your argument that to find a single fault in the theory of evolution everything gets thrown out? Not to mention that many of those quotes are taken out of context. Or are so dated that their relevance of them in light of further evidence is dubious. The theory of evolution is a moving target and is adjusted to accomadate new data points. This is not a weakness but a strength. The theory is adjusted and improved with more data. So what is your point, the theoryt has changed and therefore sciencist don't know what they are talking about? David D. (Talk) 18:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You did not show the quotes were taken out of context. I think we should agree to disagree. ken 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Since you did not give me any specific quotes as example, I'll just throw back the rebuttals from out of context quotes from many creationist sources. Your tactic of not wanting to discus specific examples and going with the holistic approach is noted. David D. (Talk) 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not looked for a specific example, I just know it is a common tactic. Darwins incredulity at the evolution of the eye being the classic example that gets trotted out more often than not. Anyway that is besides the point, you are ignoring the rest point of my question. If it stops you going off on a tangent let's assume that all quotes are cited in context. So again, is your argument that to find a single fault in the theory of evolution is enough to throw out the whole idea and revert to a creationist world view? David D. (Talk) 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo vandal

Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is continuing to delete content from this page. I can't be bothered getting into a revert war. He has two options. Put the article up for AfD or stop deleting. If buffalo cannot see this logic then this user should not be editing wikipedia since they do not understand the NPOV guidelines. Since buffalo has been here a while the chances are this user does know the NPOV guidelines. In that case this is a more serious example of flagrant disregard for the community consensus.

While this article exists in wikipedia it is necessary to give examples of the SAB work. If buffalo thinks it is unscholarly that user is welcome to say so but DO NOT vandalise the page. Sarcastic comments re: Well's botany degree (the only criticism i have seen from buffalo) are not an appropriate criticism. Buffalo needs to criticise Well's work and arguments from 'lack of authority' are very unpersuasive. They also show a distinct lazyness on buffalos part to write something coherent.

In summary, buffalo must Go to AfD, get off the page or write a good criticism of his work. David D. (Talk) 18:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Either a few unscholarly examples from Wells are given with rebuttals or no examples should be given at all. ken 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Has anyone disagreed that you can rebut an example? The problem is your current rebuttals are laden with sarcastic comments re: the botany degree. Is that the best you can do? David D. (Talk) 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, rebuttals that rely on the Hebrew or Greek versions are missing the point, the SAB is only concerned with problems in the English KJV of the Bible. In that sense, pointing out the the original Hebrew meant something different is really supporting the SABs contention that the KJV is riddled with errors - so you can't really use it as a rebuttal. MickWest 18:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
MickWest, show me this statement is true: "the SAB is only concerned with problems in the English KJV of the Bible." Does Wells explicitly say this. Wells doesn't do good exegesis. It can be and will be pointed out. ken 18:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Wells does not do Exegesis AT ALL, there are hardly any references to the original greek or hebrew on SAB, see his FAQ [15]. All the quotes are from the KJV, which he uses because: "It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only "authentic" version" MickWest 18:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you did not prove your contention. No statement from Wells. The article does not state that Wells is solely concerned with KJV translation either. Stop trying to obfuscate. ken 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Buffalo did you miss the link? Why do you use the King James Version? David D. (Talk) 19:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(caught in edit clash) It sounds as if buffalo agrees with Wells that the KJV is a poor translation. Or am I geting this wrong and buffalo believes KJV to be inerrant "authentic" version? This seems to be a critical point to help understand why he finds Well's work unscholarly. David D. (Talk) 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
the statement "the SAB is only concerned with problems in the English KJV of the Bible." can bee seen to be true simply by the fact that the SAB never discusses problems with the original Greek or Hebrew texts. Occasionally they are referenced, but only to explain possible sources of error in the English version. Errors that are actually extant in the originals are never discussed, onlt the English MickWest 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ken if you want to use a 5.1-1 million year of anthropological specien as a "rebuttal" cite a anthroplogist that dates the species to 4-2,000 years old. Then cite a scholarly article that uses that argument. WHy did you ignore the person why can Greek? He said the translation in question is correct. Please stop vandalizing the page for your religious beliefs. Arbustoo 19:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Wells uses the KJV because it has no copyrights. But I don't think we should turn this article into a KJV versus non KJV article. The point is that the SAB is quoted by no Bible scholars and cites no scholarship. Rebuttals will be given. ken 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Do you believe the KJV is inerrant? If not i don't see your problem. David D. (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep this article. Why is it still here?

There was no consensus to keep this article. Why is it still here? 19:19, 15 February 2006 ken 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Because there was no consensus to delete it, and the default is to keep. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Was there a consensus to delete it? That is all that counts. What did I vote I don't remember. Feel free to put it up again for AfD. David D. (Talk) 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was officially no consensus, leaning to keep. Actual votes were 6 delete, 19 keep. MickWest 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

deletion of paraphrasing of Wells' FAQ

The sentence

. However, he points out he is not performing exegesis, and is only critiquing the King James version of the Bible (not the Greek or Hebrew) since that is the version used by most non-fundamentalist Christians.

was deleted, with the comment that it was not supported by the linked source [16], and was inaccurate. The source is Wells' FAQ, inc which he clearly explains why he uses the KJV:

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

He also admits he is not an expert in Hebrew, Greek or exegesis. It's very clear that he's only commenting on the English version of the text. He does not explicitly say he's not performing exegesis, but that was my understanding of his FAQ. Does anyone contend that he IS performing exegesis, or that he's basing any arguments on the original texts rather than the KJV? MickWest 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-phrased this to more accurately reflect what is said in the linked FAQ. MickWest 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The botanist and author of SAB should reconsider Giants

I cite:

"Gigantopithicus

The crown formation of the tooth is identical to other examples recovered from Java, China and Africa and which belonged to the Gigantopithicus, who lived half a million years ago; the primitive supposed ape-like creature said to have been 13 ft. tall, and which, since its initial discovery from a single molar recovered by von Koenigswald in China in 1934 has caused considerable controversy. Scientists have been adamant to link such a huge beast directly with man since "no human could have possibly been that big", as they put it. However, the late author and anthropologist, Ivan T. Sanderson, who actually examined the available jaws and teeth of these creatures, put forward a renewed claim now becoming generally accepted by the academic world that the Giantopithecines were hominids and therefore tool makers." taken from: And There Were Giants By Rex Gilroy

I also cite:

There Were Giants in Those Days

I think he should spend more time studying dandelions and roses and less time coming up with faux Bible scholarship. ken 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Ken, highly disputed speculation on the height of early bipeds based on skull fragments is nothing to do with the article. The article is on the SAB - as such it should describe what is in the SAB. This is not a discussion forum, it's an enclyclopedia. It's enough to note that many christians take issue with the assertions in the SAB. Individual rebuttals are totally out of place here. MickWest 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Show me a encyclopedia that gives unscholarly SAB examples. ken 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Addendum: MickWest, take a look at the giant femur photograph located at this source: There Were Giants in Those Daysken 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
This one bone proves humans were giants? This is illogical given the amount of criticism that is leveled at anthropologists for not having complete skeletons of the early humanoid fossils such as lucy. Isn't this a double standard? David D. (Talk) 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You claim that the actual content of SAB is "unscholarly". A quote of something that is unscholarly is still an accurate quote. If I were to quote the Quran, it would be an accurate quote, regardless of if I believed the accuracy of what I was quoting. A quote is a quote. All the section should be is examples from the SAB. MickWest 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
TO: MickWest, Apparently, Giants in history
There are fairies and dragons in history too. There are biomechanical reasons why you could never get a 36 foot human - they could only exist with the help of magic. You should read On Being the Right Size, or this site [17]. MickWest 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There are dragons in history because dinosaurs and man coexisted. ken 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I don't know whether to laugh at this or be sad that you are so misinformed. Arbustoo 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
TO: Arbusto: Someone who claims the Bible says the earth is 4,000 years old should not be quick to tell other people they are misinformed. By the way, I notice you did not address the material I presented to MickWest.
TO: MickWest: If you are going to say there are fairies in history you should give a source. Please at least attempt to support any assertions you make. ken 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

TO: ALL

"A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.

23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.

A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.

A 9' 8" skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana (Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975).

In 1833 soldiers digging at a pit for a powder magazine in Lompock Rancho, California, discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The skeleton had double rows of upper and lower teeth. These bones substantiated legends by the local Piute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cahs.

In Clearwater Minnesota, the skeletons of seven giants were found in mounds. These had receding foreheads and complete double dentition.

"A miner fell through a hole in a mine in Italy and found this 11' 6" skeleton." believed to been found in 1856.
A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," and besides each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, Oct. 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978).
Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, also known as Maximinus Thrax (235-238 A.D.) was a Roman soldier-emperor who spent his reign on campaign. Maximinus was born in Thrace to a Gothic father an an Alanic mother in about 173 A.D.. He was reportedly 8' feet, six inches (2.59m) tall, and of tremendous strength.
In an ancient text of the Jews, we read an astonishing description of some of these gigantic Amorites whom the Israelites conquered. In Buber's Tanhuma, Devarim 7, the text tells us of a Rabbi Johnanan ben Zakkai's encounter with the Roman Emperor Hadrian. This event occurred in about A.D. 135, soon after the Roman victory in the Bar Kochba war, when the Jews rebelled against the Romans. The text reads:
The wicked emperor Hadrian, who conquered Jerusalem, boasted, 'I have conquered Jerusalem with great power.' Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai said to him, 'Do not boast. Had it not been the will of Heaven, you would not have conquered it.' Rabbi Johanan then took Hadrian into a cave and showed him the bodies of Amorites who were buried there. One of them measured eighteen cubits [approximately 30 feet] in height. He said, 'When we were deserving, such men were defeated by us, but now, because of our sins, you have defeated us'" (quoted in Judaism, edited by Arthur Hertzberg, p.155-156, George Braziller, New York: 1962)."

Taken from: http://www.bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

ken 02:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Why did you cite a source from 1895? There has been wonderful developments in science since then. Arbustoo 03:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Appeal to novelty is a logical fallacy. ken 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
TO: Arbusto, Addendum: What new developments in science say that men in the past could not have been very tall? You didn't cite any. ken 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Is this a joke? What level of education are you at? Dating techiques and DNA. The dating places the species millions of years prior to the date you wish it to be. The DNA show that it is not a homo sapien (human) and it is not a monkey. In conclusion, the example you cited is NOT a human and DID NOT live in the Biblical era according to science. Arbustoo 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is phlogiston still a viable concept? And that from Preiestly, no less. Cherry picking data is not going to win an argument here. David D. (Talk) 05:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This entire game by ken is absurd. The article is not about whether the SAB is right, wrong, or purple. It's about the SAB. The question is whether the article accurately reports what the SAB is, not whether the SAB itself is correct. Yeesh. Mark K. Bilbo 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

bats or birds

SAB says that Bats are birds to the biblical God.

Lev 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

SAB says that To the biblical god, bats are just unclean birds.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Above is a well known example that occurs twice in the KJV. Is this a problem with translation? If so the KJV cannot be inerrant. Or is it a problem with the original authors classifying all flying things as birds (a reasonable mistake) and not noticing that bats are in fact mammals. In that case the bible, even greek and hebrew versions, cannot be inerrant. If neither of these is the case, how do apologists explain this? If they can't then it would seem SAB has a valid point. David D. (Talk) 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The SAB makes no claim other than this is a contradiction/mistake in the KJV. I don't think it's relevent if the mistake comes from mistranslation, or is is in the original. The SAB's point is that most people read the KJV, or a version derived from the KJV, so that's the version they annotated. MickWest 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It is revelvent if this is also a mistake in the greek and hebrew and this has been translated correctly. The only point SAB is trying to make is that the bible should not be considered the word of God and inerrent as many apologist want to portray. Many apologists do claim the KJV is inerrent too and in that case this is very relevent. David D. (Talk) 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, i'm saying that the KJV is definitely wrong. Chalk one up to SAB since this is a mistake and undeniable. However, I'm extending the argument to the greek version since buffalo is insisting that translation errors somehow make mistakes in the KJV acceptable (despite apologists claiming KJV is inerrent). In this case there is a very good case to be made that the error was present in the greek version too. I'm sure the apologists have some squirming solution to this error but I doubt it is very convincing. David D. (Talk) 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There probably are errors in the original greek, and it's relevent to a generaly discussion on Biblical inerrancy. But I don't think that's particularly relevent to an article about the SAB, which only looks at the KJV. The issue is not HOW errors got into the KJV, but that it is full of errors, and yet is one of the most popular versions of the Bible. MickWest 23:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
TO: Mickwest, the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and not in Greek.
TO: David, why don't you look at the original Hebrew. There are Strong's concordances online. Second, if you want to take a look at the conservative Bible scholarship on various Bible verses in written and internet sources I suggest this source: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=199 Here is what you would find on the bat/bird issue: Does the Bible Wrongly Call the Bat a Bird? ken 23:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The Original language is irrelevent in the context of the SAB - the point is that there are mistakes in the KJV. MickWest 23:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mick is correct. You either address the existence of this page outright or you address the arguments made by SAB. Anything else is a red herring. David D. (Talk) 05:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole dilemma is a massive missing of the point, which seems to be very common in the SAB. The point being that there was a word in Hebrew which included the things we think of as birds and also included bats. Modern translations probably choose to render this 'birds' because there is no real English equivalent.

If you want to use this as evidence for the KJV not being infallible to that level of detail go ahead. The number of people who believe thatis tiny. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. I don't want to prove anything about the KJV Bible. It is an example of SAB's work NOT mine. This is what they do, whether you agree with it or not. David D. (Talk) 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the reversion of Wiki4christ's edit and the "bats" discussion above

This article is about the SAB. Wikipedia is committed to providing a neutral description. You cannot remove material that correctly describes the SAB.

Since millions of people oppose its basic tenet (biblical errancy), their criticisms of the SAB must be documented as well (see WP:NPOV). However, such criticisms cannot be included simply because an editor says so. They need to be quoted from external sources (WP:NOR, WP:CITE). In other words, although much of the above may be interesting, it can't be used in editing the article. I would advise those who think the article does not do their criticisms justice to add documented criticisms. You can't use the article to publish your own criticisms. AvB ÷ talk 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see this has already gone past 3RR. User:Wiki4Christ, you've earned yourself a block. AvB ÷ talk 11:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

nPOV tag and suggested next step

It is clear that, once again, Gastrich and his sock and meat puppets are engaging in edit wars with other participants at Wikipedia. This is a fairly obvious means that he can and will use to "get back" at the site, the admins, and the editors, whom he thinks have wronged him (see the AfC and the arbitration pages). As a response, I added the nPOV tag last night, and given the events since, I recommend that the page be locked. While I have little doubt that Gastrich enjoys these rather juvenile games that tie up editor time, I also think that most of the others involved would rather be doing other things. - WarriorScribe 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Work out your differences on this talk page. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

re-working the examples section

The examples section currently contains several quotes from the Bible, but without the annotations or commentary from the SAB. This makes it seems like the SAB is just a collection of amusing quotes from the Bible, when it's really the whole Bible, with added commentary. The examples section needs to reflect this by adding the annotations from the SAB. It could probably be a bit shorter as well, we just need enough to reflect the style and content of the SAB. Three would probably be enough. MickWest 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we are to have examples then we should them be actual examples of SAB. Why don't you post your proposed changes to the section so we can talk 'bout it? ---J.Smith 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I agree. The examples should reflect the main arguments of the SAB. Such as contradictions, impossibilities, violence (which is a major issue in society in general), science, and absurdity.Arbustoo 20:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I recommend the following, which are tagged according to the SAB:
  • 1 Contradictions:[18]
    • "And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre." (Genesis 18:1) Contradicted later: "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) and "No man hath seen God at any time." (1 John 4:12)
  • 2 Science:[19]
    • Bible: "So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel"(Numbers 1, 1:45) Later "Even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty." (Numbers 1, 1:45)
    • Annotated: "Population Explosion! The Israelite population went from seventy (Ex.1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) in about 400 years."
  • 3 Impossibilities: [20]
    • Bible: "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." (Deuteronomy 3, 3:11)
    • Annotated: "Og, the king of the giants, was a tall man, even by NBA standards. His bed measured 9 by 4 cubits (13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide)."
  • 4 Absurdity[21]
    • Bible: "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalm 137, 137:9)
    • Annotated: "Happiness is smashing little children against the rocks."
  • 5 Violence/Homosexuality:[22]
    • Bible: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20, 20:13)
    • Annotated: "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both."
  • 6 Women and family values:[23]
    • Bible: "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering."(Leviticus 12:6-8)
    • Annotated: "After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering."


  • Those changes are okay with me. Arbustoo 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, it is a clearer exposition of what the SAB is about. MickWest 05:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. AvB ÷ talk 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well done. This provides a good example of what SAB is about. ---J.Smith 20:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I've put these in the live article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance and Skeptic's Annotated Bible fans

Arbustoo is a big fan of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Arbustoo claimed that the Bible says the earth is 4,000 years old. However, young earth creationists say the earth is about 6,000 years old.

MickWest did not know that scholars think the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. I am guessing he does not know it was subsequently copied in Hebrew and later in Greek.

I think that many of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible fans at Wikipedia are woefully ignorant of the Bible they greatly oppose. I would suggest if you want to be a critic of the Bible you first do your homework lest you greatly embarrass yourself. Perhaps, the fans of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible are greatly puzzled why no Bible scholars cite the Skeptic's Annotated Bible but given their great ignorance such puzzlement would not be surprising. 18:24, 16 February 2006 ken 18:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

What does this have to do with you delteing examples from the SAB? Whether these guys understand the bible or not is irrelevent. If you think this should not be an article then send it to Afd or...... see above. Stop pissing in the well. David D. (Talk) 18:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If you continue to fill up this article's talk page with comments that clearly aren't relevant to making the article better, people may simply start deleting them. This is a Wikipedia talk page for discussion of the article The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not an Internet forum for talking about the SAB itself. Irrelevant comments make it more difficult to find the relevant ones. --Malthusian (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Malthusian) Fist of all, were trying to write a Encyclopedia here, not carry out a debate about the virtues of atheism or tSAB. Not to be rude, but what you think about "fans" is irrelevant and should really not be the subject here. Lets focus on making this article a brilliant description of tSAB and the various controversy around it. ---J.Smith 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ken, it would suit you interest to focus on the article and not assume things about me or any others. Many young earth creationists do see 4,000 as the starting point[24][25].The Bible isn't explicit and I made no such claim that it is. Some people choose 6,000 as the date, others 4,000, some 8,000 and others 12,000. The point is they all disagree with the scientific date of billions of years. Funny creationist are so sure about a number and can't even agree amoungst themselvs. Focus on the article, and yourself. Arbustoo 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbusto, next time try citing a more scholarly source than religioustolerance.org ken 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Arbusto, by the way, here is what your first link said: "We have found dates ranging from 3641 to 6000 BCE. A common estimate for creation is 4004 BCE; this implies a 6 millennia-old earth." [26] Why give this source to defend your 4,000 years old statement? ken 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Your time would be more productive in the section above. Give it up. It doesn't matter. No one cares. Write a sensible critique or send it to AfD. We are not here to debate. David D. (Talk) 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"...around 6,000 years :± 2,000 years for both the age of the Earth and of the rest of the universe."[27] Arbustoo 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbustoo, you gave two citations to religioustolerance.org and obviously they disagree with each other. Why do cling to that unscholarly source that disagrees with itself? ken 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Good point Ken. i think that is what SAB is trying to say too. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
David, You wrote: "I think that is what SAB is trying to say too." My comment: The SAB tries to say a lot of things but it has no depth of scholarship and no Bible scholars cite it. It cites no scholarship. I did find it humorous that Mr. Gastrich found a lot of spelling errors in the SAB also. When a man like Wells, the author of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, cannot even master his native language, should we expect he has the linguistic skills to master ancient languages and thus render quality Bible commentary? Bible exposition without Bible exegesis is like putting the cart before the horse. ken 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Yep i wrote trying intentionally. Regardless of your arguments it does not justify deleting the examples. Have you noticed that only Gastrich, (wiki4christ) agrees with your edits? Also Arbusto does not need to cite a correct creationist date. His whole point is there are several. You cannot deny that. Strange how the bible says different things to different people. God does work in mysteriosu ways. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ken, I suggest you re-read the links slowly or have someone you trust explain them to you. They don't assert a correct date, they cite creationist opinions. One discusses the origins of the 4000 BCE date and other gives opinions on the date. I can't give you a scholarly article on creationist dates because one scientifically peer editted journal that argues in favor of creationism does not exist. Arbustoo 20:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbustoo, your unscholarly religioustolerance.org source disagrees with itself. Get over it. ken 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The ages of earth is irrelevant in the context of this article. If a reference to the ages of the earth is some how needed, give a link to the relevant articles. ---J.Smith 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
MickWest sent me a private mail saying he knew that scholars believe the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and that he meant to type Greek and Hebrew in that one post. I believe him. I very much doubt though that Arbustoo, the big SAB fan, can give us the name of one Bible believing young earth creationist who believes the earth is 4,000 years old. 15:48, 18 February 2006 ken 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Still not the point. Keep it on topic Ken. This isn't the place to debate the 4000 vs 6bill division. (oh, and I have had a boss who was a 4k-creationis… he may not be a scholar, but it was what his church taught him) ---J.Smith 21:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm down and focus

The goal here is to talk about the article named The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and don't forget it. This page has digressed into a debate about SAB and that's not ok. Stop it. That's an abuse of the talk page.

Keep in mind the following points:

  1. We are here to build an encyclopedia.
  2. We will discuss issues about the article here.
  3. If there is a debate, we will try to negotiate to form a consensus. If we can't form a consensus easily then:
    1. We will talk calmly and focus, otherwise we will never get anywhere.
    2. We will use things like a Straw poll to help make desisions.


Otherwise... this article will slowly degrade into chaos. ---J.Smith 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Well, thanks, J.Smith. However, these phases have proven useless here. It isn't even "atheists vs christians" here, it's good Wikipedians losing their rag over the continuing waste of time. But you're right in that this can't go on.
Here's my advice:
Regarding the unrelenting personal attacks I would advise people to ignore them and not retaliate in kind. I would also advise people to waste no time on explaining Wikipedia policies to those who have proven that they have no intention to either follow them or try to change them. Straw polls are also a problem because these folks canvass others and/or spawn sock puppets by the dozen. My opinion: since discussion (or reaching a consensus) with Ken, Wiki4Christ, etc. is currently impossible due to their behavior, other editors can revert their edits on sight. If they revert back without proper discussion and consensus, it is vandalism and they will be blocked. AvB ÷ talk 20:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
PS As most editors here know, this is just a temporary situation, since it is intimately linked with the upcoming ArbCom case against Jason Gastrich. Unless Jason changes his tune and behavior considerably, I predict a swift, indefinite ban for him and all accounts considered to be his sock puppets based on similar behavor if not IP addresses. AvB ÷ talk 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
How effective is a ban? Don't they have very cheap anonymous internet surfing software that cloaks your internet IP address? I recall seeing one for about $30. Here it is: http://www.anonymizer.com/ I think it is better to negotiate with Gastrich rather than trying to ban him. ken 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I'd bet dollars to donuts that IP address from anonymizer are blocked. ---J.Smith 21:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
Doesn't it merely block your IP address rather than substitute another IP address? ken 21:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
J Smith's point is that the range of IP adresses from anonymizer.com is known and they could all be blocked. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposals/Changes/Suggestions

  • This page was locked because two people were reverting a consensus with POV attacks. If those people have a problem with certain aspects of the article post them here so we can move on and unlock the page. If those people do not have any recommendations they should stop vandalizing the consensus. Arbustoo 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. AvB ÷ talk 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Normally, I'd agree, but the events involving the Louisiana Baptist University page overnight indicate that, even if the two parties to which you refer come to an understanding, there's always Gastrich, waiting in the wings, to create new sock puppets and start the process all over again. - WarriorScribe 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it is notable that no Bible scholars cite the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and this should be mentioned. ken 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Um, of course they don't. It isn't a scholarly work. Why would one even think they would cite it? Its based on translations of texts and has nothing that is signficantly original. It would be highly odd if they did cite it. JoshuaZ 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If bible scholars try to refute it then don't they have to cite it? Seems like a contradiction. If you mean positive support, do you expect Bible scholars to positively cite something is direct opposition to their profession? Arbustoo 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how ken meant by Bible scholars, but I meant it to mean actual professors and scholars at universites, not inerrance apologists. JoshuaZ 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be pointed out that the SAB is not a scholarly work and no professors or scholars cite it. ken 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
There is no way to ever cite that, so we can’t include it. ---J.Smith 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ain't that a fact. Ken, the statement "No professors or scholars cite the SAB" cannot be included if no reputable sources are cited as reporting on statements with a similar gist (WP:NOR, WP:V). And even if such sources are presented, other editors may still question whether the statement is notable and consensus would be needed before it could be included. As to pointing out that "the SAB is not a scholarly work", the article already makes clear that the annotations in the SAB were written by a lay person. (It's sourced information deemed notable by previous editors.) AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Why was the talk origins link taken out? That was a case of a scholarly/resource citing the SAB for its work at exposing biblical contradictions. If Ken can support the claim "No professors or scholars cite the SAB" and it is put in then a discussion of who has cited SAB should be included. Arbustoo 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I took it out because it was not relevent. It's just a partial answer to one of Ken's criticism, and nothing to do with the article. It just adds fuel to the fire. MickWest 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the speculative nature of the macroevolutionary hypothesis and its lack of evidential support, I don't see why a talk origins citation would be notable.

I cite:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Conway Morris, Simon [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine), "What Mad Pursuit," 1990, p.138.

ken 03:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

First of all, if you think evolution lacks the support of evidence, you're ignorant. Sorry but that's the truth. But most of all, that is not relevant in the least. You still seem to think that the Wiki is about "proving" things in some way "right" or "wrong." It's not. An encyclopedia reports on things. Whether evolution is right, wrong, or purple is utterly irrelevant to this article. Mark K. Bilbo 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
TO: Markkbilbo, Why you want to spout on about things that are not relevant in the least escapes me. That you admit to spouting on about things that are not relevant in the least is doubly shameful. Second, you don't know me. Stating what I know or do not know is rather lame. Third, if the macroevolutionary hypothesis is speculative and not supported, I see no reason to feature a link to a site like talk origins which specializes in this hypothesis because it is not notable. ken 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Have you ever seen two children fight? One hits the other, the other hits back and yells "don't hit people"? I'm not trying to imply that either of you are children, I'm just saying your both being absurd and this argument needs to be niped in the butt. Just remember the goal here: to make a brilliant article about SAB. ---J.Smith 06:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
TO: J. Smith, I did not start making personal attacks, I merely responded to one and showed it to be childish. ken 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Has the Skeptic's Annotated Bible won any awards?

Has the Skeptic's Annotated Bible won any awards or has it not been recognized as anything exemplary. ken 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Not that I'm aware of--to be sure, there have probably been internet awards (various "Best site of the day" type cruft), but the SAB website doesn't list any awards of any type. Justin Eiler 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is this important? MickWest 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Awards are one sign of notability? (A guess on my part.) Justin Eiler 22:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any awards and I haven't seen a source to say it hasn't won any awards. Arbusto 05:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Protected weeks ago. No discussion of disputes in well over a week. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Again unprotected. There has been plenty of time for people to calm down, and it's clear that the Gastrich case revolved around his behavior and there's no sense in penalizing the wiki for his misbehavior. I shall adopt an aggressive approach to disruption, which ought to be enough to deal with any Gastrich-inspired nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Trivial" criticism addressed

I've added a reference to the charge (often made by SAB critics) that the SAB contains "trivial" contradictions, and pointed out that it wouldn't be comprehensive if it didn't include such. --Robert Stevens 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet

Would you please provide a source for this? Otherwise, its original research and we cannot add it - thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
From the links on the referenced SAB page itself: "Among alleged contradictions charged, this one wins a major award for silliness" (here: [28]). Does this count as evidence of the charge of "triviality"? I should be able to find more, but I don't have a handy archive of such comments. Though, in relation to the SAB overall, Tektoniks says "Overall almost none of SAB deserves detailed response and many cases require no more than a "So, what's the big deal?" as a response" (here: [29]).
From the SAB FAQ: "There is also a discussion board where both believers and skeptics can discuss the Bible and suggest changes to the SAB". Of course, the existence of the board itself can be confirmed by clicking the "discussion board" link on the SAB main page.
As for the notion that the SAB is striving to be comprehensive: hmm, not sure where to find "evidence" of that, but maybe the sheer size of the SAB is evidence of that, and maybe the existence of the discussion board (and its stated function, from the FAQ).--Robert Stevens 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet
I'm not sure that supports the content added, the way it was phrased. Blogs and such are usually not RS, and Tektonics is an apologetics site, which would place them in the highly biased critics category. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

...Huh? Apparently somebody has flagged me as a "suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich"! I'm an atheist, and my previous contributions to Wikipedia have been opposed to assumptions of Biblical inerrancy! And my attempted contribution here was in support of the SAB, defending it from a charge that I've seen fundamentalists use, and giving information about the SAB's discussion board. Somebody has a vivid imagination!--Robert Stevens 10:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

...Or a warped sense of humour. My "ban" didn't stop me posting this.--Robert Stevens 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)