The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
This article has been tagged since May 2008.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB) is a website providing skeptical analysis of the Bible, edited by Steve Wells.^[1] It consists of annotations presented alongside the text of the King James Version of the Bible pointing out internal inconsistencies and contradictions with science and history, and suggesting that the Bible advocates reprehensible ethics. Since its initial inception, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has been expanded by Wells, with the addition of a discussion board, an annotated Qur'an, an annotated Book of Mormon, and various links to external sites such as The Brick Testament.^[1]

1 About
2 Fundamentalist response
3 See also
4 References
5 External links

[edit] About

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible uses tags to highlight issues including injustice, absurdity, cruelty and violence, intolerance, contradictions, family values, women, science and history, prophecy, sex, language, interpretation, homosexuality, and "good stuff". Each tag offers negative, critical commentary with the exception of the "Good Stuff" section, which usually refers to positive ethical teachings in the Bible. However, overall the sections that deal with impossibilities, contradictions, and negative teachings are to provide evidence that, as Wells explained, "it is time for us all to stop believing in, or pretending to believe in, a book that is so unworthy of belief".^[2]

Wells' formal training is in botany and mathematics. He has said that he has "a B.S. in Botany and a more than 50 semester hours of graduate credit in Chemistry and Mathematics, with 15 years [sic] experience as an industrial statistician."^[1]

[edit] Fundamentalist response

Holding, of Tektonics.org, points out that Wells has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages and insist that these are required to do Bible exegesis, and that Wells does not cite scholarly or secondary works.^[3]

Wells responds by saying education is crucial to seeing the flaws in the Bible, and that he has spent many years studying the Bible. He does not claim any training in exegesis. His criticism targets the King James version of the Bible partly because: "It is still the most familiar version and some Christians consider it to be the only "authentic" version."^[1]

The SAB provides links to responses by apologists at the bottom of chapter and contradiction pages, as well as a list of rebuttal sites.^[4]