Does Skeptics Annotated Bible not have some of the worst arguments against the bible ever?

Question

Under injustice in the bible, the second argument says:
"God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved"

If you want to talk about unreasonable arguments from ignorance, you got one right here. Just one from over 1,000 arguments with absolutely no solid ground.

Or this other one under injustices too:
#883: "Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for 'all the righteous blood' from Abel to Zecharias"

I just started to laugh when I found it. How about proper diction when making an argument? The fact that Jesus blames the jews of anything is irrelevant to showing injustice in the bible, after all the Jews did kill him.

Don't all of you think the arguments should be reduced to the ones with solid ground, and then have Christians explain only those?

Thats the whole problem ZMJ, all the arguments they point out are little, and they can easily be explained because they have no ground, and no basis. The bible auto-explains itself, if you don't mis-quote it.

Sapere Aude: Jews aren't blamed for the death of Jesus anymore. Only those who killed him originally are blamed for his death.

As for knyghtzero, the fact that if you meditate on it my response makes no sense, is kindoff the whole point. Its called logical fallacies, an atheists best friend.

Answer 1

I have spent many hours on Skeptic Annotated and found that they are completely ignorant of the cultural context, the historical background, and the literary context of many of the problems they have with the Bible.

Answer 2

I am not familiar with the work in question. But there are quite enough obvious errors in the bible to convince any sensible person that its most reliable use is as a doorstop. One such is available to anyone with a shovel and the ability to count: the annual layers of the Antarctic ice cap go back millions of years, and show conclusively that there was no worldwide flood at any time during the existence of H. sapiens. For more on this, see:

Answer 3

Are you serious? The bible is God's word or whatever and if you're saying "well don't just read that cause it won't make sense read the scholar's writing too" then you're saying the bible won't make sense and you shouldn't have to read any scholar's writing's to understand the bible. The bible is supposed to be the words to live by and if you need to further understand it with scholars writing's then you know in your heart the bible is pure crap.

Answer 4

"The fact that Jesus blames the jews of anything is irrelevant to showing injustice in the bible, after all the Jews did kill him"

I hope you notice that this argument doesn't make sense.

Answer 5

How is every jew alive responsible for killing Jesus?

A white man throws a switch and electrocutes a black man, are all the white's responsible? (The obvious answer here, is NO)

Why are human's capable of understanding that you cannot blame an entire race or group of people for the fault of a few.

But yet, your supposedly all loving, all-forgiving god, can't?

Answer 6

Many people have problems with the bible. It does have errors and inconsistencies. The skeptics bible points them out. There are a few that are a stretch though but there are some that are dead on.

Answer 7

Sure some arguments are better than others. If you can't explain the little problems, how do you expect to explain the big ones?

Answer 8

So you don't agree that vegetables are as 'precious' as meat? Want to explain that?

No, I don't think it should restrict itself to any set of arguments. The bible is utter rubbish from start to finish and nobody should be afraid of pointing that out.

Answer 9

No.
Yes.
They don't need explaining as it is pure fiction.