I’m looking for other blogs that also discuss the Bible and Bible scholarship in depth as I do here. I don’t mean from the same perspective — no matter if they are Catholic, Mormon, atheist, anything — just curious to know what else there is in internet-land that discusses biblical questions as regularly and analytically as I attempt to do here.
Many thanks.
(Email me if reluctant to post here: neilgodfrey1[AT]gmail[DOT]com)
The following two tabs change content below.
Neil Godfrey
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 2: Certainty and Uncertainty in History - 2024-11-18 01:15:24 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 1: Historical Facts and Probability - 2024-11-16 01:05:37 GMT+0000
- Palestinians, written out of their rights to the land – compared with a new history - 2024-10-15 20:05:41 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
διά πέντε / dia pente is a good one.
It isn’t a blog but rather an Ehrman lecture in which he discussed his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. After the talk, the moderator, a theologian, who seems to have a very high opinion of himself, asks questions, some of which are his own, while others had been submitted by members of the audience. Ehrman makes the point that his views are those of a historian rather than a theologian, but then, it seems to me, at least, that he takes a purely theological approach when, at 38:40, he responds to the question: “What do you consider the most convincing evidence for the historicity of Jesus?”
Tony Burke keeps a blog on the study of the Christian Apocrypha at
http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicity/
He writes: “My views on censorship have led me also to become an advocate for apocryphal texts. This is literature that Christian orthodoxy did not, and indeed still does not, want us to read. We can debate the validity of this position–the process of selecting a canon of sacred texts is a common phenomenon and is, in some ways, necessary for the survival of the faith–but part of me still thinks it wrong. Texts should be available to all, ideas should flow freely, and to censor them is nothing but cowardice… It is remarkable that any of the Christian Apocrypha have survived.”
Thanks for these.
I also know of Stephan Huller’s Observations. There are others on my blogroll list that I need to have another look at — some do include posts on biblical topics (Steven Carr, Rick Sumner, others), but I am not sure how often. I need to take time to look again — but greatly appreciate anyone informing me of others or commenting on these till then.
Hi Neil,
You might want to look at Thom Stark’s articles at Religion at the Margins website. He lays into apologists like Copan. Its fun reading an irate (as well as smart and sarcastic) religious scholar tearing the strips off apologists and their vacuous exegesis. (Your favourite whipping boy is also listed as a contributor here). Stark’s book “The Human Faces of God” is definitely worth a read.
I also follow Tristan D. Vick at “advocatusatheist.blogspot”. Tristan had a recent article (April 20th, 2011) where he wrote a few choice words against R Joseph Hoffmann :-). He also contribute to “threeskeptics.blogspot”. The other two atheists contributors to SC3PTICS are Bud Uzoras of Dead Logic, Mike Doolittle of The A-Unicornist,
Hope this help
PS I wrote this comment stripping out the URLs as I do not want your spam filter to junk it.
Hello Neil,
You wrote: “I’m looking for other blogs that also discuss the Bible and Bible scholarship in depth as I do here.”
You will find the Bible is an important topic at my blog in terms of critical analysis. Because it is true and accurate, it has been used by archaeologists as a means of locating and discovering important findings.
Archaeology aside, I’d like to offer a friendly challenge to Neil Godfrey, who, it seems, posted this request and is at the helm of this blog. I invite you to come to my blog to refute an article I wrote which I believe proves the existence of God philosophically.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientists to understand the terms and ideas, which are spelled out rather simply. All you need is a basis of truth from which to refute the points and main conclusion.
If you don’t feel up to the task, Neil, I would appreciate a response to my challenge regardless
Regards
Rick
The link to your blog?
How can I resist such a diplomatic invitation? 🙂
His blog appears to be http://templestream.blogspot.com/
And his article which “proves the existence of God philosophically” could possibly be this one http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
On a brief look at the post, it seems to be something of a confused jumble 🙂
Can I assume that you know about http://www.freeratio.org/forumdisplay.php?f=60 ?
I do, thanks. I visit from time to time and have jumped in to a discussion there about the reason it was said Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I am trying to keep it restricted to blogs for now, but I know this is a hard thing to follow through on because there is so much good stuff that is outside blogs, too.
Bob Price recently made mention of a ‘Bible Geek’ listeners forum, or some such. I don’t know if it’s up and running or where it will be hosted.
Neil,
My apologies, yes, the following is the article I’d like you to come and challenge, if you’d like to.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
Regards,
Rick
It can’t be challenged as the article is meaningless.
Well, there’s, ahem, my own 🙂
Of course — http://synopticsolutions.blogspot.com/
It looks like you have some good links to others, too. Thanks.
Neil,
Any response to my challenge yet?
I’ve had a few people making comments on the article but no one seems to really be up to the task of refuting it. I could really use someone of your intellectual stature to make the dialogue more compelling. But, if you don’t feel up to it, just let me know.
Regards,
Rick
Richard, you’ve made some bald assertions, and attributed some things to materialists which doesn’t seem to me to be required for materialism (ie. That QM violates materialism). Your argument is not sound, nor is it valid (the premises are false and the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises).
Claiming that no one seems up to the task of refuting it doesn’t mean the argument has not been shown invalid.
I can’t touch anything till the weekend — patience patience 🙂
My awareness of the “biblioblogosphere” has undergone inflation. Neil’s was the first biblioblog I have followed with regularity (aside from Carrier, who does not post as frequently, or Huller, who’s thinking is too difficult for me to follow), and through him I have become aware of Mcgrath’s, R. Joseph Hoffmann’s and, just today, Tom Verenna’s (you seem cool, Tom), as well as the FRDB forum. The “strange” thing is that I see a lot of the same people commenting on these places. I was accustomed to thinking Neil’s was the universe and hadn’t realized that it is one in a multiverse.
Anyway, thanks Neil, and everyone here, for expanding my world and providing me with food for thought.
Thanks for the heads up, John. You may also have noticed scholarly lists of various sorts you might also like to read, such as Crosstalk, though I haven’t been there for a while, now. Also the JesusMysteries yahoo group.
Neil,
I’ll take your non-reply to my challenge to refute the following article as an obtuse but definite no.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
Have a good one.
Rick
I replied twice. Once to say I could not resist such a diplomatic invitation and again to say I could not touch anything till the weekend. Hopefully you just did not see my responses.
OK Neil,
Your recent comment was after Havok’s so I wasn’t sure who you were addressing:
Thanks for your response, looking forward to it.
Regards,
Rick