Interesting, sure, but I wouldn't take it as gospel truth (ha ha, my little joke).
I noticed, for instance, that he's playing fast and loose with some terminology -- "Elohim" is a plural noun, and he's using it as a singular one.
Someone referred one of the Slacktivites, who is a Bible scholar, to it, and she noticed this too: Umm. The narrator didn't present anything that was strictly speaking *wrong*, but a lot of the terminology was inaccurate which leads to incorrect implications, there is hella lot of simplification and picking and choosing of data (impossible to avoid when one is covering over a thousand years of several very different cultures, but there is a definite agenda in choices), a heckuvalot of "absence of evidence" used as "evidence of absence", and some very ... creative use of descriptive adjectives there
( ... )
Oh, and ironically for something from a skeptic site, I noticed he does the "experts agree" thing a few times. One time he actually names his experts, the others he doesn't. Critical thinking guides specifically say to watch out for that trick.
Click to view
Comments 3
Reply
I noticed, for instance, that he's playing fast and loose with some terminology -- "Elohim" is a plural noun, and he's using it as a singular one.
Someone referred one of the Slacktivites, who is a Bible scholar, to it, and she noticed this too: Umm. The narrator didn't present anything that was strictly speaking *wrong*, but a lot of the terminology was inaccurate which leads to incorrect implications, there is hella lot of simplification and picking and choosing of data (impossible to avoid when one is covering over a thousand years of several very different cultures, but there is a definite agenda in choices), a heckuvalot of "absence of evidence" used as "evidence of absence", and some very ... creative use of descriptive adjectives there ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment