This Week in Biblioblogdom
Remember, this is really for fun and while many of us take our blogs serious – as an outreach of our personal mission – these rankings should be sorta of a self-measurement meaning absolutely nothing.
From the Top 50 -
Jim is gone, or maybe not, but no matter, we will not be counting him.
Joel (Hey, that’s me) Watts – 70,151
MandM – 130,624
John Loftus – 131,227
Dave Black – 207,165
James McGrath – 228,182
Jeremy Thompson – Free Old Testament Audio – 236,153
Scripture Zealot – 253,560
Henry Neufield – 257,578
Matt Dabbs – 320,209
Ferrell Jenkins – 335,316
Now, remember, this is for fun.
on January 9, 2010 at 1:33 am
Permalink
Thanks for this Joel. How does one view the top 50 list you linked to?
on January 9, 2010 at 1:50 am
Permalink
Not sure if ?Wrong will continue to do it or not, but I hear that some people are planing a revolt, to maintain the purity of the institution.
on January 9, 2010 at 1:56 am
Permalink
When I click on your link I just get a protected blog login page.
on January 9, 2010 at 1:58 am
Permalink
Wow. Maybe another blog bites the dust. No worries, we have the spreadsheet.
on January 9, 2010 at 2:02 am
Permalink
So does this mean that MandM can put on our Biblioblog badge?
on January 9, 2010 at 2:09 am
Permalink
I don’t see why not. I would.
on January 9, 2010 at 8:39 am
Permalink
But this isn’t official MandM. It’s only official if NT Wrong does it, and it’s only if you’re there at the end of the month.
Hey, this is fun!
on January 9, 2010 at 10:57 am
Permalink
Sorry, John, since no one appointed NT, anyone can do it. And considering that he as gone the way of the West, well, seems that it might be up to us.
on January 9, 2010 at 11:41 am
Permalink
Then shouldn’t we wait until the end of the month?
on January 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Permalink
http://www.freeoldtestamentaudio.com/Blog/New.php/?p=1246
on January 9, 2010 at 8:47 am
Permalink
Hey, why is it that when NT Wrong isn’t doing this that the person ranked at the top does it? West did this same thing when he thought Wrong was not going to do it, and now YOU!?
Ohhhh, let’s see, there’s a Bible passage for most everything, right?….yes, this one:
Pride goeth before the fall.
I hope I never have to toot my horn like this when I get at the top.
on January 9, 2010 at 10:59 am
Permalink
I prefer Psalm 14.1, John.
on January 9, 2010 at 11:39 am
Permalink
Tell me this. Does Psalm 14 mean what West and Calvin claim it means?
I claim the passage is about morality, that an atheist is immoral, not insane.
And I reject that was well.
on January 9, 2010 at 11:43 am
Permalink
It doesn’t matter what it means, if you presuppose to reject it out of hand.
on January 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Permalink
From a discussion I had with a Jewish theologian my understanding of the passage is that the fool says in his heart “No God,” not that there is no god. In other words, the fool consciously rejects God’s requirements of him, he says no to God.
(I have not researched this so I could be wrong.)
on January 9, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Permalink
Matt, I respect your scholarship. When you research it you’ll find that the word for “fool” is an immoral person.
Cheers.
on January 9, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Permalink
John I have studied the word fool, here in fact, and you are quite right, fool has a moral and not an intellectual sense. I was not meaning to imply the intellectual sense, I was simply adopting the language of the English trans3lation of the text. If my Jewish friend is right then the moral sense makes perfect sense, if a person consciously rejects God’s demands to live an upright life then that person is immoral.
on January 9, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Permalink
Then we’re agreed, Matt. Jim West is ignorant, and so was Calvin!
As to the immoral charge, do you think that’s true of atheists? You see, this is not about having a basis for morality. It’s a charge against the behavior of people who do not believe in God. It claims that we are in fact immoral people; that we do not live according to moral “wisdom.” This is about our behavior not beliefs.
I would think this discussion alone should end any pretensions about an inerrant Bible. One lone ethical atheist destroys such a notion, even if he does not believe, or even if he is inconsistent in his behavior, as you might want to claim.
Agreed?
on January 9, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Permalink
John, you don’t understand immoral, and you haven’t destroy anything. Rather, I am amazed that if you have attended school, etc…, that you don’t know what immoral would mean in this case.
on January 9, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Permalink
Of course, I am not amazed at you, Joel. I expect it. You are the one who lacks understanding.
I just posted about it.
Cheers.
on January 9, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Permalink
John, I realize that your ego is large enough that you no longer have need of admitting you are wrong on anything, or have any need of seeing reality, but in this case, I would advise you to do both.
I could care less how John Calvin used it or the returning Jim West, as one murdered and the other, well, you know. The fact remains that this verse is speaking about evil men who have denied God, not people who denied God and suddenly became evil. What you have mistakenly done is to latch on to something, interpret it how you desire to see it, and then build your theology upon your own interpretation instead of what it says.
Further, we can examine this morally – an atheist cannot accept Christ and thus is wicked, and by that I mean not having his sins removed. Whether a good man or a great man, if a man dies in his sins, he dies immoral.
If you note the present tense ‘A wicked/immoral man says no to God/there is no God.’ Simply, John, this is talking about the people who refuse to believe in the God of of Israel to do wicked things, not because they are wicked. Now, I understand that you don’t like this, so you will refute it, and in the end, you’ll have to live with your blindness.
I am sure that you will use your fundamentalist theology to concoct more theories on why the bible may be disbelieved, but instead of trying to ramrod your personal interpretation through, you might want to actually give others a listen.
Chrysostom says,
on January 10, 2010 at 6:12 am
Permalink
John, have you read Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 14?
on January 10, 2010 at 6:34 am
Permalink
No I have not, Matt. I’m taking the word of Jim West on it. Care to enlighten me?
Did you see West’s exegesis using Calvin? It’s here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/12/idiot-of-year-nominees-now-being.html
As you can tell we don’t see eye to eye to say the least.
And I wrote a fuller post on this topic here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-psalm-141says-atheists-are-fools.html
Cheers.
on January 11, 2010 at 4:00 am
Permalink
John Loftus wrote:I wrote a fuller post on this topic here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-psalm-141says-atheists-are-fools.html
Yes we got the google alert John.
Matt wrote: John, have you read Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 14?
John Loftus replied (after having written his fuller post on the topic): No I have not, Matt.
Word of advice John, when dealing with Matt, know or assume that he will have read the texts in question – Matt only reads texts, he does not read fiction, and he reads a lot. He reads texts thoroughly. He reads the footnotes, he reads the sources referred to in the footnotes and he never writes or says anything on a topic without having done a lot of reading – that is part of why it is not surprising for me to hear you say “Matt, I respect your scholarship” because everyone respects Matt’s scholarship. I am in awe of it and I, as his editor, am used to it – so that is saying something – but a huge chunk of it stems from how much he reads.
You should have read Calvin. Keep an eye on MandM, I’m editing for Matt right now but I wont be for much longer.
on January 9, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Permalink
The “here in fact” link is in fact here.
I must have pasted it incorrectly before.
on January 9, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Permalink
Yes, thanks so much Matt.
You wrote:
“A fool here is not someone who is imprudent but someone who is positively wicked. The text speaks of those who commit “abominable deeds;” the idea is that such a person is morally corrupt, someone who rejects doing good, someone who is committed to evil.”
It’s about deeds is it not? It’s about immoral behavior.
All it takes is one lone ethical atheist to upset the cart, correct?
I’ll put my behavior up to most Christian theists, okay?
on January 9, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Permalink
John, try as you might, your ‘one lone ethical atheist’ does nothing to disprove this verse.
First, a wicked man as already denied God and refuses to follow the Law. This in no way means that one who denies God is wicked automatically. Do you see the difference?
on January 9, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Permalink
Well Joel, I’m still waiting for Matt to weigh in on this. Unlike you he knows I have him in a dilemma. He may find a way weasel his way through the horns of it somehow, but I doubt very much he’ll dispute the two horns of this dilemma. To do so he’ll have to back off on his exegesis, or deny that any atheist can behave decently and morally.
That’s the difference between an educated person and one who isn’t, and that’s why I’d much prefer to deal with educated people than those who are not so educated.
Sorry, but that’s what I think.
Cheers anyway, my friend.
on January 9, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Permalink
Well, John, you’ve been wrong before and you are wrong now.
Of course, I like the swipes too, but that is more of a testament to your character, ain’t it?
on January 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Permalink
“I hope I never have to toot my horn like this when I get at the top.”
Yes that would be terrible for you John. Having to undertake something so alien, so novel, so against your normal style would be really emotionally difficult for your
on January 9, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Permalink
Yes, indeed! So nice of you to notice how humble I am!
Thanks!
on January 9, 2010 at 9:22 am
Permalink
[...] no more? Posted on January 9, 2010 by Stephen Smuts Following this post by Joel, I noticed that the Biblioblog Top 50 seems to be going the same way that Dr Jim [...]
on January 9, 2010 at 9:25 am
Permalink
As of today, MandM, this is me at Alexa:
1 month 128,401
on January 9, 2010 at 10:58 am
Permalink
John, I am not going to post daily updates. You can, who cares?
on January 9, 2010 at 11:40 am
Permalink
I’m just saying that it’s not over till it’s over. And I am having fun with it. Aren’t you?
on January 9, 2010 at 11:43 am
Permalink
A blast.
on January 9, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Permalink
You have no idea how cool it is for us at the bottom of the world to be your biggest competition John. (Serious face on … for a moment.)
You do realise that to get your Alexa stat you need to go here and that yours is 203,752
Whereas ours is 170,493.
How does that formula for Biblioblogs work Joel – it is obviously not all Alexa.
BTW Interesting observation – Joel and John do you realise your NZ rank is higher than your US rank on Alexa? It pays to stay on a the good side of the kiwis
Though I may have to stop visiting your site John, I can’t in good conscience continue to help you on that score LOL so no linking to MandM alright cause then I’ll have to stop by!
on January 9, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Permalink
The people who do the rankings all go for the monthly stats. Note, tho, that Alexa says that the three month stats are more reliable.
on January 9, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Permalink
But I’ve only begun to be interested in traffic, so my one month stats are a better indicator of what my 3 month stats will be in, well, two months.
Maybe I should be a statistician, right? They can make the numbers to say anything they wish, or so I’m told.
on January 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Permalink
Interest in traffic doesn’t necessarily mean that they will change, John. You one monthly stats are easily effected by your daily stats, not so much your 3-monthly.
on January 10, 2010 at 8:28 am
Permalink
[...] while it is not yet even off the ground, so the jostling begins… ▶ No Responses /* 0) { jQuery('#comments').show('', change_location()); [...]
on March 2, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Permalink
[...] demonstrate this thesis he cites my discussion with him on the meaning of the word “fool” and my Sunday Study Sunday Study: Christ on The Prohibition [...]
on March 2, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Permalink
[...] Putting aside Loftus’ apparent misunderstanding of Calvin’s position (he did, afterall, confess to not having read Calvin after he wrote the post in question) let’s assume for the sake of argument that I did come to a [...]