Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, but not 100% accurate
Review: I absolutely delighted in this book. It is witty, poignant, and has one of my favorite themes: "Do people really BELIEVE this stuff?!". It includes a great concourse of bizarre bible verses that you won't find in the back of any Bible, and I especially enjoyed his short paraphrase of the story of Revelation. For the most part all citations match up perfectly to most every version of the Good Book, but I was a little disappointed in a few paraphrases which did not seem to be based on the verses cited. Enjoy the book, but definitely check the citations.
Rating:
Summary: Intentionally Unhistorical
Review: Critics of this book argue that it is not scholarly--it takes passages out of historical context and absurdly applies contemporary values to ancient scripture. This criticism is entirely correct, but I think Ken means to do just that in order to counter all the Bible-beating-bigots (like Dr. Laura) who just love to cite the Bible out of historical context and pretend as if it were the repository of incontestable truths. Ken's just fighting fire with fire--albeit he has a better sense of humor than any Christian I've ever met.The book is somewhat modeled after the "Idiot's Guide to..." series, with short introductory sections and little pictures in the margins to indicate what topics are being addressed. A quick read, Ken's Guide to the Bible gives you plenty of ammunition against Bible Studies people (not students of the Bible) who know only the Bible that they want to know.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: When I purchased this book, I thought it was going to be much more scathing and critical of the Bible than it actually is. I delved into the book and was done within 20 minutes. The book is much too short, contains obvious mistakes and oversights, and seems unprofessional in many ways. It makes an attempt to be humorous, which it does occasionally pull off. I myself am a freethinker, so I expected much from this book but was left dissapointed. Pass this one up!
Rating: 
Summary: Ken has a wicked sense of humor.
Review: But he had great inspiration. The Bible, taken straight up, read word for word, is its own worst enemy.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Outstanding.
Review: If you tire of obnoxious religious zealotry, you will love Smith's sharp, wry wit. It is short, irreverent, hilarious and all true. -Ed
Rating: 
Summary: Biblical analysis by an ingrate
Review: I've been a serious student of the Bible for many years now, and I have read Ken's book in it's entirety, even written a longish critique of it in the same satiric style. No, I didn't earn myself a ticket to hell; no, my church doesn't care if I read it; no, I was not spoon-fed platitudes as a child (actually, I was force-fed insipid and uncritical tolerance of everything, even that which was clearly proven wrong); no, I don't hate the book (actually I find it laughably pathetic), and I don't think it is hilarious or funny (because I don't find Beavis and Butthead very sophisticated either; genuine humor may be found in the works of the Roman satirists, Shakespeare's comedies, and other works, but not in Ken's Guide, which surprisingly contains no jokes about flatulence); no, Ken's research is neither brutal, nor awesome, nor excellent, nor critical, and if you show me this book, I will most likely keel over laughing at the very idea that you think it has any relevance or authority. Sorry, that he uses four translations of the Bible and Asimov's Guide isn't a hill of beans. There are real scholars out there one would be better served spending money on, even if you are not a "fundamentalist" or a Jesus freak. I'm talking works by the likes of Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, Raymond Brown, authors whose sandals Ken is unworthy to untie. I doubt if he'd even look at them unless they came out in comic-book format. Previous critics have rightly noted that Ken hasn't the wherewithal to understand the Bible in its various social, literary, or historical contexts; here are just a few examples of what we're talking about. Noting diet regulations in Leviticus, Ken says: "God tells the people of Israel that they cannot eat bats, but that grasshoppers and locusts are okay." Yes they are, and they are a staple in the diets of many a Third World nation resident today, whereas bats continue to be a dangerous snack, since they basically live in their own excrement. What does Ken think people did in the ancient world? Order out to Pizza Hut? Ken is simply playing upon our modern, American idea that all such animals are "gross" and using it to imply that the Bible presents an inconsistency here, when understood in its social context, it does not. Ken explains James' suggestion that Paul pay for the expenses of the Nazirites, and the reaction of the Temple crowd to Paul's speech, saying that it "makes clear what the Bible never says outright: that Paul is preaching a very different form of Christianity from the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem." If that is so, one wonders why James himself was martyred by the Jewish establishment not many years later. The real problem Paul had here is not that he was preaching a "very different form of Christianity," but that he was preaching and pronouncing the blessings of a Jewish Messiah to Gentiles at a time of fierce Jewish ultra-nationalism (which the Jerusalem apostles had no problem with, since they did not preach to Gentiles), a period when sicarii did their dirty work, and we had the first fomentings of what would lead to the 66 rebellion against Rome - no thanks due to Rome itself, which kept sending incompetent beasts like Felix and Albinus to rule. God's replies in the book of Job, regarded by literary experts in the field as masterpieces of ANE philosophy and thought, are described as "pretty shallow" and "scary." Proverbs - again, considered exemplary in the context of ANE literature by those in the field - is "like reading an endless list of Chinese fortune cookie sayings." Ecclesiastes, a very deep treatise on the human condition, is put off as a "Gloomy Gus sermon" put together by a "seriously depressed writer." I wonder if what Ken said about Proverbs he would also say about the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenamope or the works of Confucius. I certainly haven't met any Klansmen who show a greater appreciation for the cultures of others than Ken does. Luke 16:19-31, the story of Lazarus and the rich man, is interpreted as telling us "who should go to hell: rich people." The lesson of the story: "poverty, regardless of how it is attained, guarantees admittance to heaven." We could really blast this dilettante exegesis to bits here - pointing out that the issue was not poverty or wealth, but how the rich man's heart was inclined - but there's really no need, because Ken has committed here a bungle of tremendous proportions that blows his idea to smithereens. If the point of the story is that the rich go to hell, and the poor go to heaven...then what was Abraham, a wealthy tribal chieftain, doing on the Paradise side with Lazarus? The Jesus of John's Gospel is described as a "whiny, overbearing know-it-all who can't seem to stop making brazen claims of divine origin." Too bad Ken doesn't realize just how brazen the Synoptic claims are...some are as brazen as those found in John, especially if you understand their Jewish Wisdom-theology background. Finally, Ken tells us there's lots of sex in the Bible, and he acts like an over-excited 10 year old who has found his father's Playboy behind the dresser every time some sort of sex issue comes up in the Bible, regardless of context. Would that Ken would have gotten this excited about understanding what he was reading...but then again, I guess most folks who read that type of stuff usually go for things with lots of pictures. I have compiled an extensive list of manipulations, errors, and confusions on Smith's part on my page at Tekton Apologetics Ministries. I'll close by saying that if you buy this book, you will get what you deserve...you will waste $ that would be better spent buying bread for the ducks down at the pond.
Rating:
Summary: A Holy Mockery of the Holy Writ
Review: Smith's Guide shows that the bible can be fun to read- in abstract, with all of the "violence, sex, absurdity, and weirdness" arrayed before your eyes. Rather than stumbling through "begats" Smith provides the juicy tidbits which make a mockery of the moral "guidance" provided by the Holy Writ, especially important in Smith's view when political action groups claim a divine mandate for their social views. At the same time, he provides a good overview of the progression (or jumbled mix as the case may be) of the bible, and the thematic content of each book (a Cliff Notes with Spunk of Sorts). For instance, he mentions an incident where the Prophet Elijah has a bear maul forty-two children who laughed at him, and then the irony of pro-fetus advocates utilizing the bible as any basis for rejecting abortion as sinful (especially in the light of other incidents in which heathen are dispatched with little ado by the Sky God- children and all). For each incident worthy of comedy, Smith has created several categories, so that when he cites chapter and verse, he has an icon to show whether he lists it because it is an example of weirdness, divine wrath, holy distortion, blood 'n' guts, arrogant pretensions, "family values," gender bashing, sex, etc. Another aspect that was entertaining was the use of classical paintings and prints with biblical themes- one of my favorites being a picture of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse, with the comment "Hi-ho Pestilence! Awaaay!"
Rating:
Summary: Too short. Christian bias. But still very fun...
Review: Ken Smith is there for everyone who is looking for passages of teh Bible that are either idiotic, stupid or utterly senseless. Ken Smith is also there for people who enjoy reading the Bible and like the tensions created by some of the seeming inconsistancies (or outright inconsistancies if the Christian portions of the Bible are part of your faith). Complete with cartoons and illustrated guides, this is one hell of a great blasphemy. I was a little disappointed that he didn't know that the true plague on the Philistines for stealing the ark was hemmorhoids but I loved his characterization of Jeremiah as kind of boring, and the more troublesome Jesus quotes as a counter to the "multicultural Jesus surrounding by children in paintings". Why do some people become Bible Scholars? Because your preacher, priest or even rabbi won't point out the funnier or more bizarre passages. You usually have to find them yourself. With Ken's Guide you don't have to take a class or anything. Oh yeah, he uses the Christian translations so naturally he finds that Christian parts of the Bible more interesting than the so-called "Old Testament" passages. Of course, read a good translation of the Jewish scriptures (try either Everett Fox's Five Books of Moses or Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh for the Bible as entertainment)
Rating:
Summary: not bad, but could have been better
Review: Considering the actual number of inconsistencies, vugarities, atrocities and sheer absurdities actually found in the bible, this book is way too short................................ However, some of the points he makes are nice, and finally somebody decided to summerise the apocolypse in Revelations. This exercise reveals this vision of the apocolypse to be disconnected nonsense written by someone with a backrupt imagination. And he does give credit where it is due - like the wonderful humanitistic teachings of Jesus, which are truely devine. Perhaps the most useful thing about this books is that Ken tries to show how the simple and kind teachings of Jesus was turned into metaphysical, and thological nonsense by those who saw that it was far more profitable to turn Jesus into a deity and build a religion around him, rather than actually follow what He tought. "... that it is far easier to worship Jesus, than to follow His teachings."
Rating:
Summary: Amazing in its blunt presentation of bible passages!
Review: This book is fantastic! I have had it *up to here* with bible "experts" who use the book to justify every belief they feel they ought to force on everyone else. This book does not "bible bash" inasmuch as it just shows the insanity that can exist between its pages. You need to be the judge of what you read. Well, finally now I have a ton of scriptures of my own to throw back in their faces that shows God advocating infanticide, murder, destruction of innocents, etc. I now realize that they left out a HUGE part of the bible when I was growing up in a catholic school. They tend to teach only what supports their own beliefs and conveniently leave out everything else. If I had only known then what I know now. . .
|
