Rating: 
Summary: Pure drivel? (Oct 14) Pure scholarship!
Review: Response to the ANONYMOUS critic from October 14, Your short entry spoke volumes, but not about Dr Asimov's book. It said nothing specific about that at all. Instead, it gave a pretty clear description of you and the type of person you are, or appear to be.
So, his work is "pure drivel", is it? All of it? All 1300 pages? Perhaps you should remind yourself of what other reviewers had to say - if you bothered reading them in the first place - most of whom appear to have given it a five star rating. That in itself doesn't prove its worth, of course, but your little snort of disapproval does look rather feeble and small-minded alongside the reviews of other, more reasoned, more articulate reviewers. But if you're going to make a criticism, a constructive criticism, at least have the b***s, if not the courtesy, to identify yourself and back your criticism up with evidence or at least the semblance of an argument. As it stands, it represents the kind of empty, sweeping statement that all cowardly armchair critics make, and one to which few other people could attach any importance. No book is perfect. But having read most of Dr Asimov's Guide and studied much of the second volume in depth, in conjunction with the RSV, I cannot agree with your whitewash. What serious reader could? You don't specify your objections. Admittedly, in a book of this length there is more room for flaws - though I have to say, I've not noticed any. But even if there were too many flaws to count, you should at least make the effort to single some out. How can such a work be dismissed so cavalierly, though? 1300 pages dismissed in six vacuous lines. I'd be hard pushed to criticise so much as a sentence, as Asimov's credentials are all too obvious to me, yet you slam the whole book. At least that's the impression you give. I'm sure - I hope - you weren't in actuality slamming the entire work, commas and semi-colons included. As if that were possible! I'd like to think you weren't that rash or irresponsible or dishonest or lazy. Yet, the impression you give is either of someone who hasn't read much of the book, but who doesn't like the little they have read, or of someone who has read it, or most of it, finds it all too unpalatable, if not threatening, but who cannot articulate a proper response, who cannot mount a challenge because they haven't the intellect, the vocabulary, or the nerve, with which to do so. Or they can't be bothered.
But just what are your qualifications? You sneer and you dismiss, but have you the credentials? Are you saying you are more of an authority on the Bible than Asimov? I certainly can't claim to be! Though, I've read enough of both the Bible and Asimov, as well as numerous other works, to know that he isn't talking "drivel". So have you, I suspect. As, if it were genuinely drivel, from beginning to end - every paragraph, sentence, phrase - I don't think you'd have bothered commenting at all, do you? No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise the undoubted scholarship in Asimov's work. However, if you are as much of an authority as he, or even if you aren't, shouldn't you articulate a more mature and precise criticism - one that we, your readers, could learn from? If you know better than Asimov, fine. But explain yourself. Elaborate. I'm sure we're all very interested in what you have to say. I can only finish by saying that I have learned a great, great deal from reading this book, historically, philosophically, and in numerous other ways, and recognise the unassuming wisdom of the man. He was an atheist, so this, his legacy to us, comes with no strings attached. He doesn't preach, he doesn't patronise, he just tells you what he has found, his conclusions based on those findings, and let's you make up your own mind. And all in the easiest, most accessible of prose. Few books of this length can be such an easy read, despite its heavy subject matter. In stark contrast, your few pathetic lines, Anonymous of October 14, taught me nothing. I have learned nothing from YOUR drivel, whoever you are. I strongly recommend this book to anyone, religious or not. The Bible has so dominated our culture over such a long period that we owe it to ourselves to at least think about what we're being asked to believe, even if we can't devote the time or energy to the task that Dr Asimov undoubtedly did. And he clearly did sacrifice a great deal, much more than our critic from October 14! [PS: I'd be interested to read what other people think of Mr/Ms Anonymous's effort - if it can be called that - regardless of whether they have read Asimov's book or not. Indeed, what did those of you who haven't read the book draw from his/her comments? Did you find them helpful?]
Rating:
Summary: Pure drivel? (Oct 14) Pure scholarship!
Review: Response to the ANONYMOUS critic from October 14, Your short entry spoke volumes, but not about Dr Asimov's book. It said nothing specific about that at all. Instead, it gave a pretty clear description of you and the type of person you are, or appear to be.
So, his work is "pure drivel", is it? All of it? All 1300 pages? Perhaps you should remind yourself of what other reviewers had to say - if you bothered reading them in the first place - most of whom appear to have given it a five star rating. That in itself doesn't prove its worth, of course, but your little snort of disapproval does look rather feeble and small-minded alongside the reviews of other, more reasoned, more articulate reviewers. But if you're going to make a criticism, a constructive criticism, at least have the b***s, if not the courtesy, to identify yourself and back your criticism up with evidence or at least the semblance of an argument. As it stands, it represents the kind of empty, sweeping statement that all cowardly armchair critics make, and one to which few other people could attach any importance. No book is perfect. But having read most of Dr Asimov's Guide and studied much of the second volume in depth, in conjunction with the RSV, I cannot agree with your whitewash. What serious reader could? You don't specify your objections. Admittedly, in a book of this length there is more room for flaws - though I have to say, I've not noticed any. But even if there were too many flaws to count, you should at least make the effort to single some out. How can such a work be dismissed so cavalierly, though? 1300 pages dismissed in six vacuous lines. I'd be hard pushed to criticise so much as a sentence, as Asimov's credentials are all too obvious to me, yet you slam the whole book. At least that's the impression you give. I'm sure - I hope - you weren't in actuality slamming the entire work, commas and semi-colons included. As if that were possible! I'd like to think you weren't that rash or irresponsible or dishonest or lazy. Yet, the impression you give is either of someone who hasn't read much of the book, but who doesn't like the little they have read, or of someone who has read it, or most of it, finds it all too unpalatable, if not threatening, but who cannot articulate a proper response, who cannot mount a challenge because they haven't the intellect, the vocabulary, or the nerve, with which to do so. Or they can't be bothered.
But just what are your qualifications? You sneer and you dismiss, but have you the credentials? Are you saying you are more of an authority on the Bible than Asimov? I certainly can't claim to be! Though, I've read enough of both the Bible and Asimov, as well as numerous other works, to know that he isn't talking "drivel". So have you, I suspect. As, if it were genuinely drivel, from beginning to end - every paragraph, sentence, phrase - I don't think you'd have bothered commenting at all, do you? No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise the undoubted scholarship in Asimov's work. However, if you are as much of an authority as he, or even if you aren't, shouldn't you articulate a more mature and precise criticism - one that we, your readers, could learn from? If you know better than Asimov, fine. But explain yourself. Elaborate. I'm sure we're all very interested in what you have to say. I can only finish by saying that I have learned a great, great deal from reading this book, historically, philosophically, and in numerous other ways, and recognise the unassuming wisdom of the man. He was an atheist, so this, his legacy to us, comes with no strings attached. He doesn't preach, he doesn't patronise, he just tells you what he has found, his conclusions based on those findings, and let's you make up your own mind. And all in the easiest, most accessible of prose. Few books of this length can be such an easy read, despite its heavy subject matter. In stark contrast, your few pathetic lines, Anonymous of October 14, taught me nothing. I have learned nothing from YOUR drivel, whoever you are. I strongly recommend this book to anyone, religious or not. The Bible has so dominated our culture over such a long period that we owe it to ourselves to at least think about what we're being asked to believe, even if we can't devote the time or energy to the task that Dr Asimov undoubtedly did. And he clearly did sacrifice a great deal, much more than our critic from October 14! [PS: I'd be interested to read what other people think of Mr/Ms Anonymous's effort - if it can be called that - regardless of whether they have read Asimov's book or not. Indeed, what did those of you who haven't read the book draw from his/her comments? Did you find them helpful?]
Rating: 
Summary: Secular, but accurate enough when compared with lexicons.
Review: Some people will be offended by the secularism but I cannot say it doesn't make a good additional commentary on the Bible, and can be used effectively with many of the post-KJ translations, if used with Strong's.
Rating: 
Summary: Isaac, stick to sci-fi
Review: Someone once commented in a review, "This work is both good and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are good are not origianal, and the parts that are origianal are not good." Nothing could sum up this work better.It suffers from two related flaws. First, it was seriously out-dated at it's publication decades agos. Second, Asimov, while a great writer, shows a very superficial understanding of the Bible or modern biblical studies. He seems to rely on textual thories which were discredited a generation ago. Asimov's simply out of his league here, like Billy Graham writing on cosmology. Anyone who's studied the Bible on a graduate level will find howlers on every page. If you really want to understand the Bible, this one's a waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking, enlightening, highly recommended.
Review: The amount of research that must have gone into this work is astounding. Paragraph after paragraph makes one stop and think, reading passages in the Bible that correspond to what Asimov has said, referring to other sources to see what THEY say. A mind expanding book, stimulating and informative... I've learned something new every time I opened it.
Rating: 
Summary: Great way to put biblical events in a historical context
Review: This book covers what Asimov calls in the introduction the "secular aspects" of the bible. As a result the book pays little attention to the spiritual meaning of the bible, and I wouldn't advise buying this if that is your main interest. However, whether you are Christian or not, Asimov does an excellent job of placing the events of the bible in a historical context. There are dozens of maps, which I found invaluable--for example he provides a sequence of maps that cover from 1 Samuel through 2 Kings that show the changing boundaries of Israel and Judah from the reign of Saul through David and Solomon and onwards. He also provides a chronology of important events in biblical times, covering primarily biblical events but also other historical events. Although Asimov was not a Christian, there is little here that can be construed as a direct attack on Christianity, unless you feel that a secular approach to the bible is already an attack. Occasionally his approach highlights points which an atheist will be happy to see, such as the fact that the later gospels ascribe more miracles to Christ than the earlier ones do, or the fact that the gospel of John has many inconsistencies with the other three. For the most part, however, Asimov sidesteps the question of Christian truth. The book is now thirty years old, and as a result does not contain the latest scholarship. However, it is not intended as a scholarly work: instead it's a very readable presentation of a great deal of the fascinating background to the most influential book in Western civilization.
Rating:
Summary: Great way to put biblical events in a historical context
Review: This book covers what Asimov calls in the introduction the "secular aspects" of the bible. As a result the book pays little attention to the spiritual meaning of the bible, and I wouldn't advise buying this if that is your main interest. However, whether you are Christian or not, Asimov does an excellent job of placing the events of the bible in a historical context. There are dozens of maps, which I found invaluable--for example he provides a sequence of maps that cover from 1 Samuel through 2 Kings that show the changing boundaries of Israel and Judah from the reign of Saul through David and Solomon and onwards. He also provides a chronology of important events in biblical times, covering primarily biblical events but also other historical events. Although Asimov was not a Christian, there is little here that can be construed as a direct attack on Christianity, unless you feel that a secular approach to the bible is already an attack. Occasionally his approach highlights points which an atheist will be happy to see, such as the fact that the later gospels ascribe more miracles to Christ than the earlier ones do, or the fact that the gospel of John has many inconsistencies with the other three. For the most part, however, Asimov sidesteps the question of Christian truth. The book is now thirty years old, and as a result does not contain the latest scholarship. However, it is not intended as a scholarly work: instead it's a very readable presentation of a great deal of the fascinating background to the most influential book in Western civilization.
Rating:
Summary: Pure drivel
Review: This book is a must-read. It is exactly what some reviewers on here have crticized it for being: a secular humanist study of the Bible. It is entertaining, enlightening, and thought-provoking.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece
Review: This book is a must-read. It is exactly what some reviewers on here have crticized it for being: a secular humanist study of the Bible. It is entertaining, enlightening, and thought-provoking.
Rating:
Summary: Asimov, the 'Knowledge Sponge', Strikes Again!
Review: This book is an excellent read if you are looking to learn more about the background of names, places, and events described in the Bible from a secular-historical standpoint. It doesn't pretend to be a work of original scholarship. It is what it's titled: a 'Guide' to the Old and New Testaments. Asimov emphasizes chronology and context, which gives the reader the sense that the things depicted as occurring in the various books of the Bible aren't just a collection of disconnected and discordant events. It is an extremely interesting history book in and of itself, and I learned more from it than from any other book about the Bible I've read of narrower topical scope. This was an ambitious project even for Isaac to attempt to tackle, and the range of his 'general overview' is as informative and fascinating as anything else he ever wrote.
|
