Customer Reviews

Ken's Guide to the Bible

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

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.

Ken's Guide to the Bible is a very concise and yet fairly complete book-by-book summary of what's happening in the Bible - and also what's not happening.

It is certainly not an interpretation or a theological analysis of the Bible. It focuses on highlighting passages that must seem bizarre, especially to people who insist on taking the Bible literally. It is thus a valuable source for arguments against fundamentalists. But even beyond that it is informational and a time- (and money-) efficient way of learning about the Bible's contents (but again, not its meaning - that wasn't the purpose of the book and it shouldn't be judged based on this as other reviewers have done).

The symbols used to identify "weirdness", "the big picture", "bunk" etc. may seem like a gimmick at first, but they are actually a pretty good idea and allow the author to refrain from commenting a lot - he mostly lets the Bible speak for itself and marks his own opinion with the "two cents" symbol. In addition, the "bunk" paragraphs point out erroneous beliefs people hold about biblical events. For example, it is not said anywhere in Genesis that Eve ate an apple.

Ken's Guide to the Bible is basically a (much) shorter version of Asimov's Guide to the Bible (and the author gives the latter as one of his sources). If you have enough time to read the whole Asimov guide, go for it - it's certainly "better" in the sense that it digs deeper and has a wealth of information. But if you want the 150-page summary, Ken's Guide is perfect.

Religious fanatics have been selectively quoting the Bible for two thousand years. It is about time this ambiguous book, written and promoted by zealots for so long is exposed for what it really is - an implausible, unverifiable explanation for what men couldn't and didn't understand about the workings of the universe. People who fantasized about a Supreme Being and later His "Son," deities who were somehow supposed to be in charge of all things - but for some reason had to permit mortal men to kill the Son to save mankind?
Ken exposes the Bible as a collection of stories, many of which have nothing to do with one another, none of which can be verified independently and all of which have been translated and changed to suit the translator's version of events, many times over the centuries.
Ken?s Guide to the Bible is excellent, accurate and easy to read.

This is a good example of parody, and should be read by anybody who has a problem with stupid evangelical Christians. But I'm writing this mainly to point out the problem with these reviews. All of the bad reviews, and many of the good ones, don't understand: this book is not a response to the Bible, it is a response to many of those Born-agains who write about the Bible. To quote one review:
"Ken Smith has written, without a doubt, the most ill-informed, simplistic, overview of the Bible I have ever seen, and that's not blowing smoke. He seems to use 1990's American cultural standards and imposes them on Ancient Jewish society." Does that writer really not realize that Smith is satirizing those who make this mistake every day of their lives -- most often when speaking from the pulpit? Of course it is wrong to take words or phrases out of context, but that has been done over and over by the Religious Right. Think of the whole debate over abortion: sure, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" forbids killing people, but when you read the WHOLE Bible you need to ask whether a foetus is considered a person there. I don't mean to take sides, I just ask how many evangelists have even tried to look for this in the Bible? Similarly, the most-quoted arguments against homosexuality come from Leviticus; if you consider Leviticus authoritative, you also have to believe that those who shave will burn in Hell. (Again, this remark is not pro-gay, I'm just being anti-Leviticus.) And how many of those who claim to represent God also act as if the Bible were originally written in English? (to refer back to another "criticism" of Smith)
Please, this book is a parody of BAD BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP.

The book is very amusing, and reminds me of a list of Biblical contradictions I found on the Internet a while back. Contrary to what some of the negative reviews indicate, the author does make some respectful comments about Jesus' teachings. That being said, if you're not up for reading criticism of the Bible, then you should pass on this book.

Imagine that you did not have a strong emotional bias concerning the Bible. Imagine that you did not have a desperate need to find some way to interpret it all as true and as consistent with a morality of love and peace. Imagine that you had not been brainwashed from infancy by your family, peers and society to at the very least regard it as an extraordinary, beautiful book worthy of great respect and reverence, if not the infallible word of God.

Imagine instead that you could actually approach the Bible anew, in an objective, unbiased, open-minded way, with no impulse to rationalize away any parts of it that don't fit what you want or expect to find there. What would you likely conclude about the Bible, and about the God depicted there? Would you be awed by its philosophical profundity, its amazing lack of a single factual error in hundreds of pages, its literary beauty and aesthetic perfection, its sublime and inspiring moral message of love and kindness and respect for all? Would it be apparent that such a work could never have been written by mere mortals without the divine intervention of an all-powerful, all-good, God of love?

Yeah, right. As Ken Smith's Ken's Guide to the Bible proves on page after hilarious page, the Bible is an incoherent mishmash of idiocy, insanity, and unspeakable cruelty. Ken's introductory description of the Biblical God is dead on: "Bloodthirsty and vengeful, despite the claims of New Testament writers. Excels at killing people. The scariest thing in the Bible." We're all in trouble if anything remotely like this monster is actually governing the universe.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Instead of pussy-footing around in fear of offending and "disrespecting" those sensitive souls who can't bear to hear the truth about their religion, Ken piles on more and more evidence of how absolutely ridiculous and inhumane are so many of the stories and teachings of the Bible. I find myself frequently going back to Ken's Guide to the Bible with the intention of browsing a few pages for laughs, only to inevitably get sucked into re-reading most or all of it.

My only complaint about the book is its brevity-barely a hundred pages. It's over much too soon. Surely there are even more absurdities in the Bible that the author could have included. I urge him to follow-up with an expanded edition of this book in the future, or perhaps additional works on other infallible books inspired by the God of one of the other one and only true faiths like Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, the Nation of Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, etc.

Read this book and have some laughs. (And try not to bring yourself down by dwelling on the fact that you're surrounded by folks who insist on running their own life and yours according to whatever precepts they selectively take from the Bible, or at least imagine they're getting from there.)

This little book is a hoot. Ken takes the veil away from many of the less well advertised aspects of the biblical "message." Too bad the people this could really help either won't read it or won't get it.

I'd have given it all five stars but for a couple of things. First, Ken misses some of the most outrageous "family values" tales in the OT. The one that tipped me off about the "value" of this book, way back when I was a little nipper, was the dreadful tale of Abraham and Isaac. The story of a god repulsive enough to command a man to murder his own son for no reason other than to prove what a brainless sheep he was, and a father who was perfectly ready to do it. This story should terrify any child with half a brain.

Then there's the charming story of Lot, supposedly the only honorable man in Sodom, who, in order to preserve the dignity of a couple of God's angel spies, appeased a mob by throwing them his two virgin daughters. Oh, yes--this book is a great guide to high family values.

The other reason I can't give Ken five stars is that he's a bit behind on his New Testament scholarship. It's been quite well established that (1) none of the gospels was written by anyone who ever knew Jesus, despite having the names of apostles, (2) in fact, there's not a single word of "eye witness" testimony re. Jesus in any part of the Bible, (3) the oldest part of the NT is, in fact, some of the stuff written by Paul, so arguably *his* version of the Jesus/Christianity stuff is more accurate (and this stuff was written many years after the death of Jesus--if, in fact, Jesus was a real person, which is quite questionable), and (4) the oldest of the four gospels was Mark; Matthew and Luke simply plagiarized Mark, beefed up and tweaked stuff to meet their particular liturgical needs, and invented stuff like birth myths to make Jesus seem more supernatural than Mark's rather pasturale depiction seems to indicate. So it's not very surprising that John is the odd man out--this is the only one of the four gospels that's somewhat independent of the others. Both of the (contradictory) birth myths are just that--completely fabricated. In fact, Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, is probably also completely fabricated.

Sorry, True Believers. Your faith is based on shifting sand. Were it not shielded by layer after layer of religious gauze, the Bible is a book which no one would consider to be suitable reading for anyone under the age of 21. Let's get those Bibles shelved where they belong--in the mythology section, right next to Bullfinch's.

I got this book in the summer of 1996, when I was already having doubts about the fundamentalism I had chosen. After a few days of reading it surreptitiously in the bookstore - and annoying the other patrons by laughing so hard - I bought it for myself.

This is truly an inspired book. I already knew some of the "bad" parts of the Bible (I had written a RELI project about God's lost battle in 2 Kings 3); as a result, I had deliberately avoided reading much of it. This book opened my eyes; I was on the floor laughing at his descriptions of Isaiah's and Micah's writing styles.

Now I'm a happy agnostic with a degree in Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations :^) God bless Ken Smith!

I have only one problem with this book - it's not long enough! I would have loved to see him expose the Christian misquotations / misuse of the Psalms and Zeph. 1-8. In addition, I wouldn't have minded some more in-depth scholarship; for example, he should have treated Isaiah 40-55 differently from Isaiah 1-39.

But for a questioning Christian, I couldn't recommend this book enough.

I can't understand those who refute this book when in at least one case a ney-sayer admits to never even hearing of it. This book is not a crack on the Bible, it simply exposes those things in it that may be considered unsavory by many of the people who live thier lives by it. Ken Smith used four different versons of the Bible when researching the book, and added nothing to it, save an occational, clearly marked commentary. While reading Ken's Guide, I dusted off my old tome to check his claims, and even resolved to reread it in the near future. Ken Smith has done something that no Evangelist or Priest has done. He has gotten people of all religons (including non judeo-christians) to read the Bible for what it really says, not what they want it to say or what they believe it says. That is truly a miracle of biblical proportions.

Amaze your friends! Confuse your enemies! Ken's Guide to the bible won't change your religion. However, if you want to sound more informed on the subject than you actually are, this book is WONDERFUL. From god's lost wrestling match, to the man who accidentally revived a corpse while dead himself, this book is a powerhouse of useful, on the fly information that is true highlighter bait. For anyone who finds him or herself in the position of justifying their religion, or rudely forcing another to justify theirs, this book is a godsend. I'm sure a few Christians would find it useful too, sort of. Maybe. Ah well, for the rest of us, it serves a purpose and serves it well.