Customer Reviews

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained, Second Edition

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

It stands to reason that if an author is going to presume to correct the alleged errors, misunderstandings and misperceptions presented in another work, one might actually use arguments of his own that are not specious and do not sidestep the questions being considered. It also doesn't seem unreasonable for a reader to expect the author of such an ambitious probject to possess the necessary training, qualifications and expertise needed to address the problems as they are presented rather than skirt the specific issues involved and resort to little more than gain-saying. That sort of intellectual authority is missing here. There simply is nothing of value in this [...] book that draws most of the volume of its contents from material not necessarily related to the topic at hand. The "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" to which this is allegedly a rebuttal is a web-based resource that is readily available at no cost to those who seek alernative viewpoints to and reasoned analysis of certain aspects of American fundamentalist christianity. It's not unreasonable to expect some sort of reasoned response from a qualified theologian, but we don't get that here. This "rebuttal" feeds off of the popularity of the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" site and frequent references to it in newsgroups, but offers nothing of substance in return. For the unbiased intellectual attempting to examine the christian viewpoint, the arguments presented here are particularly unsatisfying. Many of them are reminiscent of an exchange in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian," when Brian asks his mother why women are not allowed at stonings. "Because it's written, that's why," snaps the mother. There are many of those kinds of "corrections" and "explanations" in this work and so many of them are the same sort of vacuous and inadequate arguments that have been provided so many times elsewhere that one is also struck by the lack of imagination, insight and originality that characterizes the whole of what comparatively little was actually written by the author. The history of christian apologetics is long and distinguished, and there are many whom have contributed to the various debates on these issues through the publication of commentaries, histories, works of exegesis and hermaneutics. By and large, these authors have possessed the requisite knowledge of history, culture, philosophy and language needed to provide sound, intellectual analysis, and they have added value and challenge to the debates. None of that is evident here; and none of the arguments will convince someone who is not already predisposed to fundamentalists beliefs. Far superior resources are quite readily available, many times at no cost via the WorldWide Web, so we're left to wonder about the utility of "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained," especially when it doesn't explain or correct anything. The serious student of these subjects would be better served by giving this one a pass.

Reviewers who uncritically agree with Jason's conclusions have given this effort short, substanceless recommendations. Those who don't have had plenty to criticize. I also find that this e-book provides little of merit. The analysis and critical evaluation of the issues that are presumed to be "corrected" and "explained" tend to get standard fundamentalist christian "rebuttal" - the "explanations" are not new - we've seen them before. Mostly, the "corrections" and explanations" are superficial glossings-over of the specific "errors" that are discussed.

For example, with respect to the age of the Earth, Jason tries to approach the question of the disagreement between creationists, whom believe that Genesis is a literal history and the age of the Earth can be measured in thousands of years, and scientists, who tell us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. His "correction" and "explanation" is that God could have made the world in six 24-hour days. This is, of course, an axiom for most believers in an omnipotent deity. But Jason starts with that conclusion and then only superficially deals with the issue. This does both the Bible and science a disservice and it certainly is not intellectual behavior. To say that God *could* have created in a relatively short time is not relevent. God *could* also have used the slower processes of nature, couldn't he? The issue is the alleged "error" that is to be "corrected," i.e., the age of the Earth as interpreted by the Scriptures and by science as represented in the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." Jason avoids the question that he presumes to "answer" and the error that he pretends to "correct" and "explain." Jason's tells us that even scientists are not in agreement about the age of the Earth. The fact is that the scientists generally DO agree - what minor disagreement exists does not come close to the huge statistical difference between what the evidence tells us and what Jason's literal reading of Genesis would tell us. There is no "correction" here - Jason simply disagrees with the scientists and, I might add, with most christians who have no problem with an ancient Earth.

This particular episode of "correction" demonstrates the most significant (and most often repeated) intellectual flaw in this work: Jason assumes his conclusions based on a specific brand of biblical literalism and despite contrary evidence that actually demonstrates *his* errors - errors that exist both in the available facts, the extant evidence, and in his methods of research and argument. Jason insists that his conclusions are correct IN SPITE of the evidence - not BECAUSE of it. The result is not what one might understand as "correcting" and "explaining" any alleged "errors" that might have appeared in the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible."

Other issues are "corrected" and "explained" by making unwarranted and unevidenced assumptions - in effect, Jason creates his own "evidence" as a matter of convenience. Regarding the issue of rabbits "chewing their cud," as it says in the Old Testament, Jason manufactures his "explanation" pretty much out of thin air. He asserts that refection (which is what occurs when rabbits reingest their own waste after having been processed by the digestive system and expelled through the anus) and rumination (which is what happens when cows regurgitate from the stomach to reprocess plant matter by further chewing) were the same things to the ancient Hebrews, so that's why the Bible refers to rabbits chewing cud. But we don't KNOW that this is true. Jason assumes it and forwards it as an explanation, regardless. In other words, he makes excuses for what is clearly an error, AND AFFIRMS THAT IT'S AN ERROR. God certainly knows the difference between solid waste and cud and between refection and rumination, even if the ancient Hebrews did not. Consider that Jason's "explanation" effectively tells us that the point made about this error by the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is correct, that is, that the Bible is wrong about this issue because the Hebrews got it wrong. In other venues, Jason acknowledges that this is an error and that the King James Bible is NOT inerrant (Jason has even had recent "debates" on the subject with KJV inerrantist apologists, and has even suggested that he might soon create his own "inerrant translation" of the Bible) The result is that Jason affirms the error while trying to "explain" why it is not an error. So what was corrected? Obviously, nothing.

Jason declares evolution to be an "unproven theory" believed primarily by atheists. This exposes his intellectual superficiality. The claim that evolution is believed "primarily" by atheists is an attempt at inflammatory rhetoric - designed to press a hot-button topic and appeal to emotion rather than intellect. Devout scientists of many faiths who have no problem with evolution. Many are christians. Regadless, Jason doesn't "correct" anything about this issue. He simply demonizes conventional scientists.

As for style, the prose is often condescending, ponderous and forced, as if Jason lost interest here and there but pushed himself to finish. It looks very much like the a lower-division college report that Jason once claimed it to be. However, while the scope of editorial errors is outside of the intent of this review, it should be sufficient to say that this is an amatuerish effort. I have taught at the college level, and my first inclination would be to return something of this "quality" to the student, suggest a complete reconstruction and substantive research. The student would be free to resubmit, but I would not waive the penalties for late submission.

In closing, I must say that there is nothing to recommend this effort. The serious student of christian religion will find it a complete waste of time and money. Those already strong in their fundamentalist faith may find something here to affirm that faith, but they can get these kinds of text-bites for free in churches, through television sermons, the Internet, and evangelistic crusades, or they can pay for competent authors such as Paul Little, Francis Schaefer and even Josh McDowell. Those who seek substantive commentary are best advised to look elsewhere. They won't find it here.

I enjoy reading christian apologetics and works of comparative religion and I was loaned a copy of this electronic, CD-based book to see what I thought of it. I am afraid that my critical views align with some of the others on the Amazon site. This is a poor effort at apologetics, the intellectual value is on a par with an albeit lengthy pre-secondary school report. There is always some risk when presuming to take a list of errors while presuming to correct them. One of those risks is that errors are not always errors. Another risk is that the errors are legitimate but those things presumed to be "answers," "corrections" or "explanations" fall well short of the mark by either failing to provide a reasonable, intelligent explanation or by misdirecting from the subject of the supposed error. These things occur frequently in this volume. Also, there have been some attempts to demonize critics of this work as "atheists" both in reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. This strikes me as unfortunate, because it avoids the legitimate criticisms by perpetuating a division among intelligent, thinking people with differing world views through means that are not legitimate. Even if it were true that some reviewers are atheists (though it is not true in any case of which I am aware, including reviews on Amazon), it makes no difference when considering the intellectual value of the review. An atheist can write an intelligent review of an apologetic work as readily as a christian can presume to "correct" or "explain" a presumably atheist work such as the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible." If there is substance to an unflattering review, that is what should be addressed, not the religious beliefs -- real, manufactured, or imagined -- that might be held by the reviewer. Having said that, I feel that I cannot recommend this electronic book, mostly because it fails to do what it claims to do. Other reviewers have noted that it does little more than provide superficial coverage of topics that are addressed. "Answers" and "explanations" that are provided make unwarranted assumptions and are intellectually deficient, as well as lacking in documentary evidence. Very little in this volume would be of value as an evangelistic tool. It might best serve as a "faith-affirming" tool for those whom do not give much critical thought to their beliefs and whom already believe as the author does. It certainly will not be convincing to thoughtful skeptics of the faith or the Scriptures. As a christian, I have disagreements with some of what appears in the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, but this volume is not a satisfactory rebuttal.

See my review of the 2nd edition.

'Dr' Gastrich has produced a travesty which mocks Christianity. An atheist attempting to belittle religious faith in general and Christiaity in particular could not have thought up a better hatchet job.

I'm not sure that I can add anything that hasn't already been said, but I will try. As the title states, SAB:C&E is the worst attempt at apologetics I've ever come across. Many of the "corrections" are little more than highly unusual, entirely hypothetical explanations that are more effective at eliminating cognitive dissonance and desparately maintaing inerrancy rather than drawing unbiased reasonable conclusions. Much like the entire field of apologetics, Jason Gastrich shows how far he will go to ignore obvious conclusions in favor of erasing the Bible's flaws.

From a review of an earlier edition (rewritten here and there to aid in readability and correct some errors):

"It stands to reason that if an author presumes to correct the alleged errors presented in another work, one might actually use arguments of his own that are not specious and do not sidestep the questions being considered. It also doesn't seem unreasonable for a reader to expect that the author of a presumed rebuttal of that sort would possess the necessary training, qualifications, and expertise needed to address the problems as they are presented, rather than skirt the specific issues involved and resort to little more than question-begging and gain-saying. That sort of intellectual authority is missing here. There simply is nothing of value in this electronic, self-published book that provides a reasonable apologetic, which is generally understood as an intellectual defense of a given faith (in this case, Christianity and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy). The material draws most of the volume of its contents from material not necessarily related to the topic at hand and is not original with the author. The 'Skeptic's Annotated Bible,' to which this is allegedly a rebuttal, is a web-based resource that is readily available at no cost to those who seek alternative viewpoints to and reasoned analysis of certain aspects of American fundamentalist Christianity. Such a work might draw the attention of qualified theologians intent on rebutting its contents, but we don't get that here. This 'rebuttal' feeds off of the popularity of the 'Skeptic's Annotated Bible' site and frequent references to it in newsgroups and other web-based discussion forums, but offers nothing of substance in return. For the unbiased intellectual attempting to examine the Christian viewpoint, the rebuttals lack substance and depth. Many of them are reminiscent of an exchange in Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian,' in which Brian asks his mother why women are not allowed to attend stonings. 'Because it's written, that's why,' snaps the mother. There are many of those kinds of 'corrections' and 'explanations' in this work and so many of them are the same sort of vacuous and inadequate arguments that have been provided so many times elsewhere that one is also struck by the lack of imagination, insight and originality that characterizes the whole of what comparatively little was actually written by the author (the majority of the content is not original with the presumed author). The history of Christian apologetics is long and distinguished; and there are many qualified contributors to the various debates on these issues through the publication of commentaries, histories, exegesis, and hermeneutics. By and large, these authors have possessed the requisite knowledge of history, culture, philosophy and ancient languages needed to provide sound, intellectual analysis, and they have added value and challenge to the debates. None of that is evident here; and none of the arguments will convince someone who is not already predisposed to fundamentalists beliefs or a belief in inerrancy. Far superior resources are quite readily available, many times at no cost via the World Wide Web, so we're left to wonder about the utility of 'The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained,' especially when it doesn't explain or correct anything. The serious student of these subjects would be better served by giving this one a pass."

Edited as it is, that was my original review. Since then, the author has presented the fourth edition, which allegedly adds another 1000 or so "corrections" and "explanations," but these are no more substantive than those found in the previous edition. Indeed, it appears that the additional content was simply added to "pad the list" of items allegedly rebutted. The fourth edition suffers from the same problems as the third, not the least of which is the tendency of the author to proceed from the conclusion, assume that the Bible is inerrant, and provide simplistic, badly-conceived rebuttals that do nothing to add to the discussion. In short, the author has given us "more of the same" and has not improved the intellectual quality of the previous edition, nor has he added any substance to the debate.

So if it's a bit much for me to simply add another paragraph to the previous review, after editing it for some errors here and there, it's due to the fact that there is no need to change the criticisms of that first review. They all remain valid. This is an amateurish, self-published, somewhat narcissistic, and anti-intellectual work that would, if it could, get a zero-star rating if that was possible.

There is a tendency to believe that vanity publishing allows for many good works to reach a potential audience that would not be reached were it not for vanity publishers. There's also a tendency to believe that this is true of Internet and electronic self-publishing, as well. The thinking is that a lot of very good work would never see the light of day were it not for these mechanisms, and the blame is laid squarely at the desks of legitimate publishers. But an objective analysis shows that the occasion when an independently-published work has any real value is rare, indeed. "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Corrected and Explained," shows that legitimate book publishers, in denying publication and, presumably, a level of professional legitimacy, to some works, know exactly what they're doing, after all.

Anyone can write a book, but to write one well is a different matter. The problems with the Bible as noted by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible have been worked over by theologans for centuries.

Apparently all of the work done by Bible apologetics was ignored, and instead we have some rather interesting and amusing rationales for why the Bible really is infallable. This is done with little to no knowledge of Judaism, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. The rationales are whimsical at best, and in direct contradiction to hundreds of years of religious thought.

The ORIGINAL Skeptic's Annotated Bible at skepticsannotatedbible dot com is a true work of criticism that highlights the cruel, absurd, and inhumane claims and passages in the Bible. To ride on the success of that web publication the San Diego based "Jesus Christ Saves Ministries" in essence hijacked the title (and bought the adjacent web domain, skepticsannotatedbible dot org).

It's a poor attempt at apologetics.

The fact remains: Reading the Bible (or rather one of its innumerable divergent translations/editions) may well turn the reader into an atheist.

There is a reason why the Catholics kept the "holy" texts untranslated and out of laity's hands for over a millennium.

Finally, if you happen to be a Christian, consider how easy you'll find it to dismiss, e.g. the Muslim's apologetics about the treatment of women as unconvincing. Btw, the original Skeptic's Annotated Bible also disect the Quran along with the Book of Mormon.

The book is a wonderful resource for anyone looking to learn more about the infallibility of the Bible. It is well-designed and easy to use. Definitely something you want to have around when somebody asks a tough question.

Dr. Gastrich did a very good job with this CD-ROM. His rebuttal to the SAB was excellent. He wrote everything at a very appropriate level and was right on the money.

For instance, when the author of the SAB wrote something like:

Genesis 24:16 - "And the damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her." (Oh boy!)

. . . which was his actual entry for this passage, Dr. Gastrich responded in like kind:

This is not a contradiction or problem.

Instead of blasting the author for being a jerk or just a plain fool, Dr. Gastrich always took the high road and answered in love, while avoiding high-minded talk and wasting words.

Here's an example where Dr. Gastrich used more words when a longer response was required.

The SAB author wrote:

Genesis 24:2, 9 - Abraham makes his servant put his hand under his thigh while swearing to God. Weird. Of course "putting his hand under his thigh" is just a polite euphemism for "holding his testicles in his hand." Come to think of it, maybe it isn't so weird at all -- coming as it does from a god that is completely obsessed with male genitalia. (See Ex.4:25, Lev.15:16-18,32, and Dt.23:1) for just a few examples.) I guess it's sort of like swearing on the bible. But all forms of swearing are forbidden in Mt.5:34-37 and Jas.5:12.

Dr. Gastrich replied:

* This ancient custom for securing an oath may or may not be what you mentioned. Some scholars think Abraham's servant put his hand on the circumcised part of his body - representing an important covenant. 

* This Hebrew word for "swear" means "to take an oath." In other words, Abraham made a promise. Don't confuse this with swearing (like using profanity), cursing, or taking God's name in vain.

* In Matthew 5:34-37 and James 5:12, we are told to be trustworthy. "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No,'" is Jesus' way of saying that we shouldn't need to swear for someone to take us seriously. Be an honorable person of your word, then you simply have to say "Yes" or "No" and you will be believed and trusted.

As you can tell, Dr. Gastrich wrote a reasoned and complete response. These sorts of responses are par for the course and representative of his answers in the rest of the book. Very, very good.