A Disservice To Christianity
933447
I like Ray Comfort... I really do, I think he is a kind natured Kiwi (like me) and means well. I am a skeptic and I gave his book a chance. But I can't honestly recommend this book to anyone. Skeptics will sigh at the antiquity of the arguments while Christians surely have better sources to enrich their faith than Comfort. The book really comes in two parts: arguments for God and against atheism, and then unoriginal Christian apologetics/philosophy. His view of atheists and skeptics is one giant strawman. For the most part, skeptics are not angry but rather bemused that people such as Comfort can claim anything they like and offer little or no real evidence for their conclusions.

There is nothing new in the book and contrary to the title, Comfort does not present any good evidence for the reader to believe his assertions. The book really is just another of his previous books only with a controversial title. He doesn't engage the skeptical argument at a logical or a rational level. This is how Comfort always argues but he contradicts himself by using the argument from design as evidence for God (the same argument used by William Paley in the late 18th century). No serious arguer can look around the world, infer design and claim that this is evidence of God. This view is problematic and has been refuted many times over yet Comfort clings to this argument as the mainstay of his faith.

His slective interpretation of "design" in the world is only superseded by his selective use of quotes from respectable scientists (stephen Hawkings is his favourite) and his selective and incorrect interpretation of science. Ignorance of evolution is par for the course in books such as this though he compounds the problem in his interpretations by using the old "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument for God. The only way this argument can be used to claim God exists is to assume an overly simplistic and wrong version of the 2nd law (everything tends towards chaos/decay). It is evident that Comfort does not even have classroon level understanding of thermodynamics yet it doesn't stop him claiming that the 2nd Law is somehow evidence for God (it isn't).

It really is funny that Comfort accuses skeptics and atheists of not accepting evidence when Comfort has received explanation after explanation about why his design arguments are fallacious and why evolution denial given the evidence requires a poor assessment of the facts. Surely he has access to books on science. Does he not know he can get an accurate assessment of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from Wikipedia? It appears not, but then, Comfort has too much to lose to change his views at this point so I guess I was a little naive for thinking that he would.

In any case, this book is a disservice to Christianity because it promotes the very traits that all honest Christians should find abhorrent: confused logic, misinformation, ignorance and perversion of science to suit one's own ends.
2015827
In this book McKinsey is preaching to the choir, i.e. immature atheists, skeptics and freethinkers, it will of course bolster their young faith; it is published by Prometheus Books (need I say more). It can of course be used for Christian bashing, especially the young and immature. However the more mature and scholarly Christian apologist will hardly bat an eye-lid. It might upset the faith of some, but it is hardly a serious assault on the faith. Sure there are bible difficulties and many years ago we had Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (1874). Even the apostle Peter admits that Paul's letters "contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet 3:16). McKinsey is hardly a scholar, his advice is to "avoid Christian commentaries" and "just read it cold" i.e. biblical literalism. Most of his difficulties have been refuted in books and on the web. Some of the moral bible difficulties that upset Christians and Skeptics alike are answered by Glenn Miller's site. Even the skeptic Farrell Till remarks that biblical discrepancies are often discussed only superficially in works like... (EBE) see details below. The skeptic Jeffery Jay Lowder says "I do not recommend skeptics rely on McKinsey's scholarship without first independently verifying his claims in a reliable source" (details below). So there we have it, McKinsey does not claim to be a scholar and the more mature skeptics agree.

The material in the Encyclopaedia of Biblical Errancy (EBE) is also available on-line, so no need to buy the book. Dennis McKinsey has done the Christian world a favour by listing the various ways in which the bible can be misunderstood and distorted through the eyes of unbelievers. Since, he sets out to attack it, rather than to understand it in any scholarly way; his articles are designed to throw the bible in the worst possible light. He is writing from the point of view of an atheist and free-thinker, in which Christianity is a maze of religious superstition which is unhealthy for society in general. He is a proselytizer for the atheist persuasion, and his book is fodder for skeptics to try to undermine the faith of immature Christians. He has no qualifications that are relevant to biblical criticism, most pastors have to go to Bible College for three years and learn the original languages. It is worth mentioning that in the church, God has appointed teachers, that is, people gifted in expounding God's word. Ultimately he is a blind guide, if people want to believe the lie, then they have C Dennis McKinsey.
1403513
Reading this reminded me a lot of Da Vinci Code or Passover Plot - fantasy written by unbelievers to tell Christians what the real story behind their belief system is. This is confirmed by citing elaine pagels another nonchristian who thinks she knows better than Christians whether certain doctrines are fact-based. Of course this is natural when people detach from letting the Bible narrate its own history and go fishing from all sorts of different ponds to cobble together a more self-satisfying theory of events. The bible is treated as little more than a collection of myths and stories a la Aesop's Fables while the REAL history of what happened must be found by the 'expert' research of modern scholars not at all happy with the Bible's own account. C.S.Lewis had some very sharp bleats to utter about such patent nonsense in his essay on Biblical Criticism. Of course his perspective is never mentioned as a countercritique of the curious criticism in Lost Word and What Whirred After That.

I wonder how the Lord Jesus looks upon such criticism of his Word of God?  Looks like some creative souls who use their cobbling tools on God's History Book are going to have lots of explaining to do when they meet the Author some day.
814700
Jesus taught his followers to be in the World but not of the World. Hatred of other racial groups, hatred of other ethnic groups and discrimination based on ones ancestry is evidence that God's church often is in the World and of the World. Community norms often due influence theological thought, philosophy, and ones religious perspective. Wrongheaded, inconsistent theological rationale and outright contradictory teaching to Gods scripture come forth from the pulpit, the Sunday school room and the seminary. These things deserve opposition and doing so is doing the work of God. To be God's work it must be consistent with the Bible. In most cases being obedient to the government is a Christian thing to do. One should never allow love of country, love ones ancestors, or ones heritage cloud ones love of God or define who God is.
The author of this book, James H. Cone, perceived an evil, hate filled America that discriminated against black people. It is his argument that the white church whether Fundamental in character or mainline Protestantism in thought the ultimate outcome is to uplift white people and diminish black people. The author of this book found following white developed theology by descendents of slaves as contra productive to spiritual and physical well being of the black man. Perceiving that a large segment of the black population would not leave the church, he wrote an argument how the black church should change its theology so to work to fit its needs. This book is not an argument that theology should not be influenced by societal norms, but an embracement of the community determining theology based on its needs. The author makes a distinction between the philosophy of religion and the theology of religion. Under his definition theology is determined by the community while philosophy is the arguments and thoughts about God that fit logic but are foreign to the masses. Theology is the continued attempt by the community to give reason for being. The function of the church is not spiritual renew in the sense people are atoned for their sins, but to find a place in this world, to have an independent thought from white racist society, and live independent from the structures set up by the white man. The white man, the white government and the white church are evil.
In the book there are very few scriptural references. There are plenty of quotes from theologians. While the author is critical to Fundamental theologian and liberal theologian for the same result by different means, he feels free to use the liberal theologian's philosophy to determine theology based on community needs and thought processes. James H. Cone does use the concepts of the Kingdom of God, sin, God's wrath, Jesus identifying himself with the oppressed, God punishing evil and God being in work in the world. He argues any attempt to argue for turning the other cheek, subservient to those in authority, or seek change through peaceful means are the chains of white oppressors theology. Page 67 "(.... We should not conclude that the Bible is an infallible witness. God is neither the author of the Bible, nor is the writers His secretaries. "Jesus is black. We cannot rely on the Bible to tell the truth about him. The church sole purpose is to liberate Black people. White people should repent for thinking white and only learn as the black theologian teaches him. A rationale for black independent thought.
3936956
John Shelby Spong, in my opinion, is one of the most overrated scholars in the history of Christianity.  The title of this book is the epitome of irony, yet the irony seems to elude Mr. Spong (I refuse to call him "reverend").  If traditional Christianity is as far off the mark as Spong claims, then why shouldn't it die?  His own theology bears little resemblance to Christianity (if I understood him correctly, he does not even believe in a personal God).  If churches implement the kind of changes he recommends, they may still promote religion, but it will hardly be Christianity.

Not long ago I read an article in the Washingon Post about churches in Canada that have done exactly what Mr. Spong suggests.  Do you know what is happening to them now?  They're dying!  Guess which churches have actually seen real growth?  The ones that still preach the Bible and the orthodox doctrines of Christianity.  Has it occurred to anyone that maybe - just maybe - Mr. Spong doesn't know what he's talking about?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of Christianity have been greatly exaggerated.  People have been predicting the death of Christianity ever since it came into existence, and I suspect Mr. Spong's prediction will suffer the same fate as theirs.
917067
Very unbiblical. This book, first of all, is not about biblical economics. It is an eisegetical endeavor that seeks to promote a libertarian, free-market-promoting government. Some of the worst arguments I have read. As Max Weber would have noted, this book is a faithful adherence to the Calivinistic economic theology that is so deeply ingrained in the American spirit. Unfortunately, the American spirit reflects the opposite of what Scripture teaches. The author deceptively tries to put himself in a more middle ground, yet it is not middle at all. There is a great deal of confusion of economic terms (e.g., the author confuses 'private property' with personal property). This book does not adequately address the social situations of the texts in question, including social structures in the ancient world. By the way, the introduction should be a red flag for all serious bible students. For example, oikonomia does NOT mean "economics" and it does not literally mean "house-law." It means 'administration.' And this 'administration' is not limited to wealth. The author apparently does not know his Greek. This is a red flag because one does not simply systematize a biblical economics without knowledge of the biblical languages. This is also a red flag because those who do not know the languages and yet think such a task is doable are not good exegetes. If they don't have training in biblical languages, they sure do not have training in exegesis. This is apparent in this book.

An embarrassment to Christianity, to biblical studies, and a very eisegetical endeavor. I do not recommend.
1343236
I was disappointed by this book in that it projected many unbiblical and unproven assertions. One, for example, is the author's statement, "Though an important ordinance, baptism is not part of the gospel" (page 336). How can it yet remain an "important ordinance" of the Word of God and yet "not part of the [G]ospel"? Another is his espousal of a literal 1,000 year reign on earth by Christ on a literal throne of David in the literal city of Jerusalem. His book takes up an inordinate amount of pages discussing this particular fantasy that Dallas Theological Seminary continuously cranks out.
All in all, it is a typical Baptist doctrine book instead of a Christian one. My advice, find a scholarly book on the topic of theology, and leave this one with the Baptists.
4653868
Once again modern evangelicalism is faced with a book which exalts man and demotes God. Mr Osteen, like most preachers today, turns Christianity into a "get" and not a "give". It is a watered down feel-good Gospel which is really no gospel at all. Mr Osteen's scripture twisting and proof texting is enough to make any Expository Bible teacher cringe. What about sin? What about daily denial of self? What about exalting Christ and slaying yourself? Jesus did not come to save us from our unfulfilled lives and help us make more money or own a bigger house; He came to save us from our sin. Mr Osteen should heed the call of Paul in Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." A feel-good, self-help message does not save but rather damns the hearer because it is based on the principles of this world and not on Christ. I pray that Mr Osteen would see his error and turn to the true source of life, the Lord and Master Jesus Christ.
59787
A  Christian friend thought this was a good book and loaned it to me to read.  I was sadden how the author deviated from the truth moved into the realm of deception. It is very strange how this author portraits himself as a Christian yet on the other hand wrote in a manner that goes against what Christianity stands for.  Scripture warns us not to be deceived (1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33). There are many ways we can be deceived, and a major sources of deception is self. In this fictional story written with a form of godliness, the author encourages a false misconception that it is ok to avoid facing unpleasant truth and rationalize away personal guilt for those who lived life on their terms. It wrongfully depicts that a person can be abusive, vile, selfish, and deceitful in life and find a place in heaven when they failed to repent and turn from their wicked ways before they die.
God's Law of Sowing and Reaping Cannot Be Altered.
The word of God clearly states he who sows to the spirit, has unquestionable hope of eternal life (2 Tim. 4:6-8). However, he who sows to the flesh, shall reap corruption (Rom. 3:8; 6:23).  For Christians we believe that the neglecting of God's law has consequences (Heb. 2:2-3).  It is really disheartening that this fictional story leads one to be believe that a person can sow the "works of the flesh" and reap heaven, because this  misconception in this fictional story is far from the truth  (Gal. 5:17-21). One cannot participate in such things as "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like" because "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." One cannot sow "wild oats" and expect to reap that which is good.  A word to the author, stay true to the gospel.
3064192
I was going to give this book 1 star, but decided that really wouldn't be fair since the book is actually fairly well written, fun to read, and the logial shortcomings are at least partly excusable when you realize that he's a "born again" lapsed Christian turned atheist, turned back to Christianity. That kind of person almost always turns out to be the staunchest and most annoying type of True Believer. I have the same basic problem with this book that I had with Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". Both books were written in a way that was likely to titillate readers who share the authors beliefs and annoy people who disagree. I found it interesting that they were both products of Oxford. I wonder if that means anything. My biggest problem with this book comes from a Christian point of view, not an atheist or agnostic one. In Lewis's cosmology not only do you have to believe in Christ the Redeemer but you have to live an uncompromisingly saintly life or your going to end up as dinner for some demon, which Lewis obviously believes in literally. Lewis is just the Pharisees he condemns to Hell. He can see the speck in everybody else's eye but he can't see the log in his own. He swallows a camel and chokes on a gnat. If there is a Hell I wouldn't say he deserves to go there, but if there is a Hell there is a Purgatory and he deserves to spend at least a few decades there.
1303139
A while ago, I saw an article about this recent book that intrigued me. It said that the author argued that Jesus was a myth and offered a list of 126 writers who should have written about Jesus but did not. It seemed to be based on serious research. I was excited about reading it.

Unfortunately, the book is not primarily concerned with the issue of Jesus as a myth. The argument for Jesus as a pure myth is briefly presented in the midst of the book's primary argument that Christianity has historically been a force for evil and savagery in the world. The book primarily recites a long list of crimes committed by Christians and Christian groups over the last 1900 years. This takes up most of the book's 365 pages.

The book is a sermon on why people should not be Christians. Since plenty of sermons are given all the time about why people should be Christians, I don't find anythingwrong with that.  It is kind of like Bertrand Russel's "Why I am Not a Christian" on steroids. I think every young Christian should get it for Christmas to get a more balanced perspective on the history of the religion. I did find lots of bits of information that I did not know. For example, I did not know that the Emperor Constantine had the philosopher Sopater put to death, or that the Christian Emperor Valens had the philosophers Simonides and Maximus put to death around 370. I thought Hypatia was the first philosopher to suffer at the hands of Christians for her wisdom The bad part is that the historical and social conditions that have resulted in so many horrible actions are never presented in a clear or rational light. In some cases the actions are rather unfairly attributed to Christian teaching. For example, the book begins strangely enough with an attack on Joseph Stalin. It is alleged that his Christian upbringing was responsible for his activities as leader of the Soviet Union from 1927 - 1954. The issues are significantly more complex than Paulkovich suggests.

I still think that Paulkovich's argument about the 126 sources is a valid and powerful argument against the historical existence of a biblical Jesus. In a way, it is sad that it is presented in this type of book, as it makes the argument seem more subjective than it is. The numerous attack against the specific argument that I have seen have focused on straw man arguments, for example, critics note that no works of about 1/3 of the authors presently exist. Obviously, if Jesus had been mentioned in them, we should expect that at least the mentions of Jesus would be transmitted, so this counter-argument can be immediately dismissed.

In the politics of Atheism and Christianity, the book has some interest for its straight forward and rather passionate case against Christianity, It does sacrifice depth for breath, which really can't be helped. In 365 pages, it cannot be expected to go into any of its dozens of subjects very deeply.

Strictly speaking, it is grossly unfair to Christianity by only emphasizing the violence, stupidity and craziness connected with it. it doesn't talk at all about some of the brighter moments in Christian history - the Renaissance and the American Abolitionist movement for example. The book is animated by a lively spirit (an unholy spirit, some Christians might label it).

If you are looking for books about Jesus being a Pure Myth, this is not the book to read. You should probably try Richard Carrier, Robert Price or Earl Doherty to get a background  or visit Ken Humphry's website Jesusneverexisted.com.
1262263
I'm giving this book two stars instead of one because it isn't the worst book imaginable, but, as others have stated, it is pretty bad.  In what I believe to be an honest attempt to instruct the reader where Jesus would stand regarding certain issues, it gives a very one-sided evaluation of an issue, followed by  a concluding paragraph that states (literally)  "Jesus would vote for (insert position)." Amazingly, Jesus ends up taking the Republican stance on every issue, and the author's "evaluation" of the issues do nothing more than give the author's reasoning for why he believes that Jesus would take said stance.  This is basically a book telling you the author's stance, and his [weak] arguments for why he believes Jesus would agree with him.

For instance, the author states that Jesus would not believe that global warming is caused by humans, and the support he gives to this argument is that most evangelicals do not believe so.  The author argues that scientists are divided  on the issue of whether or not global warming is caused by human activity, and that it is only due to the [liberally] biased media that we aren't aware of this.  On the "issue" of education, the author forgets about the premise of the book and spends a chapter trashing public education.  Using a few random statistics that are supposed to show why he believes the American education system is completely ineffective  (and let's admit, we aren't world leaders in public education, but his statistics are weak support for his argument) and he then claims that the downfall of public education lies in its secularization.  According to the author, any good Christian who can afford it should home-school their child or send them to a private Christian school.  The author concludes that Jesus wouldn't be happy with the American public education system, and ends the chapter saying little more that that Christians will be held responsible for the education that their children receive.

 I'll stop with the examples, but read this book for yourself and you'll see how clearly biased it is.  The author gives no perspective whatsoever on these issues, many of which are far more complex than he would ever lead you to believe, and clearly argues from a very conservative standpoint why, in his opinion "Jesus is on our side."  We all know these arguments, and this book is not what America needs.  We need truth and earnest dialogue; this is not conversation, this is a soapbox.
727854
The authors, doubtless sincere in their beliefs, are out of touch with the New Testament concept of the local church, its offices and multiple gifts. That concept is the household or house church. Increasingly, some of the most outstanding exegetes are coming to acknowledge that fact. Some church historians and archaeologists are affirming the evidence that in the first three centuries of Christianity the predominant meeting place of Christians was the homes of wealthier members. Among many evils that the Roman church perpetrated on the early Christians was herding them into buildings similar to the heathen temples in Rome (many houses where Christians met still lie beneath the basilicas and other buildings in Rome and Pompeii. The Reformers, for all their commendable achievements, failed to go back to the NT Scriptures. There they would have seen "pastor" as Christ-like shepherd (including teacher) but as a gift, not an office. Elders and deacons were the only offices. A plurality of gifts encouraged the growth of the entire church family through mutual ministry of all believers, not just one figure ministering to the rest. A new Reformation is long overdue if the local church - and the church universal - is to recover its NT origins and the dynamic of its witness in the face of secularism and the terrorists of Islam.
3462260
Written by an agnostic daughter of a liberal Episcopalian bishop this is an exploration of the gulf separating Christianity and Islam, the only two religions that are both monotheistic and triumphal.  Griswold's account is weak in European historical background, the very background of Christian Western Civilization that allows the author her extraordinary privileges.  Were she born into an Islamic society could she have gained the education and political and personal freedom to enable her to research and write this book?  You'll find no straight-up Christianity in this account, just the Christianity-and-water relativism that pervades western culture today.
Yet she performs valuable work recording the personal narratives of ordinary individuals in Africa and South Asia who suffer from religious extremism and the political and economic forces that have employed extremism throughout history to gain power and wealth. It's unfortunate that Griswold failed to provide an even cursory comparison with the conflicts in Northern Ireland and in Israel and Palestine to show how occupation and ursurpation of land in the name of religion is not unique to Islamic or Christian expansionism. Yet if Three Cups of Tea spoke to you of the desperate need to seek and achieve peace via education and economic development then this book will reinforce that conclusion with its touching personal insights.
1618798
I don't know if all of the other reviewers read both books, but I have.  Here are the 2 main reasons I gave this 1 star:

1. The author comes pretty close to making a good arguement for the word "faith", taken in context within the realm of Christianity.  That, however, is always the problem with Christian apologetics.  They are very "religio-centric". I.E. They don't think outside the realm of Christianity.  Of course you can find "evidence" for Christian faith in the bible, since it is the basis of Christianity.  It is a circular argument: There is evidence in the bible for faith/Christianity/existence of God and the evidence in the bible is true because it is the word of God and we know there is a God because there is evidence in the bible and etc. etc.  Take a step back.  Boghossian's book is about taking a step back from a religious bubble and seeing the larger picture of religions.  The "evidence" that Gilson presents in this book would not amount to a hill of beans to a Muslim or a Hebrew or a Hindu or a etc. etc.  Boghossian's book is not centered on debunking Christianity, it is broad based to cover all religions.  It is not about changing beliefs, but changing the way people think.  What makes Tom's arguments any more true than Islam's claim to be the one true faith?

2. Tom is very centered on the word Faith and Peter's definition of faith.  Most of Peter's book, again, is challenging how people think.  His chapter on faith is importnant, but is not the whole of the book.  I get the feeling that Tom read the first 2 chapters and then penned his book.  Maybe that is why part of the title is "A Preliminary Response"

A brief mentioning of poor proof reading also needs to be stated.  I also like the evidence analogy of the murder scene with faith.  Some how finger prints on a gun and bullet wounds on a victim are as strong as a story written down 2000 years ago by an unknown author with bias towards Christianity that was subsequently retranslated 3 or 4 times.  Um... yeah.

Here are 3 facts that Peter outlines in his book that are a good starting point for "stepping out of the bubble" when thinking about religion. (I am paraphrasing. Peter does a more eloquent job).  I don't think you can make a logical/sensible arguement against them:
a. There are many, many religions in the world.
b. Most, if not all, religions claim to be the true word of God with the proper way to get to heaven
c. Many claims of one religion disagree with, or are in direct contradiction with, the claims of other religions

What can you say to those facts?  All religions can't be right.  But they all can be wrong...

SO, is it worth one star?  I guess for the fact that it doesn't really negate Peter's book and, hence, fails at what it sets out to do.  It falls into the trap of religious people all over the world.  "My religion is true because I believe it to be true. And here is my "evidence" from my holy book! (Evidence that all other religions can also produce to prove their religion is true.)

I wouldn't recommend this to an atheist looking for a good retort to religious views.  It is too focused on the Christian point of view.

I think the author needs to un-focus on Christianity and find more broad based reasons for faith that don't need to rely on the Bible (which the majority of people don't belive is the definitive religious book)  I'd be interested to read the author's response on the rest of Peter's book.  The critical thinking aspects especially.

"Live like today is your last but learn as though you will live forever." - Ghandi (Paraphrased)
1963539
Little Golden Books have a long history of providing quality picture books for children, including books with religious themes. Unfortunately, their Story of Jesus by Jane Werner Watson is a politically correct version of Jesus' life, not well suited to Christians.

The book begins by showing Jesus' infancy in a stable, without mentioning the miraculous way he entered the world. The author then goes on to say that his parents, Joseph and Mary, took him to Egypt to flee the wicked King Herod. When the king dies, the family moved back to Judea and as Jesus grew, he worked with his father as a carpenter. When Jesus was 12, the author says he went to Jerusalem and his "heart rejoiced when he entered the temple...Jesus knew, even then, that his life's purpose would be to work for his Father in Heaven..." The author then tells us of John the Baptist, saying:

"John baptized Jesus in the river Jordan. As the two men prayed, God sent a dove down from Heaven - a sign that He was pleased."
This is definitely whitewashed; the Bible tells us that "At that moment [of Jesus' baptism] heaven was opened, and he [Jesus] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3: 16-17)

Afterward, the author says that Jesus went off to be by himself, praying "for God to show him the way to live his life." This, again, is inaccurate. Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted by - and refuse - Satan (see Matt. 4:1-11).

The author then recounts how Jesus taught the people of Israel and performed miracles. The book doesn't delve into Jesus' arrest, time on the cross, or his resurrection. Instead, the last page says that:

"After Jesus' death, his followers took his teachings all around the world. And the stories he told are still known and loved and retold today in every land on Earth."

In essence, the author makes Jesus sound like another of the brothers Grimm. No where is Jesus' status as God's son mentioned, nor is his miraculous resurrection and what it means for us.

What I Like: There are some things to like in this book. For example, the author does a nice job of describing the settings (Jesus was born in Bethlehem, "a town in the rocky hills of Judea;" later, the family settles into "a small stone house in Nazareth.") The illustrations, by Jerry Smath, are warm, friendly, and realistic without being drab.

What I Dislike: The political correctness. It's pretty clear this book was designed to please those who believe Jesus was just "a good man." Lots of important information is left out, leaning toward the side of being biblically inaccurate.

Overall Rating: Poor.

Kristina
editor at Christian Children's Book Review
1929631
Guthries book has some good elements to it, to be sure, but plenty of the content feels very much like an attempt to over-mystify and under-empower God and the truth and simplicity of his Word.

The author devotes some of the early content to the difference between eisegesis and exegesis, and much was said about doing good hermeneutics. However, it came as a huge surprise to find out that these subjects were seemingly ignored during the explanation of some theological doctrines.

Divine creation, as revealed in the book of Genesis and throughout Scriptures (including some words from Jesus Christ himself), was explained as a ludicrous idea. To put it plainly, the author portrayed the biblical text as unreliable when it came to such topic, the text does not say what it does, and we should let only outside, secularly biased sources guide our understanding on how the world and universe came to be. Guthrie is, at the very least, ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches about creation as well as what scientific inquiry does. He also makes no attempt at making an up-to-date and informed deliberation by referring to any of the great amount of literal creation publications available today.

Much was also said about calling God the Father, well, Father. The author rationalized it is politically incorrect to refer to God as he and we could just as well call him mother, never minding that God himself decided how he should be referred to and that the feminine adjectives used sometimes in Scriptures are simply that, adjectives, not actual titles (God is like a chicken who gathers her chicks under her wings, but hes definitely not a chicken). When Guthrie mentioned that even the title Lord should be discontinued, it shattered any respect I had left for him at that point.

Much more can be said on topics such as evil and suffering, the doctrine of salvation, and the fact that the author gave almost no attention to repentance, a theme that is constant throughout Scriptures. Id be careful calling the content of such a book Christian doctrine. There are much, much better books on these topics out there. Just for starters, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, Wayne Grudems Systematic Theology, and many publications from Answers in Genesis, do an incredibly better job.