What do you think?
Rate this book
A General Introduction to the Bible
This is the 1986 revised and expanded edition, with an excellent background for the serious student of the Bible. The work is divided into four major sections. Part One: The inspiration of the Bible. Part Two: Canonization of the Bible. Part Three: Transmission of the Bible. Part Four: Translation of the Bible. In addition there are a number of useful study helps. This book, in a single volume provides a strong historical foundation for biblical studies, and includes the additional revisions that evaluates the English Bible translations made since 1968. An appendix lists over 1100 English Bible translations.
An updated version of the popular original, it satisfies the exacting demands placed on any good Bible introduction: Excellent scholarship and clear writing.
An updated version of the popular original, it satisfies the exacting demands placed on any good Bible introduction: Excellent scholarship and clear writing.
728 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
17 people are currently reading
333 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
226 books314 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 18, 2017
I'm posting the last of my 2017 reads here this month without reviews, so that they'll count towards this year's Goodreads Reading Challenge. Full review coming in early 2018.
September 29, 2013
This book has four parts: inspiration, canonicity, transmission, and translation.
The general conclusion of the book sums it up well:
Now, that is what they think. Predictably, as an atheist, I disagree that their arguments are as conclusive as they think they are. Their arguments tend to be rather one sided. When they agree with a point, they only consider the evidence that agrees with that position. When they disagree with a point, they dwell nearly exclusively on anything negative which can be said of this view. Now, this may not be an invalid method of arguing in the social sciences, but when one is making the claims these authors make about the Bible, I expect a higher standard than one would use to argue, for example, deeper meanings behind Oliver Twist. The authors even explicitly spell out their bias on page 156:
Overall, the authors have a very conservative Protestant point of view, and they do not work so much to justify it as to show how taking that point of view as a starting point, the opinions of the Bible implied by that point of view follow.
This is the evidence that the authors claim prove the Bible is the Word of God and, parenthetically, my opinion of these "proofs":
1. The nature of the Bible itself is evidence for its inspiration (a false dichotomy that the authors of the Bible were either telling the truth or consciously lying).
2. The witness of the Spirit to the heart of the believer (sure, if you're only trying to convince people who believe the Bible is inspired that it is inspired).
3. The ability of the Bible to transform people's lives (lots of religions and non-religious belief systems make that claim).
4. Some of the events in the Bible are confirmed by historic evidence (wow, people tried to explain real events in terms of the supernatural? Shocking!).
5. The testimony of Christ that the Bible is the Word of God (i.e., you should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says that someone the Bible claims is important said the Bible is true).
6. Fulfilled prophecies (every time I have looked up a prophecy on the internet, whether or not it has been fulfilled is quite sketchy. For example, a prophecy saying Egypt will fall from power and be barren forever is not really fulfilled by the fact that Egypt is no longer a dominant power unless you start allowing massive hyperbole in prophecies and then it seems that you can find some event that seems to fulfill nearly any prophecy).
7. The influence of the Bible (I would say the the U.S. Constitution is pretty influential too, but I am guessing the authors would not claim that its influence implies it should be taken as divinely inspired).
8. The apparent indestructibility of the Bible as another sign that it is from God (I don't even know how the fact that the Bible has not been destroyed implies that it is divinely inspired...).
9. The integrity of the human authors (again, this is the false dichotomy mentioned above)
10. The miracles of the Bible confirm its divine origin (you know, those miracles that are documented in the Bible...).
11. The claim that the Bible could not have come from good or evil creatures because good creatures would not have lied and claimed it came from God and evil creatures would not have written something that caused so much good ((a) I am not so sure that evil creatures can't cause good -- whether or not they intend it, (b) how many ways can you express the same false dichotomy?, (c) the Bible has caused bad as well as good)
The authors admit that none of these alone is overwhelming evidence, but claim that in sum they are overwhelming. I am not quite sure how, and they fail to enlighten me on that point.
They authors make some points that do not undermine any of their core claim points, but which do undermine points commonly made by conservative Christians. In particular, conservative Christians often claim that our moral law is based on the Bible. However, as the authors of this book point out
Another amusing point was when the authors pointed out that some translations have translated Matthew 19:24 as "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle..." rather than the more traditional camel. I find that interesting because the alternate translation makes so much more sense and appears to be equally valid since the Aramaic words for rope and camel are the same. Overall, the translation and transmission sections were disappointing because they were mostly lists of different source texts and translations ("then there was this translation made in this year by this person based on these manuscripts" over and over again for 50 pages). I would have been much more interested in more "camel" discussions of why translation is hard and some of the specific ambiguities claimed.
Reading this book was educational and probably worthwhile (although I should have skimmed more). However, when the authors move away from straight facts or descriptions of the various academic disciplines involved they tend to fall into a mode where they are not convincingly justifying their claims. This made a work that I was initially quite interested in reading disappointing and frustrating in the end.
The general conclusion of the book sums it up well:
The general purpose of this book has been twofold: historical and theological. Historically and critically, it has been an attempt to answer the question as to whether the Bible of the twentieth century, based as it is on the critical Hebrew and Greek texts, is a faithful reproduction of the books produced by its original authors. The answer is by now obvious, and it is this: No book from antiquity comes to the modern world with greater evidence for its authenticity than does the Bible. Both the kind and the amount of evidence that supports the fidelity of the present critical text are greater than for any other book from the ancient world.
Directly related to this historical conclusion is a theological one. For if there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical documents are genuine and authentic -- that they stem from alleged periods and authors -- then one must face seriously their persistent claim to divine inspiration. When these claims are thoroughly examined and honestly faced, one can but conclude that the Bible as a whole claims to be the Word of God, and the evidence confirms this claim.
Along with the question as to whether the books of the Bible are divinely inspired, it has been necessary to address the kindred question as to which books of the Bible are inspired, that is, the question of canonicity. One statement will suffice as a summary for both this and the foregoing question. The sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible known today are the entire and complete canon of inspired Scripture, handed down through the centuries without substantial change or any doctrinal variation.
Now, that is what they think. Predictably, as an atheist, I disagree that their arguments are as conclusive as they think they are. Their arguments tend to be rather one sided. When they agree with a point, they only consider the evidence that agrees with that position. When they disagree with a point, they dwell nearly exclusively on anything negative which can be said of this view. Now, this may not be an invalid method of arguing in the social sciences, but when one is making the claims these authors make about the Bible, I expect a higher standard than one would use to argue, for example, deeper meanings behind Oliver Twist. The authors even explicitly spell out their bias on page 156:
Any results of higher criticism that are contrary to [the orthodox view of the Bible] are incompatible with the traditional doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture... such contrary views of Scripture are actually unorthodox.This does not seem like honest evaluation of the evidence to me. Later the authors claim that any criticisms contrary to their belief must be based in various "isms" (and obviously all "isms" are evil).
Overall, the authors have a very conservative Protestant point of view, and they do not work so much to justify it as to show how taking that point of view as a starting point, the opinions of the Bible implied by that point of view follow.
This is the evidence that the authors claim prove the Bible is the Word of God and, parenthetically, my opinion of these "proofs":
1. The nature of the Bible itself is evidence for its inspiration (a false dichotomy that the authors of the Bible were either telling the truth or consciously lying).
2. The witness of the Spirit to the heart of the believer (sure, if you're only trying to convince people who believe the Bible is inspired that it is inspired).
3. The ability of the Bible to transform people's lives (lots of religions and non-religious belief systems make that claim).
4. Some of the events in the Bible are confirmed by historic evidence (wow, people tried to explain real events in terms of the supernatural? Shocking!).
5. The testimony of Christ that the Bible is the Word of God (i.e., you should believe the Bible is true because the Bible says that someone the Bible claims is important said the Bible is true).
6. Fulfilled prophecies (every time I have looked up a prophecy on the internet, whether or not it has been fulfilled is quite sketchy. For example, a prophecy saying Egypt will fall from power and be barren forever is not really fulfilled by the fact that Egypt is no longer a dominant power unless you start allowing massive hyperbole in prophecies and then it seems that you can find some event that seems to fulfill nearly any prophecy).
7. The influence of the Bible (I would say the the U.S. Constitution is pretty influential too, but I am guessing the authors would not claim that its influence implies it should be taken as divinely inspired).
8. The apparent indestructibility of the Bible as another sign that it is from God (I don't even know how the fact that the Bible has not been destroyed implies that it is divinely inspired...).
9. The integrity of the human authors (again, this is the false dichotomy mentioned above)
10. The miracles of the Bible confirm its divine origin (you know, those miracles that are documented in the Bible...).
11. The claim that the Bible could not have come from good or evil creatures because good creatures would not have lied and claimed it came from God and evil creatures would not have written something that caused so much good ((a) I am not so sure that evil creatures can't cause good -- whether or not they intend it, (b) how many ways can you express the same false dichotomy?, (c) the Bible has caused bad as well as good)
The authors admit that none of these alone is overwhelming evidence, but claim that in sum they are overwhelming. I am not quite sure how, and they fail to enlighten me on that point.
They authors make some points that do not undermine any of their core claim points, but which do undermine points commonly made by conservative Christians. In particular, conservative Christians often claim that our moral law is based on the Bible. However, as the authors of this book point out
To the biblical student familiar with the phraseology of the New Testament, it will be no surprise to find among the inscriptions [from pagan writers] the well-known "I have fought a good fight," "Love your husband," and "Rebuke not an elder." The list of sins (excepting idolatry and covetousness) are also similar. It seems that both Christian and pagan writers shared a common core of culture and terminology
Another amusing point was when the authors pointed out that some translations have translated Matthew 19:24 as "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle..." rather than the more traditional camel. I find that interesting because the alternate translation makes so much more sense and appears to be equally valid since the Aramaic words for rope and camel are the same. Overall, the translation and transmission sections were disappointing because they were mostly lists of different source texts and translations ("then there was this translation made in this year by this person based on these manuscripts" over and over again for 50 pages). I would have been much more interested in more "camel" discussions of why translation is hard and some of the specific ambiguities claimed.
Reading this book was educational and probably worthwhile (although I should have skimmed more). However, when the authors move away from straight facts or descriptions of the various academic disciplines involved they tend to fall into a mode where they are not convincingly justifying their claims. This made a work that I was initially quite interested in reading disappointing and frustrating in the end.
August 6, 2024
Whew. That was tough. 😂
This book is extremely scholarly and I’m not gonna lie…I skipped a lot and read the summary and conclusion at the end of each chapter. But, I did enjoy finding out how I got the Bible that I hold in my hand each day. And I have no doubts that it’s the inspired word of God. Some fun facts I learned:
The New Testament has more historical evidence for integrity than any other ancient work of literature. The Iliad has 643 manuscripts by which it has been reconstructed. There are some 5,000 for the New Testament. And most of the manuscripts for the NT were written less than 200 years from the original. A time frame which no other ancient work even comes close to.
There are 39 books in the OT, with 12 of those being written by major prophets and 5 by minor prophets. That leaves 22 books. Twenty of those 22 have their claim for inspiration in the NT. That means if you accept the 17 books by prophets as inspired by God, and the NT confirms the inspiration for another 20, then virtually the entire OT is confirmed as authoritative and inspired by the New Testament. Song of Songs and Esther are the only OT books that have come under any sort of scrutiny, but they were eventually accepted as part of the canon as well. And since we’ve already established the authenticity of the NT, and the NT confirms the authenticity of the Old, the whole Bible is therefore authentic.
A lot of critics, non-believers, deconstructers etc will talk about errors in the Bible and how errors render it non- infallible. The Bible has not only been preserved in the largest number of manuscripts of any book from the ancient world, but it also contains fewer errors in transmission. The variant readings which significantly affect the sense of a passage are less than one-half of 1% of the NT, with none of those affecting any basic doctrine of Christianity.
Nuff’ said.
*I knocked off a star only because it’s so difficult to read, not because of the content itself.*
This book is extremely scholarly and I’m not gonna lie…I skipped a lot and read the summary and conclusion at the end of each chapter. But, I did enjoy finding out how I got the Bible that I hold in my hand each day. And I have no doubts that it’s the inspired word of God. Some fun facts I learned:
The New Testament has more historical evidence for integrity than any other ancient work of literature. The Iliad has 643 manuscripts by which it has been reconstructed. There are some 5,000 for the New Testament. And most of the manuscripts for the NT were written less than 200 years from the original. A time frame which no other ancient work even comes close to.
There are 39 books in the OT, with 12 of those being written by major prophets and 5 by minor prophets. That leaves 22 books. Twenty of those 22 have their claim for inspiration in the NT. That means if you accept the 17 books by prophets as inspired by God, and the NT confirms the inspiration for another 20, then virtually the entire OT is confirmed as authoritative and inspired by the New Testament. Song of Songs and Esther are the only OT books that have come under any sort of scrutiny, but they were eventually accepted as part of the canon as well. And since we’ve already established the authenticity of the NT, and the NT confirms the authenticity of the Old, the whole Bible is therefore authentic.
A lot of critics, non-believers, deconstructers etc will talk about errors in the Bible and how errors render it non- infallible. The Bible has not only been preserved in the largest number of manuscripts of any book from the ancient world, but it also contains fewer errors in transmission. The variant readings which significantly affect the sense of a passage are less than one-half of 1% of the NT, with none of those affecting any basic doctrine of Christianity.
Nuff’ said.
*I knocked off a star only because it’s so difficult to read, not because of the content itself.*
March 20, 2020
I originally read this as a Bible College textbook in 1994 as I finishes an Associate of Biblical Studies diploma. At that point, I decided that college is a massive scam and waste of money but had developed a voracious appetite for reading. This was one of my favorite books up to that point.
But I must warn you, this isn't something most Christians will find as interesting as I did. I admit being a theology wonk (along with history, the sciences, biographies, classic fiction...) and I am fully aware that I find things interesting that would cause most people to die of boredom.
With that said, if you are one of us theology wonks and you want some serious background knowledge on the inspiration, canonicity, transmission, and translation of the Bible, then this is for you.
NOTE: I reject the Alexandrian position of the authors and recommend you supplement the reading of this text with works by Dean John W. Burgon, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, Donald Waite, Jack Moorman and others who represent the Traditional Text view of textual science and manuscript evidence, which had lead me to be one of those deplorable "King James Bible Only" English Christians.
But I must warn you, this isn't something most Christians will find as interesting as I did. I admit being a theology wonk (along with history, the sciences, biographies, classic fiction...) and I am fully aware that I find things interesting that would cause most people to die of boredom.
With that said, if you are one of us theology wonks and you want some serious background knowledge on the inspiration, canonicity, transmission, and translation of the Bible, then this is for you.
NOTE: I reject the Alexandrian position of the authors and recommend you supplement the reading of this text with works by Dean John W. Burgon, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, Donald Waite, Jack Moorman and others who represent the Traditional Text view of textual science and manuscript evidence, which had lead me to be one of those deplorable "King James Bible Only" English Christians.
January 19, 2022
This is a deeply scholarly work, but worth the effort. The authors are deeply committed to the truth that the Biblical record is an accurate representation of God's revelation to those he created. Does not shy to dig deep into the complexities of how the Biblical record came to us and the many challenges involved, but ultimately shows that we can be confident that what God inspired the writers of the Bible to write is essentially what we have today. We can confidently read the Bible knowing that God has overseen it and will continue to work through its powerful words.
December 9, 2023
Provavelmente, a introdução geral mais completa da Bíblia, trata das principais questões de inspiração, canonização, transmissão e tradução da Bíblia. Por tratar de um tema tão geral, por vezes, o argumento do autor pode parecer fraco, principalmente no que diz respeito à canonização, mas no geral é um livro ideal para seminaristas nas disciplinas de introdução à Bíblia.
February 5, 2019
Definitely interesting. But very "textbooky"
February 4, 2020
The beginning is very good, but it becomes quite technical as one reads further. An excellent reference book, especially as a guide to the various manuscripts now available.
April 20, 2022
Great history layout, unbiased for the most part but some things still left questions or felt circular.
January 3, 2024
Really good, but very 'wordy'.
June 20, 2013
While much of this book is good for brief reading stints here and there, it is really too outdated to be a reference book.
There are many places in which the authors derive information from one source, write a whole page on it, and end up with faulty conclusions esp. the one regarding Paul having written amongst the Celtic people in Asia Minor which relies on an interpretation of the "Northern Galatian Theory" which is currently considered inaccurate (cf. p. 541-42).
This issue is merely one of many. The work is overall apologetically biased and makes some poor conclusions that are not necessarily in tandem with academic integrity (e.g. poorly researched sections). The sections on textual transmission (textual criticism) and the inspiration debate are probably some of the better. Just remember that this book was revised in 1986 but represents opinions of the middle 20th century. New research is not considered.
I would recommend looking at another book to purchase for your library.
There are many places in which the authors derive information from one source, write a whole page on it, and end up with faulty conclusions esp. the one regarding Paul having written amongst the Celtic people in Asia Minor which relies on an interpretation of the "Northern Galatian Theory" which is currently considered inaccurate (cf. p. 541-42).
This issue is merely one of many. The work is overall apologetically biased and makes some poor conclusions that are not necessarily in tandem with academic integrity (e.g. poorly researched sections). The sections on textual transmission (textual criticism) and the inspiration debate are probably some of the better. Just remember that this book was revised in 1986 but represents opinions of the middle 20th century. New research is not considered.
I would recommend looking at another book to purchase for your library.
May 27, 2012
This is a solid introduction that attempts to explain what the Bible is, and how it came to us. Geisler looks at four areas of biblical study in particular: the inspiration, canonization, transmission, and translation of the Bible.
The book is massive, and jam-packed full of information that took me quite a while to get through. I skipped over a few of the more tedious sections. However, after reading this, I feel I have a much greater understanding of why the Bible is indeed a solid foundation, and why we can trust that the Bible we have today is God's word.
The book is massive, and jam-packed full of information that took me quite a while to get through. I skipped over a few of the more tedious sections. However, after reading this, I feel I have a much greater understanding of why the Bible is indeed a solid foundation, and why we can trust that the Bible we have today is God's word.
October 23, 2013
Book info needs updating ASAP!
August 11, 2016
A general introduction into the organization, history and content of the bible.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews