What do you think?
Rate this book
Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians
The Bible is not the word of God.
Biblical Nonsense is a broad look at the tremendous problem of associating divinity with the world's most popular book. This part-philosophical, part-scientific overview explores the Bible's divine treachery, scientific mistakes, historical errors, false prophecies, and comical absurdities. Biblical Nonsense also expands beyond these standard reasons for skepticism by tackling the rationale behind the emergence and perpetuation of Christianity, psychological and sociocultural reasons that drive Christians to cling to their beliefs, and illogical methods of argumentation invoked in the defense of the Bible.
Author Dr. Jason Long is a former Christian who condenses the most significant biblical problems into this single volume. Unlike other books in the field that delve into only one topic, this manuscript, comprehensible even to those who have never opened a Bible, is a full-fledged attempt to demonstrate that God's supposed word is a product of human minds, not divine inspiration. Dr. Long's fresh experiences in the church and advanced levels of educational enlightenment make him the perfect individual to present this vehemently unpopular, yet undeniably appealing topic.
Biblical Nonsense is a broad look at the tremendous problem of associating divinity with the world's most popular book. This part-philosophical, part-scientific overview explores the Bible's divine treachery, scientific mistakes, historical errors, false prophecies, and comical absurdities. Biblical Nonsense also expands beyond these standard reasons for skepticism by tackling the rationale behind the emergence and perpetuation of Christianity, psychological and sociocultural reasons that drive Christians to cling to their beliefs, and illogical methods of argumentation invoked in the defense of the Bible.
Author Dr. Jason Long is a former Christian who condenses the most significant biblical problems into this single volume. Unlike other books in the field that delve into only one topic, this manuscript, comprehensible even to those who have never opened a Bible, is a full-fledged attempt to demonstrate that God's supposed word is a product of human minds, not divine inspiration. Dr. Long's fresh experiences in the church and advanced levels of educational enlightenment make him the perfect individual to present this vehemently unpopular, yet undeniably appealing topic.
214 pages, Paperback
First published January 19, 2005
399 people are currently reading
195 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 8, 2012
This is a fascinating book. American audiences who were "raised on the Bible" will get a stark awakening of what exactly we were raised upon.
Dr. Long's book is most unique in that it is formatted much like an apologetic bible commentary. I've looked for something like this for years, and this is the first I've found.
Most skeptics and scholars in this arena weren't conditioned on fundamentalist religion as the author (and I) was. Thus even the popular ones don't seem to understand how this conditioning was achieved, or how to optimize a presentation to this audience.
Dr. Jason Long obviously does.
Rather than spend a long and painful self-focused introduction, explaining his background, credentials, and loss of faith, he goes right to the first chapter of Genesis. While most books force me to have a Bible in hand to follow scriptural references (difficult on a Kindle or Nook), Biblical Nonsense provides the passages in red lettering.
Then as skilled as a surgeon, Long dissects the logical fallacies that challenge any idea of "inerrancy" or "infallibility".
Chapter divisions, in both name and
chronology, parrot those in the Old and New Testaments. Much time is given to the stories of creation, Noah's flood, the Exodus, and the Israeli kings. Some chapters, however, such as Ruth or Esther, only comment on a few pertinent verses.
While most of the revelations aren't new to readers of critical scholarship, Long masterfully intertwines arguments of logic, the problem of evil, and even humor into one commentary.
The most obvious virtue of the book is the sincerity of his search for truth and his eureka finds that led to his deconversion, an event that anyone can see, didn't come lightly or without cost.
My favorite find, which was new to me, was an obscure story in Kings, which reveals that the scripture was "found" by someone in the court for the first time. It infers pretty clearly that the book of the law was not available to these Middle Eastern people's before that time. Combining this passage with recent late dating evidence for the Torah, one can make a powerful case for wholesale invention of not only the myths, but even the political history of Israel.
Don't be fooled by this book's inclusion alongside other low budget agnostic literature. This is a work deserving a read for those who enjoy Price, Ehrman, Carrier and Loftis.
The only real difference is this: it's even a BETTER choice for those who were brought up in Sunday School, and want to see the passages under discussion right on the same page.
I looked for Dr. Long on Twitter so I could let him know how much I appreciated this work...something I absolutely never do. I had no luck locating him, so maybe he will see this review and be encouraged by it.
Highly recommended!
Dr. Long's book is most unique in that it is formatted much like an apologetic bible commentary. I've looked for something like this for years, and this is the first I've found.
Most skeptics and scholars in this arena weren't conditioned on fundamentalist religion as the author (and I) was. Thus even the popular ones don't seem to understand how this conditioning was achieved, or how to optimize a presentation to this audience.
Dr. Jason Long obviously does.
Rather than spend a long and painful self-focused introduction, explaining his background, credentials, and loss of faith, he goes right to the first chapter of Genesis. While most books force me to have a Bible in hand to follow scriptural references (difficult on a Kindle or Nook), Biblical Nonsense provides the passages in red lettering.
Then as skilled as a surgeon, Long dissects the logical fallacies that challenge any idea of "inerrancy" or "infallibility".
Chapter divisions, in both name and
chronology, parrot those in the Old and New Testaments. Much time is given to the stories of creation, Noah's flood, the Exodus, and the Israeli kings. Some chapters, however, such as Ruth or Esther, only comment on a few pertinent verses.
While most of the revelations aren't new to readers of critical scholarship, Long masterfully intertwines arguments of logic, the problem of evil, and even humor into one commentary.
The most obvious virtue of the book is the sincerity of his search for truth and his eureka finds that led to his deconversion, an event that anyone can see, didn't come lightly or without cost.
My favorite find, which was new to me, was an obscure story in Kings, which reveals that the scripture was "found" by someone in the court for the first time. It infers pretty clearly that the book of the law was not available to these Middle Eastern people's before that time. Combining this passage with recent late dating evidence for the Torah, one can make a powerful case for wholesale invention of not only the myths, but even the political history of Israel.
Don't be fooled by this book's inclusion alongside other low budget agnostic literature. This is a work deserving a read for those who enjoy Price, Ehrman, Carrier and Loftis.
The only real difference is this: it's even a BETTER choice for those who were brought up in Sunday School, and want to see the passages under discussion right on the same page.
I looked for Dr. Long on Twitter so I could let him know how much I appreciated this work...something I absolutely never do. I had no luck locating him, so maybe he will see this review and be encouraged by it.
Highly recommended!
June 2, 2015
Turning the Bible on itself
This is an incredibly comprehensive examination of how the Bible is not the divinely inspired book that Christians claim it to be. Even though it uses the Bible against itself, extra-biblical sources would have improved it considerably. It also could have used some better proofreading, but that's just grasping at straws. Still, I would highly recommend people that are on the fence about their faith to give this a read and supplement that with the Bible itself. How someone could come away thinking it is divinely inspired after reading the entire thing is beyond me. It is, quite plainly, a hodgepodge of inconsistent writings borne out of superstition and prejudice, which this book adequately demonstrates.
This is an incredibly comprehensive examination of how the Bible is not the divinely inspired book that Christians claim it to be. Even though it uses the Bible against itself, extra-biblical sources would have improved it considerably. It also could have used some better proofreading, but that's just grasping at straws. Still, I would highly recommend people that are on the fence about their faith to give this a read and supplement that with the Bible itself. How someone could come away thinking it is divinely inspired after reading the entire thing is beyond me. It is, quite plainly, a hodgepodge of inconsistent writings borne out of superstition and prejudice, which this book adequately demonstrates.
April 6, 2013
I made a mistake in buying this book I'm afraid. It is hard for a European readership to understand that there is a sizeable number of believers in the US that actually believes everything in the Bible happened as stated. Most Europeans even in the most Catholic of schools are taught that one has to take into account the element of myth and the lack of scientific understanding to account for nature's more frightening events and why they were attributed to God (in the absence of any other explanation) . We are also aware that several of the events described are fictitious and couldn't have happened. Taking it literally in Europe is a rarity. The author knows very little if any Biblical archeology or theology to give a more informed background as to why the writers wrote the way they did. He looks back (in a somewhat sneering way which does not add to the scholarship) and judges them by today's standards. He takes the Ark for example as a real 'ship' and explains why it couldn't have been built. I doubt whether many people in Europe even hold the thought that it was ever true but like it as a good story. There are factions of fundamentalists in the US who do take these stories as history and I believe the book is really addressed to them. If you know anything about the background to the Bible this book is not for you.
November 18, 2024
A Lot of Nonsense in “Biblical Nonsense” (-reviewing and debunking agnostic [etc.] mythology)
Jason Long presents many charges against the Bible in his book (paperback, 202 numbered pages), but I think he misunderstands. The writing is somewhat detailed, but the documentation should be much more detailed – there are no footnotes with their page numbers, etc. There is a brief reference section on pages 201-2.
On pages 74-5, he seems to approve of Darwin’s work: “.. Charles Darwin. Scholars consider his 1859 manuscript, On the Origin of Species, to be the most popular, if not the greatest, leap forward toward debunking the Bible’s scientific accuracy … In the nineteenth century, his theories were obviously heretical to the church because anything other than a God-directed creation was incorrect according to Christian teachings … Darwin’s work remains the cornerstone of modern biology ..” But, Jason is strangely silent about the religious content in the Origin of Species. The words “the Creator” are mentioned 7 times in the 1859 Origin, including positive ways (original printing pages 186, 188, 189, 413 twice, 435, 488; “God” – page 167). It’s commonly viewed today that Darwin was against creation, but in reality he was actually against a certain type of creation (biologic), and favored deism – natural law (from God) was responsible for life; that is, law started life by chance – for God could not be responsible for a vicious nature. The Origin of Species presupposes a Creator, and it is Darwin’s attempt to distance nature from the Creator. Darwin was attempting to defend God with the Origin of Species. And, shouldn’t a religious publication be restricted from science? Federal courts strike down such material from science curricula as a violation of the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes …” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 488). Sounds unscientific – relying on the Creator to explain science. “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to ..” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 34). This alone should be enough to disqualify the Origin from scientific reference. Imagine your science teacher affirmatively referencing Genesis to explain biology. Edward Humes, an evolutionist writer and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, also recognizes this legal problem in his book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case: “Can a scientific idea also be a religious one, and if so, can it be taught in public school? Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species frequently discusses God and creation – should it, too, be banned from public school classrooms?” ( - Monkey Girl, 2007, page 258). “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived” ( - The Descent of Man, 1871 edition, Vol. 1, page 63; by Charles Darwin).
Darwin admits in his autobiography he was a creationist when he wrote the Origin of Species. He uses the term Theist, but his view was much more deistic: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God .. the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe .. as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.” ( - The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, reprinted 1993 by W.W. Norton & Co.; edited by Nora Barlow; page 77). After the 2nd edition of the Origin of Species in 1860, Darwin explains: “I had no intention to write atheistically .. I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator..” ( - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898 edition, Vol. 2, pages 105-6; letter of May 26, 1860). Evolutionist historians Desmond and Moore note (referring to the Unitarian Church), “In January 1842, Darwin let the cat out of the bag, probably cautiously … By now he had it down pat: .. Everything results from grand laws – laws that ‘should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator.’ This was a modified Unitarian view of the divine government. And like a Unitarian Darwin (with a certain amount of double-think) argued that it got God off the hook for evil and suffering, bundling the blame on to ‘natural law’ … Here was reverence and realism combined, a theological advance on Paley’s rose-tinted Creationism” ( - Darwin – The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1992, pages 292-4; co-author Adrian Desmond, Ph.D., a Darwin scholar)
Long writes: “.. the Bible contains not one mention of God’s desire to end slavery … no one volunteers to be treated like a slave” (pages 116, 119). We tend to automatically think of American slavery on this subject today. But, Long doesn’t consider: what about ancient culture? This is a fine example of imposing the modern onto the ancient. While some ancient writers/laws can be found that favor abolition, there appears to be no abolitionist movements then like American slavery had. Ancient slaves were likely not abolitionist. This is a huge difference from the modern view of slavery. I consider this the chief example of where critics misunderstand slavery– demanding abolition on a culture where it wasn’t welcome even by slaves; the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at slavery in the Bible and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. They basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick). We like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). The problem they objected to was the misconduct of certain owners (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus from Egypt did not call for abolition). Exodus 12:44, 51 gives a Passover law for future slaves in Israel on the day of the Exodus from Egypt. The type of slavery Israel was under in Egypt is described as “harsh slavery” (Exo. 6:9), suggesting non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture. On their return to Israel/Judah after exile they brought their slaves with them, including slaves for the Temple (Ezra 2:1, 43, 65, 70; Lev. 22:11). Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Generally, American slaves were abolitionist. Mosaic law treats slavery as a vice law, and debt was frowned upon, but debt-slavery could be used to pay a debt.
On pages 119, 120, Jason makes it sound like an abusive beating is regular practice, that an owner is allowed to abusively beat a slave and there is no penalty for the owner: “Did God explicitly allow slaveowners to beat their living property? Absolutely! If .. the slave gets back up, ‘he shall not be punished: for he is his money’ (Exodus 21:21). It doesn’t get any clearer than that … a slave is nothing more than a financial investment … If God doesn’t approve of a regular slave beating, why does he provide these guidelines in the Bible?” But, the slave “is his money” likely refers to a built-in financial penalty (no additional punishment) – the owner pays by medical recovery of the slave and by loss of labor. This would parallel if a free person survives an abusive beating, as well, the penalty is a payment (Exo. 21:18-19); there is also punishment if a free person dies from a beating (Exo. 21:12, 14), so also for a slave (21:20). “The use of the rod in this context is unsurprising, given its common use as a tool of discipline for fools and children [Proverbs 13:24; 26:3] … slaves were expected to be physically punished .. While this [beaten into submission] might sound unnecessarily violent, it is the same discipline that we see expected for children … This type of discipline can also be seen in Exodus 21:20-21, where a master strikes his male or female slave with a ‘rod’ .. the same Hebrew word that was used in some of the passages above. If the slave were to die as a direct result of the beating, then it would be assumed that the master was intending to kill them (or at least do more than discipline) …Slaves were expected to be beaten as a form of discipline but were not to be purposefully abused; should this overt abuse take place (evidenced by the loss of a tooth or damage to an eye), they were to be set free, owing nothing to the master … Should the master beat the slave excessively, he would be held responsible for that offense … the text was not intended to give laws that promoted the merciless beating and abuse of a slave. Against this, the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing and murdering his slave … As we have discussed, this did not mean that, because they were property, the master had carte blanche to treat them in any manner that he liked … abuse of slaves was condemned – as it was in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Exodus 21:20-21) ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2021, Vol. 1, pages 286-7; by Joshua Bowen with Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2023, pages 128-9, 133, 172, 177, 210, 291-2; by Joshua Bowen).
Long says on pages 94-5: “God commands Joshua to go on an unbelievable killing spree .. Not a single life was spared during these invasions (Joshua 10:28-40) … he orders Saul to journey to Amalek where he is to decimate every living thing in the city .. (1 Samuel 15).” But, that shows a lack of understanding of ancient war texts, which involves bravado – “.. there is clearly hyperbolic language in the Hebrew Bible – as throughout most of ancient Near Eastern literature … This could explain why, in certain passages, X group is said to be ‘completely wiped out,’ but the same group shows up again later in the text … there is little doubt that rhetoric and hyperbole are employed in the Old Testament conquest narratives ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2022, Vol. 2, pages 243-5, 248; by Joshua Bowen). “.. the Amalekites reappear in statements made by the same narrator (1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1-2, 18; 2 Sam 1:1) and elsewhere (1 Chron 4:41-43; .. Esther 3:1; 8:3; 9:24) .. The continued existence of the Amalekites strongly indicates that 1 Samuel 15 uses hyperbole ..” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, page 212; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D.). The cities in Josh. 10:36-9 that were “utterly destroyed” with “none remaining” appear again in Judges 1:10-13.
On page 66, referring to Joshua 10:12-14, Long says “Joshua .. asks God to keep the daytime symbol in the sky longer so that he can defeat his enemies before nightfall (10:12).” But, there is likely a translation issue, and it appears it is asking for a brief lapse to interfere with Amorite astro-superstition – in order to dishearten their attack: “The passage explicitly notes that the sun is over Gibeon and the moon over the Valley of Aijalon. Since Gibeon is east and Aijalon is west we must conclude that Joshua prays in the morning … the orb of the sun is fully visible above the eastern horizon line and the orb of the [full] moon is fully visible above the western horizon line for about four minutes. When we explore ancient celestial omen texts, we find that this is one of the most important times of the month for getting an important omen … Opposition on the wrong day was believed to be an omen of all sorts of disaster .. on the day of Joshua’s battle, he requests that the sun and moon would not give an omen that the Amorites would have hoped for … When the moon and/or sun do not wait, the moon sinks over the horizon before the sun rises and no opposition occurs. When the moon and sun wait or stand, it indicates that the opposition does occur .. they [Amorites] would have been hoping that opposition would not occur … The terminology suggests he [Joshua] requested that the sun and moon wait or stand, in opposition … the sun and moon do not act as they would on a ‘full-length’ day … when opposition occurred, it indicated that the month did not contain ‘full-length’ days” ( - NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, 2017, pages 396-7 with Faith, Tradition and History, 1994, pages 188-9; A.R. Millard, co-editor; John Walton, Ph.D., contributor). “I translate the prayer of Joshua in Josh 10:12-13 as follows: O sun, wait over Gibeon and moon over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun waited and the moon stood, before the nation took vengeance on its enemies .. ‘The sun stood in the midst of the sky and did not hurry to set as on a [favorable] day of full length’ ..” ( - ibid., 1994, pages 186-7, 190).
Long points out on pages 135-6 the Israelites built “the Egyptian cities of Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11). Since the Exodus took place no later than 1447 BCE, the Israelites would have at least had to start construction on Raamses by that time … [but] there wasn’t even a Pharaoh named Raamses until 1320 BCE, 127 years after the Exodus … archaeological findings state that Egypt’s own people built the city and not until it came via order of Raamses II who reigned from 1279-1213 BCE.” However, the earlier Israelite city was found underneath; the Raamses city was built on top of it: “[Genesis] 47:5a and 47:27 identify the place Jacob and his sons settled as ‘the region of Goshen,’ whereas 47:11 calls it ‘the region of Ramesses’ .. centuries before the city of Pi Ramesse was built … this statement is clearly recognized by scholars as an anachronism. A later biblical redactor [or copyist/scribe] has amended .. the text to locate that part of the Egyptian delta .. in terms of the geography or toponymy of his own day. He did so because the people living in his time would have known the location of Ramesses but probably not its older name of Goshen. So the redactor helps out his readers … Archaeologists have found no evidence for a large population of ‘Asiatics’ (Semitic-speaking people from the ancient Middle East) [includes Israelites] living in the .. city of Pi Ramesse – but beneath the expansive southern quarter of that Ramesside foundation lies a much older city which was almost entirely populated by Asiatics originating from Canaan .. named Avaris [the Egyptian name] .. the name ‘Ramesses’ was synonymous with the city ..” ( - Exodus: Myth or History?, 2015, pages 20-2; by David Rohl, Egyptologist).
On page 41 he writes, “Jacob successfully alters the color patterns on lambs and goats .. by placing peeled tree branches in front of the mating livestock (Genesis 30:37-39) … Peeled branches have absolutely no effect on an organism’s appearance; DNA does.” But, this was done to counter Laban’s extortion/bait-and-switch tactics. The flock appearance was changed so they would go to Jacob’s possession, and it’s credited to divine action, not a strictly natural event: “.. God did not allow him to hurt me. If he [Laban] said thus: ‘The speckled shall be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore speckled. And if he said thus: ‘The streaked shall be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore streaked. So God has taken away the livestock of your father and given them to me” (Gen 31:7-9).
Long declares, “The cockatrice, unicorn, and dragon are examples of mythical creatures in the Bible ..” (page 159; cf. 171). But, these are simply terms from earlier English translators, not the underlying Hebrew terms. The Greek term drakon refers to a reptile. The terms were previously used for real animals. Webster’s 1828 dictionary has a curious parallel, defining dragon as, “A genus of animals, the Draco” ( - An American Dictionary of the English Language, reprinted 2012). Webster also defines unicorn as, “[L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.] … This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” And, rhinoceros is defined as, “… two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn … There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.” Also, “The KJV uses ‘dragon’ twenty-one times in the OT to translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the term is used in parallel with peten (‘adder’ or ‘cobra’), indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type … the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathing winged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather something more directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the ‘great dragon’ is also described as the ‘ancient serpent’ ..)” ( - The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2013, page 457). “cockatrice. This English term is used by the KJV four times (Isa. 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; Jer. 8:17) as a rendering of Hebrew siponi .., which refers to a poisonous snake. It is translated viper by the NIV and adder by the NRSV” ( - The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, 2009, page 938).
He points to numerical errors of the reign age of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin on pages 152-3. But, these appear to be copyist errors due to the similar appearance of Hebrew writing symbols (inspiration does not mean translation/transcription) And, it’s not exactly an earth-shattering miscopy: “How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign ..? Copyists were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names .., and the other had to do with numbers … In 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been forty-two; in 2 Kings 8:26 he is said to have been twenty-two .. Similar is the case of Jehoiachin, whose age at accession is given by 2 Chronicles 36:9-10 as eight but by 2 Kings 24:8 as eighteen … Observe that in each case it is the decade number that varies .. a mistake was made in the decade column” ( - New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pages 206-7, 211; by Gleason Archer, Ph.D. in Classics).
Shortened review due to space limit.
Jason Long presents many charges against the Bible in his book (paperback, 202 numbered pages), but I think he misunderstands. The writing is somewhat detailed, but the documentation should be much more detailed – there are no footnotes with their page numbers, etc. There is a brief reference section on pages 201-2.
On pages 74-5, he seems to approve of Darwin’s work: “.. Charles Darwin. Scholars consider his 1859 manuscript, On the Origin of Species, to be the most popular, if not the greatest, leap forward toward debunking the Bible’s scientific accuracy … In the nineteenth century, his theories were obviously heretical to the church because anything other than a God-directed creation was incorrect according to Christian teachings … Darwin’s work remains the cornerstone of modern biology ..” But, Jason is strangely silent about the religious content in the Origin of Species. The words “the Creator” are mentioned 7 times in the 1859 Origin, including positive ways (original printing pages 186, 188, 189, 413 twice, 435, 488; “God” – page 167). It’s commonly viewed today that Darwin was against creation, but in reality he was actually against a certain type of creation (biologic), and favored deism – natural law (from God) was responsible for life; that is, law started life by chance – for God could not be responsible for a vicious nature. The Origin of Species presupposes a Creator, and it is Darwin’s attempt to distance nature from the Creator. Darwin was attempting to defend God with the Origin of Species. And, shouldn’t a religious publication be restricted from science? Federal courts strike down such material from science curricula as a violation of the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment. “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes …” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 488). Sounds unscientific – relying on the Creator to explain science. “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to ..” (- Origin of Species, 1859, original print page 34). This alone should be enough to disqualify the Origin from scientific reference. Imagine your science teacher affirmatively referencing Genesis to explain biology. Edward Humes, an evolutionist writer and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, also recognizes this legal problem in his book about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case: “Can a scientific idea also be a religious one, and if so, can it be taught in public school? Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species frequently discusses God and creation – should it, too, be banned from public school classrooms?” ( - Monkey Girl, 2007, page 258). “The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by the highest intellects that have ever lived” ( - The Descent of Man, 1871 edition, Vol. 1, page 63; by Charles Darwin).
Darwin admits in his autobiography he was a creationist when he wrote the Origin of Species. He uses the term Theist, but his view was much more deistic: “Another source of conviction in the existence of God .. the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe .. as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker.” ( - The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, reprinted 1993 by W.W. Norton & Co.; edited by Nora Barlow; page 77). After the 2nd edition of the Origin of Species in 1860, Darwin explains: “I had no intention to write atheistically .. I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator..” ( - The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898 edition, Vol. 2, pages 105-6; letter of May 26, 1860). Evolutionist historians Desmond and Moore note (referring to the Unitarian Church), “In January 1842, Darwin let the cat out of the bag, probably cautiously … By now he had it down pat: .. Everything results from grand laws – laws that ‘should exalt our notion of the power of the omniscient Creator.’ This was a modified Unitarian view of the divine government. And like a Unitarian Darwin (with a certain amount of double-think) argued that it got God off the hook for evil and suffering, bundling the blame on to ‘natural law’ … Here was reverence and realism combined, a theological advance on Paley’s rose-tinted Creationism” ( - Darwin – The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, 1992, pages 292-4; co-author Adrian Desmond, Ph.D., a Darwin scholar)
Long writes: “.. the Bible contains not one mention of God’s desire to end slavery … no one volunteers to be treated like a slave” (pages 116, 119). We tend to automatically think of American slavery on this subject today. But, Long doesn’t consider: what about ancient culture? This is a fine example of imposing the modern onto the ancient. While some ancient writers/laws can be found that favor abolition, there appears to be no abolitionist movements then like American slavery had. Ancient slaves were likely not abolitionist. This is a huge difference from the modern view of slavery. I consider this the chief example of where critics misunderstand slavery– demanding abolition on a culture where it wasn’t welcome even by slaves; the starting point is in error and then continues down the wrong path. They're looking at slavery in the Bible and treating it like American slavery; US slavery is superimposed onto the Bible. They basically seem to treat all slavery as the same when actually it's not. Is a “bat” the same back then as now? (it can be an animal or a baseball stick). We like to impose abolitionism onto the text today, but they were likely not abolitionist back then, but had a general welcome of slavery, even among the enslaved (unthinkable today! their slaves may look at us strange for wanting to get rid of it). The problem they objected to was the misconduct of certain owners (1 Kg 12:4, 7, 10-11, 16a, 18). Israel had its own civil war over slavery in 1 Kings 12, started by the slaves, and they were not attempting to abolish slavery. There is an absence of abolitionist movements for a reason (notice the Exodus from Egypt did not call for abolition). Exodus 12:44, 51 gives a Passover law for future slaves in Israel on the day of the Exodus from Egypt. The type of slavery Israel was under in Egypt is described as “harsh slavery” (Exo. 6:9), suggesting non-abusive slavery was welcome in ancient culture. On their return to Israel/Judah after exile they brought their slaves with them, including slaves for the Temple (Ezra 2:1, 43, 65, 70; Lev. 22:11). Abolition was not the issue like it dominates us today. Generally, American slaves were abolitionist. Mosaic law treats slavery as a vice law, and debt was frowned upon, but debt-slavery could be used to pay a debt.
On pages 119, 120, Jason makes it sound like an abusive beating is regular practice, that an owner is allowed to abusively beat a slave and there is no penalty for the owner: “Did God explicitly allow slaveowners to beat their living property? Absolutely! If .. the slave gets back up, ‘he shall not be punished: for he is his money’ (Exodus 21:21). It doesn’t get any clearer than that … a slave is nothing more than a financial investment … If God doesn’t approve of a regular slave beating, why does he provide these guidelines in the Bible?” But, the slave “is his money” likely refers to a built-in financial penalty (no additional punishment) – the owner pays by medical recovery of the slave and by loss of labor. This would parallel if a free person survives an abusive beating, as well, the penalty is a payment (Exo. 21:18-19); there is also punishment if a free person dies from a beating (Exo. 21:12, 14), so also for a slave (21:20). “The use of the rod in this context is unsurprising, given its common use as a tool of discipline for fools and children [Proverbs 13:24; 26:3] … slaves were expected to be physically punished .. While this [beaten into submission] might sound unnecessarily violent, it is the same discipline that we see expected for children … This type of discipline can also be seen in Exodus 21:20-21, where a master strikes his male or female slave with a ‘rod’ .. the same Hebrew word that was used in some of the passages above. If the slave were to die as a direct result of the beating, then it would be assumed that the master was intending to kill them (or at least do more than discipline) …Slaves were expected to be beaten as a form of discipline but were not to be purposefully abused; should this overt abuse take place (evidenced by the loss of a tooth or damage to an eye), they were to be set free, owing nothing to the master … Should the master beat the slave excessively, he would be held responsible for that offense … the text was not intended to give laws that promoted the merciless beating and abuse of a slave. Against this, the evidence seems to suggest that the laws were in place to prevent the master from abusing and murdering his slave … As we have discussed, this did not mean that, because they were property, the master had carte blanche to treat them in any manner that he liked … abuse of slaves was condemned – as it was in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Exodus 21:20-21) ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2021, Vol. 1, pages 286-7; by Joshua Bowen with Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?, 2023, pages 128-9, 133, 172, 177, 210, 291-2; by Joshua Bowen).
Long says on pages 94-5: “God commands Joshua to go on an unbelievable killing spree .. Not a single life was spared during these invasions (Joshua 10:28-40) … he orders Saul to journey to Amalek where he is to decimate every living thing in the city .. (1 Samuel 15).” But, that shows a lack of understanding of ancient war texts, which involves bravado – “.. there is clearly hyperbolic language in the Hebrew Bible – as throughout most of ancient Near Eastern literature … This could explain why, in certain passages, X group is said to be ‘completely wiped out,’ but the same group shows up again later in the text … there is little doubt that rhetoric and hyperbole are employed in the Old Testament conquest narratives ..” ( - The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament, 2022, Vol. 2, pages 243-5, 248; by Joshua Bowen). “.. the Amalekites reappear in statements made by the same narrator (1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1-2, 18; 2 Sam 1:1) and elsewhere (1 Chron 4:41-43; .. Esther 3:1; 8:3; 9:24) .. The continued existence of the Amalekites strongly indicates that 1 Samuel 15 uses hyperbole ..” ( - Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?, 2019, page 212; co-author: Gordon Oeste, Ph.D.). The cities in Josh. 10:36-9 that were “utterly destroyed” with “none remaining” appear again in Judges 1:10-13.
On page 66, referring to Joshua 10:12-14, Long says “Joshua .. asks God to keep the daytime symbol in the sky longer so that he can defeat his enemies before nightfall (10:12).” But, there is likely a translation issue, and it appears it is asking for a brief lapse to interfere with Amorite astro-superstition – in order to dishearten their attack: “The passage explicitly notes that the sun is over Gibeon and the moon over the Valley of Aijalon. Since Gibeon is east and Aijalon is west we must conclude that Joshua prays in the morning … the orb of the sun is fully visible above the eastern horizon line and the orb of the [full] moon is fully visible above the western horizon line for about four minutes. When we explore ancient celestial omen texts, we find that this is one of the most important times of the month for getting an important omen … Opposition on the wrong day was believed to be an omen of all sorts of disaster .. on the day of Joshua’s battle, he requests that the sun and moon would not give an omen that the Amorites would have hoped for … When the moon and/or sun do not wait, the moon sinks over the horizon before the sun rises and no opposition occurs. When the moon and sun wait or stand, it indicates that the opposition does occur .. they [Amorites] would have been hoping that opposition would not occur … The terminology suggests he [Joshua] requested that the sun and moon wait or stand, in opposition … the sun and moon do not act as they would on a ‘full-length’ day … when opposition occurred, it indicated that the month did not contain ‘full-length’ days” ( - NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, 2017, pages 396-7 with Faith, Tradition and History, 1994, pages 188-9; A.R. Millard, co-editor; John Walton, Ph.D., contributor). “I translate the prayer of Joshua in Josh 10:12-13 as follows: O sun, wait over Gibeon and moon over the valley of Aijalon. So the sun waited and the moon stood, before the nation took vengeance on its enemies .. ‘The sun stood in the midst of the sky and did not hurry to set as on a [favorable] day of full length’ ..” ( - ibid., 1994, pages 186-7, 190).
Long points out on pages 135-6 the Israelites built “the Egyptian cities of Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11). Since the Exodus took place no later than 1447 BCE, the Israelites would have at least had to start construction on Raamses by that time … [but] there wasn’t even a Pharaoh named Raamses until 1320 BCE, 127 years after the Exodus … archaeological findings state that Egypt’s own people built the city and not until it came via order of Raamses II who reigned from 1279-1213 BCE.” However, the earlier Israelite city was found underneath; the Raamses city was built on top of it: “[Genesis] 47:5a and 47:27 identify the place Jacob and his sons settled as ‘the region of Goshen,’ whereas 47:11 calls it ‘the region of Ramesses’ .. centuries before the city of Pi Ramesse was built … this statement is clearly recognized by scholars as an anachronism. A later biblical redactor [or copyist/scribe] has amended .. the text to locate that part of the Egyptian delta .. in terms of the geography or toponymy of his own day. He did so because the people living in his time would have known the location of Ramesses but probably not its older name of Goshen. So the redactor helps out his readers … Archaeologists have found no evidence for a large population of ‘Asiatics’ (Semitic-speaking people from the ancient Middle East) [includes Israelites] living in the .. city of Pi Ramesse – but beneath the expansive southern quarter of that Ramesside foundation lies a much older city which was almost entirely populated by Asiatics originating from Canaan .. named Avaris [the Egyptian name] .. the name ‘Ramesses’ was synonymous with the city ..” ( - Exodus: Myth or History?, 2015, pages 20-2; by David Rohl, Egyptologist).
On page 41 he writes, “Jacob successfully alters the color patterns on lambs and goats .. by placing peeled tree branches in front of the mating livestock (Genesis 30:37-39) … Peeled branches have absolutely no effect on an organism’s appearance; DNA does.” But, this was done to counter Laban’s extortion/bait-and-switch tactics. The flock appearance was changed so they would go to Jacob’s possession, and it’s credited to divine action, not a strictly natural event: “.. God did not allow him to hurt me. If he [Laban] said thus: ‘The speckled shall be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore speckled. And if he said thus: ‘The streaked shall be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore streaked. So God has taken away the livestock of your father and given them to me” (Gen 31:7-9).
Long declares, “The cockatrice, unicorn, and dragon are examples of mythical creatures in the Bible ..” (page 159; cf. 171). But, these are simply terms from earlier English translators, not the underlying Hebrew terms. The Greek term drakon refers to a reptile. The terms were previously used for real animals. Webster’s 1828 dictionary has a curious parallel, defining dragon as, “A genus of animals, the Draco” ( - An American Dictionary of the English Language, reprinted 2012). Webster also defines unicorn as, “[L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.] … This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” And, rhinoceros is defined as, “… two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn … There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.” Also, “The KJV uses ‘dragon’ twenty-one times in the OT to translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the term is used in parallel with peten (‘adder’ or ‘cobra’), indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type … the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathing winged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather something more directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the ‘great dragon’ is also described as the ‘ancient serpent’ ..)” ( - The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2013, page 457). “cockatrice. This English term is used by the KJV four times (Isa. 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; Jer. 8:17) as a rendering of Hebrew siponi .., which refers to a poisonous snake. It is translated viper by the NIV and adder by the NRSV” ( - The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1, 2009, page 938).
He points to numerical errors of the reign age of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin on pages 152-3. But, these appear to be copyist errors due to the similar appearance of Hebrew writing symbols (inspiration does not mean translation/transcription) And, it’s not exactly an earth-shattering miscopy: “How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign ..? Copyists were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of proper names .., and the other had to do with numbers … In 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been forty-two; in 2 Kings 8:26 he is said to have been twenty-two .. Similar is the case of Jehoiachin, whose age at accession is given by 2 Chronicles 36:9-10 as eight but by 2 Kings 24:8 as eighteen … Observe that in each case it is the decade number that varies .. a mistake was made in the decade column” ( - New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pages 206-7, 211; by Gleason Archer, Ph.D. in Classics).
Shortened review due to space limit.
June 16, 2022
Although I am certainly not part of the group the title says is its intended audience, doubting Christians, I found this book informative even from my perspective as a confirmed atheist. It gives a number of reasons why the Bible is not true, cannot be true, how ludicrous it is to claim prophecies for Jesus' coming, and how it is a false prophecy that Jesus or the tribulation or apocalypse are happening soon. Not when Jesus himself said his return would come in the lifetime of people who were with him. Not when you consider that it's been roughly 2000 years out of a believed timeframe of roughly 6000 years of world history! At best it's a failed prophecy - and Christians seem adept at forgetting what their own book says to do with false prophets.
Great book, although I noticed a few mistakes which did not detract from the point.
Great book, although I noticed a few mistakes which did not detract from the point.
April 21, 2013
Lots of good information about why the Bible really isn't the literal and inerrant word of the Christian God. Why it really wasn't more or less dictated by the Christian God to the writers either. That it's the product of men.
January 16, 2023
The basic theme of the book is that the Bible, mainly the Old Testament, contains a multitude of errors and contradictions and present a picture of a Creator that is extremely dark.
When you do something like that you need to make sure you have strong evidence to back up what you are saying. This book does that by using the Bible against itself.
I'm going to just list some of the things this book covers. Keep in mind that the author doesn't make any claims that he cannot back up by using the words of the Bible itself.
The Bible is brings up various wars that believers were involved in. The Bible blatantly oppresses women. It justifies slavery. It orders the killing of witches. If you are not a firm believer you have a very good chance of going to Hell.
Paul is responsible for much of the negative things that are in the Bible.
How Christianity was accepted by Rome and why it didn't get accepted in the East.
'Christian religion is a blatantly false religion.'
The person who takes a position on something is the one responsible for proving what they say is factual.
There are many problems with Genesis such as plants were created before the Sun (plants need sunlight), zoological blunders, medical errors and logical problems with the Tower of Bible and Noah's ark.
Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean it is necessarily true.
There were other flood stories well before the flood story of the Bible was written.
There are many practical problems with the Ark itself.
God is 'an insanely angry deity.'
God gives orders to kill people. This includes men, women and children.
(Note: the author notes the exact book and verse things like this statement show to be true.)
Example: A guy picks up sticks on the Sabbath and Moses orders him killed.
If a distant ancestor did something considered wrong then a person in that same family living now could be punished for what his ancestor did.
The number of people killed on God's orders is a minimum of 2 million and can go as high as 5 million.
Homosexual? Die. Incest? Die. Attack mother or father? Die. Curse them? Die. And so on with various other 'problems.'
The book discusses rules for women on their period, how women should submit to their husbands, how to treat them and how to punish them.
The Bible condones slavery and has rules for slaves to follow.
Numerous problems with the Exodus story.
There are various versions that don't agree of the creation story and the flood story.
There are different versions of the certification story.
There are numerous prophecies said to have been fulfilled that were actually never prophecies at all.
Things updating what is in the book:
At the time of the writing of the book there was not substantive evidence that Jesus actually exited so the author was not sure if he existed or not but, since that time, evidence including Roman writings. The Shroud of Turin has turned out to be a hoax. There is a 'bone box' for James, the brother of Jesus.
This is a well-writen book and is very careful about using exact quotes from the Bible in its arguments relating to inconsistencies in the Bible.
When you do something like that you need to make sure you have strong evidence to back up what you are saying. This book does that by using the Bible against itself.
I'm going to just list some of the things this book covers. Keep in mind that the author doesn't make any claims that he cannot back up by using the words of the Bible itself.
The Bible is brings up various wars that believers were involved in. The Bible blatantly oppresses women. It justifies slavery. It orders the killing of witches. If you are not a firm believer you have a very good chance of going to Hell.
Paul is responsible for much of the negative things that are in the Bible.
How Christianity was accepted by Rome and why it didn't get accepted in the East.
'Christian religion is a blatantly false religion.'
The person who takes a position on something is the one responsible for proving what they say is factual.
There are many problems with Genesis such as plants were created before the Sun (plants need sunlight), zoological blunders, medical errors and logical problems with the Tower of Bible and Noah's ark.
Just because a lot of people believe something does not mean it is necessarily true.
There were other flood stories well before the flood story of the Bible was written.
There are many practical problems with the Ark itself.
God is 'an insanely angry deity.'
God gives orders to kill people. This includes men, women and children.
(Note: the author notes the exact book and verse things like this statement show to be true.)
Example: A guy picks up sticks on the Sabbath and Moses orders him killed.
If a distant ancestor did something considered wrong then a person in that same family living now could be punished for what his ancestor did.
The number of people killed on God's orders is a minimum of 2 million and can go as high as 5 million.
Homosexual? Die. Incest? Die. Attack mother or father? Die. Curse them? Die. And so on with various other 'problems.'
The book discusses rules for women on their period, how women should submit to their husbands, how to treat them and how to punish them.
The Bible condones slavery and has rules for slaves to follow.
Numerous problems with the Exodus story.
There are various versions that don't agree of the creation story and the flood story.
There are different versions of the certification story.
There are numerous prophecies said to have been fulfilled that were actually never prophecies at all.
Things updating what is in the book:
At the time of the writing of the book there was not substantive evidence that Jesus actually exited so the author was not sure if he existed or not but, since that time, evidence including Roman writings. The Shroud of Turin has turned out to be a hoax. There is a 'bone box' for James, the brother of Jesus.
This is a well-writen book and is very careful about using exact quotes from the Bible in its arguments relating to inconsistencies in the Bible.
April 17, 2024
Eye opening and well researched
A fascinating read, even for (or perhaps most importantly for ) those who have read the Bible in its entirety . Instead of simply reading the Bible as a faith-intoxicated zombie, this book requires that we step back and look at it objectively, with the eyes and brain we were “given” by the “creator” to assess its validity. It is fascinating how contradictory and poorly researched the books of the Bible were written by the ancients. There is zero chance the books were written and inspired by an omniscient, holy entity given that they contain so many mistakes and oversights, and contradictions in them. Even if you are deeply religious, this book will make you THINK. And isn’t that what our big, fat, juicy brains are supposed to be for? Read it with an open mind (if you’re willing) and you’ll be left scratching your head thinking, “Hmm, there’s something wrong here…”
A fascinating read, even for (or perhaps most importantly for ) those who have read the Bible in its entirety . Instead of simply reading the Bible as a faith-intoxicated zombie, this book requires that we step back and look at it objectively, with the eyes and brain we were “given” by the “creator” to assess its validity. It is fascinating how contradictory and poorly researched the books of the Bible were written by the ancients. There is zero chance the books were written and inspired by an omniscient, holy entity given that they contain so many mistakes and oversights, and contradictions in them. Even if you are deeply religious, this book will make you THINK. And isn’t that what our big, fat, juicy brains are supposed to be for? Read it with an open mind (if you’re willing) and you’ll be left scratching your head thinking, “Hmm, there’s something wrong here…”
January 28, 2025
The author obviously knows the Bible very well and has done a lot of research. But his very angry and crude way of denouncing everything is just as questionable as all the questions he raises to the authenticity of the writings. Reading his very detailed book sounds like a conspiracy theory to bring 'false' information to the people, to build the world's largest faith group based on lies. Sounds like a wonderful challenge for ... for who? for what reason?
Although the author is right about many of the points and raises many valid questions, this is done in a very blunt and loveless manner, not leaving any room for generous well-meant human error or interpretations other than the literal.
Much of what has been compiled can simply be read as a 'story', a 'poem', a 'parable', many of which have served invaluable lessons in millions of people's lives to become more loving, respectful citizens of this world.
Although the author is right about many of the points and raises many valid questions, this is done in a very blunt and loveless manner, not leaving any room for generous well-meant human error or interpretations other than the literal.
Much of what has been compiled can simply be read as a 'story', a 'poem', a 'parable', many of which have served invaluable lessons in millions of people's lives to become more loving, respectful citizens of this world.
October 2, 2025
A simple list of things the author doesn’t believe because he doesn’t believe them
Despite listing off supposed logical fallacies that Christians commit, almost everything the author gives as reasons for Biblical nonsense comes down to his statement, “that just doesn’t make any sense”. He takes small sections of text and says, “God should have done it differently” without any hint of understanding the context. Reading this book is close to listening to a toddler with his hands over his ears saying, “I don’t like it” over and over.
Despite listing off supposed logical fallacies that Christians commit, almost everything the author gives as reasons for Biblical nonsense comes down to his statement, “that just doesn’t make any sense”. He takes small sections of text and says, “God should have done it differently” without any hint of understanding the context. Reading this book is close to listening to a toddler with his hands over his ears saying, “I don’t like it” over and over.
November 28, 2021
Excellent Presentation
Well written and well researched explanation of the origin of Christianity from the secular perspective. Does miss a few other similar arguments but that is minor considering the amount of ideas included.
Well written and well researched explanation of the origin of Christianity from the secular perspective. Does miss a few other similar arguments but that is minor considering the amount of ideas included.
May 3, 2023
Required reading for GOP hypocrites
Well written with substantiating references. Mr. Long also demonstrates his knowledge of how translations have been manipulated in efforts to upright the upsidedown.
Well written with substantiating references. Mr. Long also demonstrates his knowledge of how translations have been manipulated in efforts to upright the upsidedown.
August 27, 2023
This book raises some interesting thoughts and questions, but leaves a great deal of background research for you to follow up on Owner. I look up for yourself.
March 26, 2024
Outstanding reference material
Great book to read and think about, I will have friends and relatives read it so we can all sit down and discjsd
Great book to read and think about, I will have friends and relatives read it so we can all sit down and discjsd
February 16, 2025
Logic on Steroids
I have read many books de-bunking the authenticity of the Bible. This is, far and away, the most well-researched and easiest to understand. Top-notch work.
I have read many books de-bunking the authenticity of the Bible. This is, far and away, the most well-researched and easiest to understand. Top-notch work.
February 8, 2024
Hope over experience led me to this book. By the time I had got half way through the introduction it was plain to see that this book was the same old guff that spews from the mouths of Atheists. Total bunkum and trash poorly argued and discussed. The writer keeps explaining what Christians believe. How does he know? I am Christian and he doesn't know what I think about the Bible or anything else except my opinion on badly written books.
I have dredged my way through a quarter of this trash and will probably persevere to the end as a penance for my past sins, the writer has shown absolutely no understanding of the Bible or its writers and makes ludicrous claims for its unreliability.
I have long ago given up trying to discuss anything biblical or theological with such atheists as the writer as these people don't want to discuss anything they just want to spout their ill thought out beliefs.
I would engage Jason in a battle of wits but I won't fight an unarmed man!
I have it a 1 star rating because we are not allowed to give 0 star ratings or less
I have dredged my way through a quarter of this trash and will probably persevere to the end as a penance for my past sins, the writer has shown absolutely no understanding of the Bible or its writers and makes ludicrous claims for its unreliability.
I have long ago given up trying to discuss anything biblical or theological with such atheists as the writer as these people don't want to discuss anything they just want to spout their ill thought out beliefs.
I would engage Jason in a battle of wits but I won't fight an unarmed man!
I have it a 1 star rating because we are not allowed to give 0 star ratings or less
April 19, 2024
I came across Jason Long’s 2005 book, Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians in an eBook pack. Many of you who’ve read my other religious based reviews know I hate organized religion. I’m not a doubting Christian. I’m not a Christian. However, I needed a new book to read and chose Long’s book. How wrong I turned out to be as I didn’t get far before realizing I’d found the newest member of the dreaded “so bad I couldn’t” shelf.
To read the rest of this review go to https://drewmartinwrites.wordpress.co...
To read the rest of this review go to https://drewmartinwrites.wordpress.co...
October 31, 2012
It has a lot of great facts, but also acts like Biblical fundamentalists are the only ones who make logical fallacies.
October 22, 2013
While I agree with much of what is said here, this book is so badly written/edited that it is virtually unreadable.
November 29, 2013
Worth the time.
December 27, 2013
Good read, not a great read.
March 4, 2016
The title says it all!
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews