Asimov's Guide to the Bible: A Historical Look at the Old and New Testaments [Hardcover]

Your short entry spoke volumes, but not about Dr Asimov's book. It said nothing specific about that at all. Instead, it gave a pretty clear description of you and the type of person you are, or appear to be.

So, his work is "pure drivel", is it? All of it? All 1300 pages? Perhaps you should remind yourself of what other reviewers had to say - if you bothered reading them in the first place - most of whom appear to have given it a five star rating. That in itself doesn't prove its worth, of course, but your little snort of disapproval does look rather feeble and small-minded alongside the reviews of other, more reasoned, more articulate reviewers.

But if you're going to make a criticism, a constructive criticism, at least have the b***s, if not the courtesy, to identify yourself and back your criticism up with evidence or at least the semblance of an argument. As it stands, it represents the kind of empty, sweeping statement that all cowardly armchair critics make, and one to which few other people could attach any importance.

No book is perfect. But having read most of Dr Asimov's Guide and studied much of the second volume in depth, in conjunction with the RSV, I cannot agree with your whitewash. What serious reader could? You don't specify your objections.

Admittedly, in a book of this length there is more room for flaws - though I have to say, I've not noticed any. But even if there were too many flaws to count, you should at least make the effort to single some out.

How can such a work be dismissed so cavalierly, though? 1300 pages dismissed in six vacuous lines. I'd be hard pushed to criticise so much as a sentence, as Asimov's credentials are all too obvious to me, yet you slam the whole book. At least that's the impression you give. I'm sure - I hope - you weren't in actuality slamming the entire work, commas and semi-colons included. As if that were possible! I'd like to think you weren't that rash or irresponsible or dishonest or lazy.

Yet, the impression you give is either of someone who hasn't read much of the book, but who doesn't like the little they have read, or of someone who has read it, or most of it, finds it all too unpalatable, if not threatening, but who cannot articulate a proper response, who cannot mount a challenge because they haven't the intellect, the vocabulary, or the nerve, with which to do so. Or they can't be bothered.

But just what are your qualifications? You sneer and you dismiss, but have you the credentials? Are you saying you are more of an authority on the Bible than Asimov? I certainly can't claim to be! Though, I've read enough of both the Bible and Asimov, as well as numerous other works, to know that he isn't talking "drivel". So have you, I suspect. As, if it were genuinely drivel, from beginning to end - every paragraph, sentence, phrase - I don't think you'd have bothered commenting at all, do you?

No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise the undoubted scholarship in Asimov's work. However, if you are as much of an authority as he, or even if you aren't, shouldn't you articulate a more mature and precise criticism - one that we, your readers, could learn from? If you know better than Asimov, fine. But explain yourself. Elaborate. I'm sure we're all very interested in what you have to say.

I can only finish by saying that I have learned a great, great deal from reading this book, historically, philosophically, and in numerous other ways, and recognise the unassuming wisdom of the man. He was an atheist, so this, his legacy to us, comes with no strings attached. He doesn't preach, he doesn't patronise, he just tells you what he has found, his conclusions based on those findings, and let's you make up your own mind. And all in the easiest, most accessible of prose. Few books of this length can be such an easy read, despite its heavy subject matter.

In stark contrast, your few pathetic lines, Anonymous of October 14, taught me nothing. I have learned nothing from YOUR drivel, whoever you are.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone, religious or not. The Bible has so dominated our culture over such a long period that we owe it to ourselves to at least think about what we're being asked to believe, even if we can't devote the time or energy to the task that Dr Asimov undoubtedly did. And he clearly did sacrifice a great deal, much more than our critic from October 14!

[PS: I'd be interested to read what other people think of Mr/Ms Anonymous's effort - if it can be called that - regardless of whether they have read Asimov's book or not. Indeed, what did those of you who haven't read the book draw from his/her comments? Did you find them helpful?]

that said, asimov is an avowed atheist, and there is a clear bias against christianity. but that's fine- i don't mind having my beliefs challenged, and his points are food for thought.

if i have any complaints, it's that asimov rarely cited his sources, and i would have liked to read some of those books as well.