Bibles Bible Studies Books

Liz Curtis Higgs' Bad Girls of the Bible series is second to none, and in my opinion the audio is even better than the book, because Liz is the reader. She's an accomplished speaker and the injections of humor are so well done. I also enjoyed the audio of "Bad Girls of the Bible" although it was abridged, and I hope Liz will eventually do an audiobook of "Really Bad Girls of the Bible."
Liz brings these women to life and shows that although they and we are separated by many centuries, we're quite a bit alike. There's much we modern-day women can learn from those ancient girls and their trials and tribulations, and in the process, we can strengthen our own relationship with God.

This was my first Bad Girls of the Bible book to read. I must say it wasn't what I expected. I learned a lot more about the women of the Bible than I knew which means Liz does good research. I have taught for 40 plus years children and my teaching would have been different had I had all the background information and was able to compare it to today.
I especially loved the way she brought it to how modern women today would be like those of old. I loved the fact that God can love flawed women and men as far as that goes. Because you learn also of the flaws of the men of God too. You learn they weren't perfect but yet God loved them.
However Leah and Rachel left me wondering why God blessed Leah more than Rachel - an answer that still plagues me.
As a Bible teacher, Liz has left me hungering to research and learn more about these women. It seems most all Bible teaching at church is focused at men and on men in the Bible. The women are left unseen and even men could profit from understanding the women of the Bible. After all it might help them relate to their wives.

This is my favorite Bad Girls book so far! It is more applicable to real life for me.

Excellent book! It was very encouraging to see how even the "best girls" in the bible made mistakes, overcame them, and how God loved them and helped them through their mistakes. Loved it!

I always get a lot out of Higgs' materials. Her wit and wisdom (thru her own Bad Girl experience) never fail to show me new ways to grow in my faith.

Until Bishop Wright finishes Volume 4 or 5 of his magnum opus, Christian Origins and the Question of God, we will have to do with his shorter monographs on Paul's thought. As always, the trenchant scholarship and sharp writing shines through.

And, as always it seems, the same flaw appears whenever Wright tries to be relevant to the contemporary church: his ideas of Christian social justice are just the most shopwarn cliches of the most warmed over academic leftism imaginable. For example, he decries widespread consumer debt as creating "misery for millions" and profits for a "tiny minority." As if borrowers don't borrow because it is in their interest to do so, and as if lenders would lend without being paid a return for their trouble. To hold opinions like this means being totally ignorant of modern economics. It is one thing to take every thought captive for Christ - another to indulge foolishness. Remember Mark 7 - Jesus says folly is a sin.

I have not received the book yet. I bought it 5 weeks ago ! Should I get worried ?

Tom Wright is at the forefront of Pauline scholarship as well as studies on Jesus. His historical instincts, engagement with primary sources and 'big picture' exegesis have led him to a fresh reading of Paul in the historical context of the Graeco-Roman-Jewish world of the 1st century. The outcome is a breathtaking view of the Gospel as understood and preached by Paul to a world dominated by the Roman imperial cult, pagan idolatry, Greek wisdoms and Jewish Messianic hopes. It is in such a world, Wright argues, where Paul does his business and his writings can best be understood against this background. This means that the popular, truncated notion of the gospel as a timeless system of salvation that will 'save our souls' and 'get us to heaven after we die' would have to be jettisoned in favour of the gospel that announces God's reign that has been inaugurated here on earth in the person of Jesus the Messiah. This means that the gospel has a much larger scope (indeed cosmic) than the private relationship one has with God or the eternal destiny of the individual souls. Rather, it speaks of God's faithfulness to the world he has made and how through the covenant relationships with his people, he will set the world aright - culminating in the new heavens and the new earth. This way of reading Paul would require a paradigm shift for Christians who have got used to reading the NT through the 'works righteousness vs salvation by grace' debates that have coloured our reading of Paul since Augustine. Hence, the evident unsettling of some readers. Wright's proposal, while we do not have to agree with every fine point of his exegesis , has the huge edge over the traditional reading for taking the historical setting far more seriously and in so doing invites us to hear Paul afresh as he announces the good news in all its ramifications.

I've found this book to be a great primer to Wright's other more extensive treatments of Paul in many of his other works, including 'Climax of the Covenant', 'Paul in Fresh Perspective' and 'Paul for Everyone' commentaries. I recommend it to anyone who is open to letting his reading of Paul be challenged by one of the most respected NT scholars of our day.

This book is a well written explanation and defense of the New Perspective on Paul. Wright breaks down Paul's theology in a way that makes sense of his background as a first century Jewish Pharisee. He indeed shows that Paul's theology is not a new faith as a mixture of Judaism with Hellinism, but rather it is Jewish to the core reshaped and redefined around Jesus of Nazareth, who showed himself to be the very face of Israel's God. I think he does a good job of demonstrating that Second Temple 1st century Judaism was not a religion of self-help morality, but rather it's obsession with the Law was more or less an ethnocentric way of keeping the covenant all to themselves.

From all of this stems Wright's view on justification and the righteousness of God. As a North American Protestant/Evangelical, many of the people with whom I have discussed this issue completely reject and condemn it right from the beginning. But I don't see things that way. I believe that Wright's view of justification is a completely valid and biblical view to hold. And honestly I hold almost the same view of justification (I don't know all the intricacies of his view, therefore I say 'almost'). His basic argument is that justification in Paul's law-court language has nothing to do with how a person "gets saved" but rather is the declaration that a person "is already saved". He seems to distinguish between regeneration (the new birth) and justification (and rightfully so), however most Protestants, especially those of the Reformed tradition do not. To sum it up, Wright believes that justification is God's present declaration that someone is part of the covenant family in anticipation of the future declaration of vindication.

From this issue, Wright tackles the issue of the righteousness of God. Most Protestants, especially Reformers hold to the doctrine of imputation. That is the actual righteousness of Jesus is somehow transferred to the believers "account". In light of Wright's defense of his view of justification imputation is simply not needed. It's not only not needed but there does not seem to be ample biblical support for the doctrine, which Wright demonstrates in the classic proof texts of the doctrine. Instead of the righteousness of God being something given to the believer, it is actual God's own righteousness, his justice towards his covenant. Wright defends this notion beautifully from historical 1st century Judaism and the Old Testament itself.

I highly recommend this book.

Covenantal Nomism is the belief that first century Palestinian Jews did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and one stays in the covenant through works. It suggests that the Jewish view of relationship with God is that keeping the law is based only on a prior understanding of relationship with God.

The `pattern' or `structure' of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group that will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and, ultimately, salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement

(Quoted from Wikipedia)

This is what is being propegated by these views - essentially a Roman Catholic view of Salvation - while Wright may believe in these things you say he does he certainly does not present them in an illuminating way, or in any sense helpful to the gospel message.

While there are certainly good arguements, and I can see that Wright has done his homework - is this really what the gospel comes down to - Is this in the spirit of what Jesus came to die for? That we could be in the covenant by birth and maintain our covenant relationship by works?

Come on, thats not good news that BAD news, cos heck by now i've already lost my covenant relationship through bad works -

[..]

The Christian faith stands or falls on the doctrine of Justification - if my salvation is based on me maintaining good works to keep myself in the covenant then that is not Christianity that is Islam. Allah weighing my good deads vs my bad deeds at the end of my life.

Liz Higgs books make a very good Bible study reference. The adult Sunday Bible Study group that my wife and I attend at church have recently finished using "Really Bad Girls of the Bible" as the basis of our classes. The group leader has both the book and the study guide. We had previously used "Bad Girls of the Bible", and have justly started on "Slightly Bad Girls of the Bible". My wife especially enjoys reading Liz Higgins books.

Finally all the 25 books arrived. They came from many different vendors. They will be much appreciated by our church woman's group.

I have to say Liz Curtis Higgs sheds new light, at least for me, on a lot of those women in the Bible. You know, I've read about all these women in Ms. Curtis's book before, but somehow when I read my bible I missed a whole heck of a lot. I don't know how, because when I read this book I wanted to slap myself upside the head plenty of times. Duh, I'd mudder, how come I didn't see that? How come I didn't get it? Well I'm getting a lot of it now. As a Bible teacher, Ms. Curtis really excells and she makes it oh so interesting. I highly recommend this book.

Our church's women's ministry used this book for our Bible study and enjoyed it tremendously. I could relate to so many of the characters and was so horrified by some of the others! I enjoyed reading about the many relatively obscure Biblical women. We had several elderly ladies in our group who were surprised to read stories they'd never remembered reading before. I liked that Higgs focuses on Biblical women who were strong leaders, even if they were bad for a season.

We laughed, blushed, cried, and enjoyed every minute of discussing this book and how it related to our lives. Her message of grace for bad girls is one we all need to hear. I look forward to reading and sharing more of Higgs' books.

I had reservations about it when my small group decided to give this book a whirl, and although I was game and tried to like it, I just couldn't.

Liz's overfamiliar style, her judgemental tone, and pandering to churchy already-good-girls reads like a book that reinforces smugness among the churched.

I especially did not like the way she glossed over the difference in 21st Century standards for women, and instead just judged them against today's free-er women's options and opportunities.

I will say that we had many good conversations because we read the book, but in the end, we were all severely disappointed in the book itself.

Examples of what I mean: some of the "bad girl" scenarios seemed like she was stretching to fill pages, "bad for a good reason" - what?, or nattering on and on about David's sin with Bathsheba - wait, he's not a girl!

We are doing this Bible study for a group of 14 moms on Thursday mornings this summer. Everyone loves it! This series is very well written and organized. It has an opening icebreaker question for each chapter and a page at the end for notes or prayer requests. It is very biblical and leads to lots of discussion. I would recommend this highly for any group of women meeting weekely, as well as independent study at home.

Worthy of the reading and study whether this is by itself or part of the series.

What I do like about Chuck Swindoll's is that he brings that Old Testament to life for Born Again Christians and makes it relevant to adult lives and problems. This book on David as well as his study guide did give me much food for life when I was having non-legal problems with the government after I had applied for the Federal Civil Service in 1985. I heard on TV that Reagan had to approve in signature even applications for GS-9 position and I was on the list for considerations for such jobs when I was in grad school. I think they just wanted to teach young men like ma a lesson in life the hard way!
David had become a national hero by killing the Philistine Giant Goliath. Then the prophet Samuel had annointed David to be Israel's future king since Saul had committed an act of disobedience against him. Saul became paranoid how David become a military hero where "Saul has slain his thousands; David his ten thousands"! So, Saul in his madness set out to kill David.
What I found so some food for thought was that when David was losing heart about Saul persuing him to kill him and he had to live underground and off the land, that David decided to defect to the pagan Phillistine army-kind of like seeking Political Assylum with the Soviets or the North Koreans! When I was being persecuted on Park Street in North Toledo, I did seek assylum with several foreing nations. But nothing happened. I told myself who is "America's Philistines"-Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. I even sent them all resumes through my shortwave radio hobby. I had a big foreign address book called THE WORLD RADIO TV HANDBOOK! Plenty of people to complain to there!
Other things I liked about David was that he had a thing for the ladies; and I also like pretty girls, but never seem to make it with any of them. David had an entire Harem of seven wives. You cannot find the definition of the word "Harem" in my Bible Dictionary; so sexless and loveless is America's Christianity! He was such an opportunist that he picked up the wife Abagial from a dead enemy Nabal who denied him and his men food when they were on the run from Saul. God stuck Nabal dead with a heart attack for his stinginess. I used to say that my former father in law was liewise a hard man like Nabal-yet God did not strike him dead. And of course David was a Prophet and a Man of God. He wrote about 50 of the Old Testament Psalms, some of which prophesy of Christ;s crucifion on the cross and the coming Millennial Kingdom of God. God had taken David from tending the sheep to becoming Sheperd of Israel! David was a man after God's heart as David did what God had wanted him to do during his reign as King. I found that defining verse in Acts.
I liked the folk guitar in high school and in the Army. I read that David played the small harp, which was a forerunner of the modern folk guitar. Me and David liked music and pretty ladies. I was just thinking the other day that when I die and go to Heaven I will really like to meet this man, as though he was my friend!

Yet another great book in the series. Well worth the reading and study. I have ordered additional copies to give as gifts.

This is a well written, thought provoking book. I am currently using it as a manual for a Bible study class. It's not one of those "deep theological" biographies, but it speaks to the layman, in a very easy-to-understand style. Recommended for study groups, or anyone, who wants to know more about the "man after God's own heart".

All the books are good ... this one was great. It hit home for me.

I've owned this book for many years, and have had the pleasure of meeting Steve. Both the book and the man are without agenda. Using Steve's phrase "truth has the best argument", he sets about compiling commentaries discussing Revelation and puts them in a parallel format for easy access. This allows the reader to make a detailed study and come to his own conclusion based on the best possible argument. If we are to own our own truths, we better know why! :)

My only regret is that Steve doesn't write more books! But for access to his mp3s and radio show, go to [...].

Think you know Revelation. Well you don't. Not till you read Steve Greggs critical work. No bias comes through, just hard hitting arguments on all of the known positions that have been debated for close to 1500 years. All the arguments are well defined and polished and are presented in a very digestible format.

The side by side comparo's are close to what the "harmony of the gospels" is like. Very nice. Well researched and you'll find yourself changing your mind about what position you hold just about every 5th page. Well worth the read.

Gregg has done so much work in putting this together. Instead of reading and digging into multiple commentaries for many viewpoints, they are all here in one volume. This is particularly helpful in the older and less popular viewpoints of the spiritualist/idealist and historicist. (It is easy to find viewpoints on the preterist and futurists)

My only caution with the book is that eschatology cannot be understood simply by studying Revelation. You must study many of the Old Testament passages, particularly in Genesis, Psalms, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Zechariah. Gregg's book does not adequately deal with these with respect to the 4 views thoroughout. Otherwise, a great book!

This is a tremendously helpful tool. It gives balanced commentary in parallel columns from four viewpoints. Most '4 views' books on the book of Revelation compare and contrast dispensational premil., histoirc premil, amil and postmil views. Gregg sees these 4 categories as a helpful 'x-axis' on eschatology. But the 'y-axis' is formed by 4 other categories. If predeictive prophecy is seen as a hourglass from the vantage point of the early 21st century: there is 1. preterist (hourglass full on bottom, empty on top), 2. futurist (full on top, empty on bottom); 3. historicist (half on top, half bottom), and 4. spiritual (full on top and bottom!).

SOme combinations are impossible (dispensational premil is always futurist; postmil is never futurist). SO there are 12 boxes possible. For example, the Reformers were historicist and amil. Augustine: spiritual and amil. Kuyper: futurist and amil. 7th Day Adventists: historicist and historic premil. Tim LaHaye: futurist and dispensational premil. etc. etc.

The book looks at that less commonly understood 'y-axis' at least for the bulk of Revelation: chapters 3-19.

Beefy, well-packaged and balanced (i never determined the author's personal view!).

Steve Gregg is the most humble, down to earth man alive. I am honored to have met such a great Christian man. This book is a must for those trying to understand the book of Revelation. If any are interested in what the bible teaches on a variety of subjects, check out his website for free lectures and MP3's. www.thenarrowpath.com

Everything there is free, unlike other "Christian" websites who charge for everything.

I just finished reading this book, and my conclusion is the title of my review.

Originally I picked up the book for a compound reason. On the one hand, I agree with the title. Though I consider myself an evangelical of sorts, I am somewhat wary of an overly literal treatment of the Bible. On the other hand, I knew Spong's reputation of being... for lack of a better term... "far left" and at times even "heretical" by some standards.

What I most liked about the book was the way that Spong did get behind the words of Scripture and reveal some of the themes which would be lost to a modern reader. The significance of certain structures and symbols found in the Gospels are things that only those familiar with Jewish custom at the time would recognize. Spong lays them out for the everyday Christian, and they make for interesting reading.

His critique of Biblical literalism, however, is terribly lacking. He seems to be unaware of how much his own strange blend of modernism and post-modernism influences his handling of the Bible, and as a result makes some (to my mind... which is a slightly different strange blend of modern and post-modern) very odd claims. For example, in defending why the Christmas story is "literal nonsense", he goes through various aspects of the traditional story and declares that "Of course this doesn't happen." But, really, I think that's part of the point of the stories. NORMALLY, these things don't happen. However, God can intervene in time and space and "break the scientific rules". That's actually (part of) the point that the pre-modern Gospel writers were making with the stories. True, in a modern age which believes that the scientific laws are absolute, unalterable, and mostly understood, we'd have to deny that the virgin birth could EVER happen. But, that only holds if we accept the modernistic worldview... even post-modernism can (at times) acknowledge (seeming) violations of scientific laws, and that our ignorance of the way the world works is vast.

Spong also seems to offer a false dichotomy. Either the Scripture is literally true OR it has the deeper meaning which Spong advocates. However, this is far from a true dichotomy. It seems to me (as it did to St. Augustine) that it's perfectly possible that the Bible is true on both a literal level (depending on what is meant by "literal"), and also on a metaphorical level (and many other levels besides!). Such a possibility doesn't seem to enter into Spong's head... which makes me question his education. The idea that the Scripture is true on several levels is not new. It is very old, and any seminary which doesn't recognize and teach this extremely useful idea is doing its students (and their congregations!) a serious disservice.

In the end, Spong falls to one of the universe's "fits of irony". In seeking to be inclusive, he excludes (seemingly cheerfully) not only a literal interpretation of Scripture, but even people who would interpret the Bible literally. For example, he is very careful to always say "homosexual people", not allowing people to be defined by their sexual orientation. However, he insists on referring to people as "fundamentalists" or "literalists", allowing fundamentalists to be defined by their fundamentalism. Even "fundamentalist Christians" would be a little bit more acceptable. One is tempted to write this off as an oversight - a place where Spong's prejudice shone through - but Spong does not leave that option available to us, if we take him literally. He says "[The call of Christ] is an invitiation to work for those things that create life and to oppose those PEOPLE [emphasis mine], those attitudes, and those systems that distort life." All throughout, Spong has repeated the case that literalism "distorts" the meaning of Scripture... a meaning which points to life. The only conclusion then is that Spong not only opposes the fundamentalism of these people (which would be "the attitude" or "the system"), but opposes these people as people. Hardly characteristic of the "inclusive love that breaks all human barriers" that Spong claims to advocate.

The solution, then, is to not take Spong too literally. The book is certainly valuable in some sense. After all, I did learn from it. However, when I try to take it as literal truth (not even of the "inerrant" variety... just normal literal truth), I find it to be seriously lacking.

Everyone in America who calls themselves Christian needs to read this book. I was brought up Catholic; my dad was Catholic and my mother Jewish. At seventeen, I joined a Christian, non-denominational church.

I was young and have not yet developed the skills necessary to discern truth from error. In the early 70's some of wanted security. The government was full of corruption, the Catholics did not explain my questions, I did not drugs, so off I went.

The two words of the title of this book jarred my attention: From Fundamentalism. I thought, 'wait a minute, I was a member of a fundamentalist Church from 1973-86; maybe, just maybe this book can help explain some of the false teachings that the Fundamentalist church taught me.

I cannot put this book down. I keep re-reading pages of it; I stop and think how come I did not see this sooner like this author.

In addition, before you and anyone else you know gives one dollar to a television evangelists, read this book. Most television evangelists are after only one thing money.

They stole their approach from Johnny Carson. In addition, the reason that television evangelist exist at all is because there is a market for them. I call most of them "snake oil salesman."

One of my goals is to to put these television evangelist out of business. This book will become my main tool. Most of them are a hoax. Worse, some of them are Cults.

Unless a person practices the idea of Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living," no religion will save them. Religion as it is shown on television is mass hypnosis and worse the opium of the people.

This book may expose some of your misunderstandings of the Bible and apparent contradictions. Many have taken the Bible literally, when in fact, the bible is neither scientifically correct or historically accurate. It is a document of many folks who call themselves Jews and Christians. Although the Bible is not literally true, we can learn some things from this book, only some.

I love this man so much for all the hard work he has done to set me from ignorance. I have only one question, "Why did I now only find this book seventeen years after its first publication?"

I want to shout it from the housetops, but not yet. Finally, this book explains, to some degree, the hooks some use to get people to join religious cults.

Biblical literalists insisting that theirs is the only way to correctly understand/interpret the Bible turn many a would-be believer into one who runs in the opposite direction-quickly. Not to mention the fact that that those who believe in the complete inerrancy of the bible, usually act in less than gracious ways, i.e. "You don't believe like me, well then you're goin to hell, buddy." And what troubles me most is that they almost seem to like saying it.

But in this book, John Shelby Spong takes the Bible and reveals a living, breathing work. He speaks of the first century Christians as those who struggled with limited understanding of the laws of nature, and a theology in transition from law to grace. Spong eloquently and with great conviction reveals a God who wants to be involved with His creation, rather than a stern, demanding autocrat issuing edicts, requiring blood atonements, and self-hate.

As a Christian, I am not proud that through the centuries every bit of emotional, technological, and social progress was in spite of Christianity instead because of it. What did the church say when it was discovered that earth wasn't flat? Heresy! How did the church handle slavery? Not very well. How did the church handle women being eclesiastically involved? Terribly. When science sought discovery, instead of being enlightened, most Christians were threatened. The result? Thinking men and women of all times turned away from a wonderful, life-giving faith in God because religionists insisted it was their way or the highway.

Thankfully, that type of thinking seems to be waning. Or is it? Unfortunately, some politicians of the right-wing variety insist on marrying fundamentalism with politics for their own purposes. But the fact remains that no matter who says it or how large their number, you can't "scare" someone into a true relationship. If your primary fear is one of burning in a tormenting hell for eternity, then you have basically been manipulated. Nothing genuine then comes from the heart because your motivation is based on fear rather than love.

Jesus Christ brought a new concept of God and religion to the human race. He did not follow the accepted religious laws of His time. He took on the scribes and pharisees-constantly questioning, probing, teaching through parables, and loving the unlovable. It got him the cross. And many Christians have been crucifying him anew with ungracious theology in His name.

John Shelby Spong will challnege you to think of God and Jesus Christ in a whole new way. Past all the creeds, dogmas, and superstitions, God still waits with outstretched arms for a relationship with His children. This book is an excellent way of coming to understand a God of grace who bestows His love unconditionally and whose mercy endures forever.

Thank you, Bishop Spong.

Spong has some valid points in this book. He accurately notes discrepancies between what literalists of the bible quote and what they ignore. This part of the book is an eye opener and provides food for thought. After establishing himself as an expert at picking the bible apart, however, Spong makes some claims that have little or no scholarly basis. For example, after establishing inconsistencies in the written text of the bible, he then completely discounts all of the miracles of in the bible claiming that they are not "scientific" enough. The tendency for some people reading this (and the danger therein) is that once readers accept Spong as an authority on scripture, they will accept anything he says, including statements he makes in a blanket fashion without supporting evidence. I, personally, agree that his concerns with taking everything from the bible literally are valid, yet I see no reason to think that every single miracle listed in the bible is therefore a lie.

When I looked at this on Amazon, I KNEW that the reviews would be polarized. There are people who don't know anything about biblical scholarship who will give it five stars automatically, because it's all eye opening. There are devout Christians who don't want the scholarship to be true who will give it one star no matter how accurate the contents are.

On top of that, there were people who complained that the scholarship was poor, or that it was introductory only, or even some who complained that it was not relevant in the modern world (the bible is 1900 years old, how "modern" do you have to be?).

The book is exactly as advertised. The introduction says it clearly that it is introductory biblical scholarship and there any biblical scholar would find it boring or elementary. I can't fault the book for that and would dismiss any reviews that do.

The book is an overview of modern biblical scholarship (focusing more on the new testament than old) discussing when and where the particular book was written and what conditions were for the author. He also discusses the author's target audience.

While I have read more detailed analysis, few of them are more readable. It is a gentle introduction.

Even though it is introductory, it has details in it that I haven't read elsewhere that I found quite interesting.

No one would argue that it is a liberal view of Christianity, so if you aren't a liberal Christian, you may disagree with some of the statements. Most likely, those to do with the resurrection and the virgin birth would probably be offensive.

If you are looking for in-depth, authoritative analysis of the bible from a linguistics and historical point of view, look elsewhere. If you are looking for an easy introduction to the bible and know very little about it, it's one of the best books available.

Personally, I felt comforted that there are devout Christians out there as reasonable as Spong is.

Since its initial publication in 1994, this slim volume has become THE must-read book for anyone seeking to reconcile being gay and being a Christian.

Helminiak makes his case incredibly well...he goes through the Scriptures step by step to reveal and discuss the historical context and the meaning behind them.

I cannot say enough good things about this book, but if you are gay and Christian, RUN to your nearest bookstore or order a copy online immediately. It is a very easy book to read; Helminiak is not writing to scholars here but to ordinary citizens. And his conclusion that the Bible says NOTHING about homosexuality is breathtaking, and he backs it up with Scripture all the way.

This book points out what I have believed for decades; the Bible has been transalated and retranslated so many times over the millenia a lot of it is open to spin and interpretation. Whether the Bible condemns or condones homosexuality is largely irrevelent to me as the whole book is simply a bogus replica of a host of pre Judeo-Christian myths, cultures, and beliefs and in the 21st century serves as a means by which Christian bigots can base their hatreds.

When I received this book, the first thing I noticed was glowing endorsements from Spong and Countryman, neither of whom are exactly conservative theologians. Then I noticed that this is a popular book and therefore there are no footnotes or references, so I cannot check his sources to see whether he is saying the truth or not, probably just as well, as he can lie with impunity.

On page 26 he trots out the party line by saying that one is "born gay, it cannot be changed and is benign", none of these statements are factually true, they are simply popular myths. He then compounds the error by comparing homosexuality with race and left-handedness. Once again he is incorrect. If homosexuality was like left-handedness (i.e. genetic) then we would expect the same percentage of homosexuals in rural and urban areas, yet this is precisely what we do not find, even for young people who have not migrated yet.

On Sodom, he gives the usual revisionist interpretation (based on Boswell and Bailey), it was about their inhospitality, this is a half truth, they were very inhospitable. The men of the city wanted to have sex with the male visitors, they wanted to rape them and unknowingly they would have raped angels. The purpose of the narrative was to show that God was just in destroying the cities.

On the meaning of arsenokoitai, he is unsure of the meaning, but if it does refer to male same-sex acts then it only "condemn wanton, lewd, irresponsible male homogenital acts but not homogenital acts in general" (p. 105). Of course the etymology of arsenokoitai is well know, it is derived from the Septuagint translation of the Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse (see Scroggs, p. 65), but this is rather inconvenient to Helminiak because it means that Paul thought that the Levitical prohibitions still applied in his day. Helminiak is aware of this (see p. 111), but he soft peddles here, lamely saying that 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 "may be repeating the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22."

Then we come to Helminiak's best lie. His word study of toevah and bdelygma on p. 64-65. Toevah is the Hebrew word usually translated as abomination and bdelygma is the Septuagint Greek equivalent translation. Toevah is used in the Levitical prohibitions on male-male sex in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. He confidently asserts that toevah means "what is culturally or ritually forbidden" it is not a sin. He then compounds the error by saying that the Greek translation bdelygma, which he says, means a "ritual offense". When I looked up the meaning of the words toevah and bdelygma, the actual meanings of these two words is nowhere near as narrow as Helminiak implies. Toevah can be used in both a ritual and a moral sense, the same as bdelygma. In Lev 18:26-30 toevah is used four times and refers to adultery, child-sacrifice, male-male intercourse and bestiality (in Lev 18:20-23), bdelygma translates toevah in three of these verses. In the New Testament bdelygma is used of the "abomination of desolation" (Mat 24:15).

Lastly, we come to another quirky interpretation of Helminiak. The Greek word akatharsia which is translated "impurity" and Paul uses it in Rom 1:24 just before he talks about those who indulge in female-female sex and male-male sex in Rom 1:26-27. In all nine cases when Paul uses this word akatharsia it refers to moral sin. And yet Helminiak rather weakly says that "It must be admitted that Paul's use of the word impurity (akatharsia) here is out of line with his usage elsewhere" (p94). In other words making a scriptural case for homosexuality always involves special pleading, even lying.

This is the second edition of this book, so he had plenty of time to rectify any mistakes in his first edition, I suggest that he includes footnotes in his third edition.

From the synopsis: While cautioning against viewing biblical teaching as "the last word on sexual ethics," he stresses the need for accurate understanding of what the biblical "facts" are and concludes that "the Bible supplies no real basis for the condemnation of homosexuality."

A fundamental platform of what Christians believe is that the Bible IS the inerrant LAST word on ALL morality and ethics.

The description of the book attempts to claim that homosexuality "as we know it" was a concept lost on the ancient world. COME ON!!! Are you KIDDING me??? Where do you think we got it?? That same sex relationships just sprung up out of nowhere in the last 1000 years??

I'm sure this book makes a lot of people feel good about their struggle with reconciling what the Bible says with homosexuality. The only problem is you have to completely ignore what the Bible ACTUALLY says to swallow it.

Sad. Misleading. If you want to know what the Bible really says about homosexuality, just read it. It means what is says. It says what it means. Period.

For those who prefer an in depth researched and well written book on homosexuality in the church...DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK! It is too generalized and shallow of a writing and not convincing at all. Though a few of his points may be somewhat accurate and his aims are honorable, look for another resource. It is poorly written, research is rarely cited, and terminology is very vague.

This book is very interesting. It allows you to actually visualize the regions related to biblical times. The illustrations and maps are very informative. The book is easy to read and understand.

This is a more comprehensive summary than one would get in an encyclopedia. Nice for what it is.

This Illustrated Atlas did help me much to understand more about the Biblical Place. Looking to the pictures and reading at the same time felt like as if I was there. It is like visiting a holy place, because the picture says all.

Bought this for my husband. He forund this book interesting and enlightening.The quality is excellent.He read and reread several times.

This is a great book for history buffs, especially about the history of Christianity. Gives you a view of the old world versus the new world.

Unique perspective from a scholar. He takes a topic that is written about extensively and brings a new perspective to it (the eyewitness factor). Great read!

This book, in my opinion, will become a classic reference to counter the flurry of books in the 1900's and recent times that have attempted to discredit first century authorship of the gospels and letters that make up the canon of scripture. The author has done a marvelous job at providing a well-researched and cited assessment of the facts, using internal and external analyses of the texts themselves and extra-biblical literature. Biblical scholars and enthusiasts will come away with a renewed appreciation of the historicity and authenticity of the gospels.

I heard many good things about this book, and Richard Bauckham is a terrific New Testament scholar, so I ordered it. His thesis is that the gospels are largely records of eyewitness testimony. He rejects the form critical conclusions of Bultmann and others, and argues that the gospels are more indebted to oral traditions and oral history.

He bases a lot of his views on the reliability of the early 2nd century church father Papias. Papias heard testimony from those who were with the first century Christians. He was told that the Gospel of Mark was a repository of the apostle Peter's memories. He also says that this gospel was the one with the least chronological order.

He also sees John as being the eyewitness testimony of the beloved disciple, who Bauckham takes to be John the Elder (not John the apostle, son of Zebedee).

Bauckham talks alot about the differences between personal memories and collective memories and relates this to the study of the gospels.

Bauckham also has an interesting chapter about the names in the gospels. He arrives at the dubious conclusion that Levi the tax collector in Mark's Gospel is not the same as Matthew the tax collector in Matthew's gospel, believing that the author of Matthew changed the name to apply Levi's story to a bona fide member of the Twelve apostles. Kind of strange.

It is more likely to me that Matthew changed his name from Levi to Matthew because the name "Matthew" is close to the word mathete, meaning "disciple," and Matthew wanted his name to reflect his changed status as a disciple of Jesus.

Other than that, the book was loaded with dense argumentation and analysis, and I had to really concentrate to follow the discussion. This is definitely not light reading. I recommend it to the scholarly Christian leader, but I can't see the average layperson reading it.

Much better reading is Bauchkam's book on the theology of Revelation, and his excellent commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, which is coming out again in a revised edition. I also enjoyed his book of the female witnesses of Christ - Gospel Women.

Bauckham accomplished, in my opinion, his goal of demonstrating that the canonical Gospels contain eyewitness testimony and that the Gospels themselves indicate this in the same ways as Roman biographies of that period. I felt that he spent far too much time and energy though, presenting his theory as to the identity of the Gospel of John's "beloved disciple" - a point he admitted, early on, really had no bearing on recognizing eyewitness material in the NT. Also seemed to be a great deal of repitition of throughout the book. Bauckham makes some truly excellent points in this work, but he could have delivered them in a slimmer volume.

Often I come across the idea that the four Gospels are creations of the early Christians to express and justify their beliefs. The Gospels, it is said, offer no reliable access to the earthly Jesus. To question this assumption you then are chided for being a literalist.

I don't think Adam and Eve were literal people. I don't worry whether Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. But it has always mattered to me whether Jesus actually did and said the things the Gospels portray.

So I am grateful to this scholar for helping me to see the reasonableness of this position. He offers plenty of evidence to show that the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, each having been written in the living memory of the events they describe. He spends most of his energy on Mark and John, and he explores the issues and the evidence in great detail.

I appreciated his understanding of testimony as something integral to all human knowing, as well as something that inherently blends observed facts with perceptive interpretation. This is what the Gospels do. I also appreciated the restraint in his presentation. These are things that are not able to be proved, so he uses the word "plausible" to describe his conclusions.

On almost every page there were names in the footnotes of scholars he disagreed with, and who likely would disagree with him. There must be a vigorous debate about these things in scholarly circles, and it seemed like I listened in on that debate in this book, or at least part of it.

There were a couple of times when it seemed like Bauckham's conclusions exceeded the evidence, but they were rare. On the whole, he presents a satisfying picture. I feel like I can trust the Gospels to tell me about the real Jesus.