Clouseau

I didn't do that. But I was pretty sure someone would say that I did.

Toto

Your words are there, staring you in the face. :huh:

Clouseau

Why don't you folks read properly?

Toto

"Read properly" means to interpret it as you do your Bible, and extract the politically correct meaning that makes you feel good?

You said "this looks like a scam, to extract cash from those only too ready to dis the Bible" did you not? It's true you didn't say "I attack this because it IS a scam." A fine distinction in your own mind, no doubt.

Clouseau

Quite big enough to reduce your attack to irrationality, which is what matters.

Dreadnought

Thanks for the resume. That last bit is indeed a shocker, at least to an audience that gives a toss.

WoundedEgo

Thanks for all of the controversy - "Only controversy is interesting"

Yes, I would love for you to buy the book - is that mysterious to anyone?!

In the introduction I identify who might be interested in this book - those who already take pains to understand the Bible. There are many people who do just that. Many on this list do not meet that criteria. Fine. Don't bother with the book.

But this is the "Biblical criticism" forum. Surely some would welcome an aid in understanding what this mysterious book is all about. I know it would have helped me. The stuff in the book is the stuff that I WISH someone had helped me understand years ago. Some will be new to most, much will be new to all.

Most of the book is pointing to the ways that Catholic-Protestantism deviates from the Bible, while there are many sections dealing with the more fundamental issue, of the Bible's clash with the observable. For example, the Hebrew cosmology --- very off base. And anatomy. And embryology... you get the idea.

The approach of the book is to educate (which elicits unbelief) rather than denunciate. If you really get the Bible, you won't be mesmerized by it.

Anyway, it is there for you to appreciate or to trash - whatever your temperment requires. But I hope you will think of someone who will not hear anything except the Bible that you would like to introduce to its nakedness..

Bill Ross, Author
Bible Shockers!
http://bibleshockers.com

spin

Hardly. Your intent was clear. You wanted to smear. You haven't read the work, so you honestly did the best you could from your ignorance. The message is: although he hasn't read the book, Clouseau believes that it is obviously crap. This may be true, but you went on to impute that the work was a scam and your shaving distinctions based on "looks like" wouldn't free you from any possible libel case which could ensue from your statement. The court would see your imputation and understand your language as semantic froth to cover your intent. And appeals to irrationality are merely covering up.


spin

Ray Moscow

Well, there is the "Jesus Barrabas" figure ("Jesus, the son of the father") from some manuscripts of GMatthew, right?

Also, there was an historical Simon who really cleared the temple (along with the necessary small army).

Darn -- I might have to read this book after all!