Amazon calculates a product’s star ratings based on a machine learned model instead of a raw data average. The model takes into account factors including the age of a rating, whether the ratings are from verified purchasers, and factors that establish reviewer trustworthiness.
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
BIGH:BS is not as bad as its three predecessors, but that’s not saying much, because those three earlier DVDs were really awful.
The three earlier DVDs focused largely on science, so their blunders were especially glaring. BIGH:BS, on the other hand, focuses more on the internal structure of the Bible itself, and that’s a big help. Of course, BIGH:BS can’t confine itself to just literary analysis, and its presenters still manage to make a mess when they venture into other topics.
Steve Boyd strenuously argues that Genesis is a narrative, but that simply misses the point. The crucial issue isn’t whether Genesis is a narrative, but whether it’s accurate, and overwhelming scientific evidence clearly shows that it is not accurate.
George Grant earnestly hopes that the literal translation of Genesis is accurate, because it’s allegedly the foundation for Christianity. Grant’s emotional needs are simply irrelevant, of course, in proving the historicity of Genesis. Furthermore, hundreds of millions of devout Christians seem to be doing just fine while *rejecting* a literal translation of Genesis, so that’s another problem.
Grant also views the Enlightenment as a step back for mankind. Apparently Grant thinks mankind was better off when it believed that the sun circled the Earth, that slavery was legal, that women were inferior to men, and that kings had a divine right to rule their subjects as they saw fit. Grant's view seems pretty dubious IMHO.
Grant also argues that, judging from the examples of Mao and Stalin, socialism is evil. Wow. Just wow.
I actually enjoyed astronomer Danny Faulkner’s sections. He seems like a genuinely nice person, unlike some of the other presenters. Unfortunately, being nice doesn’t equate to being right. He made a couple of obvious blunders.
First, his objection to the anthropic principle is misguided. The anthropic principle basically states that the structure of the universe must be consistent with our existence, because otherwise we wouldn’t be here at all. Objecting to such a bland statement seems pretty pointless.
Furthermore, the anthropic principle has major, experimental support, since it helped lead to Fred Hoyle’s remarkable prediction in 1954 about special resonances in carbon and oxygen nuclei, the existence of which was subsequently confirmed. Wow! Now that’s science!
It’s worth noting that *none* of Faulkner’s pro-design arguments, apparently offered up to supplement the anthropic principle, are supported by *any* relevant scientific discoveries, remarkable or otherwise.
Faulkner’s criticism of “cafeteria” Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they accept as historically accurate is directed at old-Earthers, but that kind of criticism applies at least equally well to “cafeteria” young-Earthers who pick and choose which parts of science they accept.
Faulkner, presumably inadvertently, badly undermines the case for much of creation science, when he suggests that science is useless in studying miraculous events. (Narrator Del Tackett must not have been listening here, since Faulkner’s comment undermines a lot of what Tackett presented in the earlier DVDs.)
Doug Petrovich’s sections on the Tower of Babel indicate that Babel was a real place with a real tower, but they are unconvincing on, if not completely irrelevant to, the issue of the origin of the diverse languages of the world.
Douglas Kelly’s section on the history of Christianity’s responses to Darwin is somewhat interesting but largely irrelevant to the issue of whether Genesis is historically accurate. He claims that other books in the Bible refer to Genesis as if it were historically accurate, but that evidence is obviously weak, if not completely meaningless.
Kelly’s bland dismissal of the glaring differences between the first two chapters of Genesis is completely unconvincing. I think this topic deserves a much more in-depth analysis than what BIGH:BS presents.
A pretty amusing feature of Kelly’s sections is that Tackett repeatedly tries to get Kelly to really go after evolution, but Kelly just as frequently responds by citing "higher criticism" as the real culprit. I got a chuckle out of how often Kelly simply refuses to take Tackett’s bait.
In conclusion, if you’re interested in the literary structure and style of Genesis, or if you’re interested in Christianity’s historical responses to various challenges to Genesis, some parts of BIGH:BS might be interesting. If you’re interested specifically in evidence supporting the historicity of Genesis, this DVD is pretty much a waste.