Debunking the so-called "Q"
355131
In this controversial book, Edwards argues convincingly that the author of the Gospel of Luke incorporated Mark and the so-called Gospel According to the Hebrews (mentioned over 75 times in ancient Christian/patristic literature), along with other oral and/or written traditions. Taking Luke's introductory statements at face value (1:1-4), Edwards argues that Luke clearly used some sort of ancient Hebrew (not Aramaic) document. This document Edwards identifies with the obscure, yet much talked about, Gospel According to the Hebrews (i.e., Hebrew Gospel). In scholarly circles, scholars have identified the Gospel of the Nazoreans and the Gospel of the Ebionites as separate documents from the "Hebrew Gospel." However, as Edwards clearly demonstrates, the Hebrew Gospel is actually the very text used by sectarians like the Ebionites and the Nazoreans. Thus, the Hebrew Gospel was known, in the ancient world, under, at least, three different names: the Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans.
 Edwards then demonstrates that Luke's gospel is full of Semitisms--which have been noticed by many scholars before but dismissed as "Lukan Septuagintisms." He argues that Luke incorporates material directly from this Hebrew Gospel by demonstrating that Luke uses a Hebrew source and that some quotations of the Hebrew Gospel, found in the patristic literature, can be found in Luke.

  So how does Edwards "debunk" the theory of Q? Well, if Matthew and Luke share a verbal relationship, this relationship need not be thought to arise from Luke and Matthew using a common source (Q), when it can be shown that Luke copied Mark and that Matthew copied both Mark and Luke (thus Matthew and Luke share a verbal relationship via Matthew having copied Luke). This verbal relationship makes the theory of Q sound unnecessary. Thus, Mark came first then Luke then Matthew.

 I recommend this book because the case is solid. It is well-written by a well-informed scholar. If there was one book that one would choose to have as the one book on the Hebrew Gospel, this book would definitely be it.
3832481
I was one of those unfortunate many who was unaware of the problems latent with dictionaries like "the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." Were it not for Silva's book, I would foolishly be trusting this wrongfully recognized authority, all of the while thinking that I was smarter than most. In Silva's book, he does all he can to make understandable the issues of lexical semantics. He tries to explain that context is king, in determining meaning. A case example that is not in this book but which I personally use to illustrate this is the sign that reads, "Beware of dogs" which we find in peoples front yards. Naturally we take this sign to mean that we ought not enter the fence, unless we don't mind getting bit by thier dog. Yet in the king james version of the Bible Philippians 3:2 says, "Beware of dogs" yet in this context, the apostle Paul was warning of heretics, and not getting bit by a canine. These are the kinds of issues that Silva tries to bring to the publics attention in this book. While this appears to be a subtle issue that is unimportant (as most semantic issues appear to be), the consequences of even accidentally twisting scripture is warned against in 2 Peter 3:16 and said to potentially lead to their destruction. Let us not ignore this warning, for our own sake as well as those who hear us
757563
How can I take seriously an "expert" who devotes pages 5 and 6 of his book to trying to convince us that the Phoenicians invented talking? Does Mr. Urban really believe what he tells his readers - that, until a mere of thousand years ago when the Phoenicians came along, humankind communicated purely by drawing pictures and letting loose the occasional wordless grunt?

  It simply did not happen that way - ask any linguist, archeologist, or historian

The author of this work also misleads his readers on the origin of the word "phonics." Contrary to his assertion, it doesn't have to do with the word "Phoenician" at all. Checking "phonics" and "Phoenician" in any dictionary which gives word-origins will confirm that.

  I'd rather fail to communicate at all than communicate false-to-fact information, even for the vast sums that Hal Urban claims he makes from selling his inaccuracies to corporations and the general public.
4663733
The fact that Lenaire repeatedly makes the erroneous assertion that the Council of Nicaea had ANYTHING to do with the deciding of the New Testament canon is more than sufficient to destroy any credibility he has as a commentator on Christianity and the Bible. (And those who know me know where they can find more of his errors recorded.)

I congratulate Lenaire on making the transition from gullible Christian who simply believed it because it was in the Bible, to gullible Skeptic who believes it simply because it is in Paine or Ingersoll.
4425823
This information has been verified.  It is just in a lot of different places.  The left will never admit any of this because it destroys their narrative and if that happens they will lose their base.  Don't buy it if you are not willing to keep an open mind.
4112122
It is amazing to see what great lengths so-called scholars will go to prove a doctrine that is linguistically untenable (to say nothing about the logical or metaphysical impossibility).  It only goes to show that people will choose to believe something if they want to, regardless of the evidence.

As an example, on page 26, the author boldly proclaims, "The Majestic Plural Concept is at Odds with Unitarianism", and then proceeds to make arguments using such language as "seems artifical and contrived", "would necessarily be", "one would expect", and "suggests that".  The author does not understand basic rules of Hebrew grammar, and must use conditional language to argue forcefully.

A numerically plural noun in Hebrew has a plural suffix, a plural verb, and a plural adjective.  In virtually every occurrence in the Old Testament, Elohim has a singular verb and a singular adjective, despite having a plural noun, because it refers to just one being.  There are only a few cases where Elohim is used as a majestic plural when it does not refer to YHWH (e.g. 1 Kings 11:33), rather another singular entity.

There are only nine instances in the entire Old Testament where Elohim is used with a plural verb or plural adjective to seemingly refer to YHWH.  This is a linguistic phenomenon known as attraction, and in each case, does not refer to YHWH as a plural of personalities.  There is an obvious reason for the Shema - because YHWH is one, and not three.

If anyone is interested in this subject further, may I suggest you google Nehemia Gordon and read his treatise on this subject, entitled "Elohim: Plural or Singular?"  It will take about 30 minutes.  Gordon doesn't have to put in forceful language like "seems artificial and contrived" because he doesn't have to.  Truth always triumphs over error.
3021834
Here is a volume that's both a hoax and a fraud. It's a hoax because the proceedings it purports to document never happened, and yes there's good proof of that. Proof lies in the fact that it's a literary fraud, specifically that it was plagiarized from several (non-Jewish) sources. Wikipedia goes into this in detail but please don't take my word for it or even Wikipedia's word for it, examine this book and the sources themselves and you will quickly realize that this document is a cooked up fake.
Sources for the "Protocols":
The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu by Maurice Joly
Biarritz, byHermann Goedsche.
Goedsche plagiarized Joly, making the Protocols a third-hand plagiarism!
Der Judenstaat, by Theodor Herzl
Yes, Herzl had friends in high places, and yes he proposed using influence and money to create a Jewish state. Let's remember that the Protocols doesn't reference those sections of Der Judenstaat!
The Wiki link shows several examples of almost word for word transfer from the source books to the Protocols, when one accounts for translations between French and Russian, and German and Russian. I cannot provide the Wiki link due to Amazon's rules about non-Amazon links but you'll have no trouble finding it if you perform a basic search.
The Protocols is a great example of "Fake News". If you're basing your opinions of people and how the world works on this book, you've been duped. But like I said... don't take my word for it. It's easy to locate the relevant passages via Google Books,
3020192
The first thing one can say is this: it is worrisome that there are so many 5-star reviews of people who believe this dribble.

Apparently most people who even know of this book are paranoid conspiracy theories with an anti-catholic chip on their shoulder.

There are several PROOFS that this book is nonsense. Here are some.

Proof 1:
First of all there is no "LUCIFER" telescope. Moreover if the Vatican would actually do something like the authors are claiming would they actually call the project "Lucifer"?

Let's be reasonable, such names are fit for comic book or video games villains, nothing more.

The Telescope at Mt. Graham is simply called "Large Binocular Telescope" or simply LBT.

The Acronym for "Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research" would then be "LBTNIUCIFUER"... and sure you can get "Lucifer" out of it if you CONVENIENTELY take away some of the letters... but that makes no sense at all.
Only paranoid people will read "lucifer" out of it.

Proof2:

Both NASA & The Vatican have nothing to do with the LBT or what is being dubbed by smear sites as LUCIFER (which, as said, is NOT the correct acronym!!!).

The Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) is ALSO at Mt. Graham, but it's a different telescope and project than the LBT.

The VATT is funded by the Vatican Observatory Research Group, while the LBT by the LBT Consortium. Two completely different organizations!

They are both part of the MGIO, Mount Graham International Observatory, which is tied with the university of Arizona.

Hence; there NO project "Lucifer" and the book is confused entirely regarding which telescope is which, apparently.

Proof 3:

There is no "Planet X" or "Nibiru"

First of all the telescopes are dedicated especially to "Extragalactic Research", NOT for the search of the planet Nibiru or Planet X.

The scientific community has proven that there is NO planet X or Nibiru. This idea is a pseudoscientific planetary object described by Zecharia Sitchin, a person who is famous for pseudo-scientific research, and nonsense.

IN FACT the Babylonian planet Nibiru is most probably Mercury (see the article by  Michael S. Heiser. "The Myth of a Sumerian 12th Planet")

Proof 4:

pseudoscientific nonsense regarding biblical and archeological scholarship.

First of all the idea of "Petrus Romanus" is nonsense. Most scholars (Catholic and otherwise) consider the "prophecies of St. Malachy" to be forgeries. No mention of this document by anyone, not even St. Malachy biographers, has been made if not 400 years after St. Malachy's death.

Also the document prophecies are quite precise up to the year it was discovered, but very vague, if not often quite wrong, afterwards.

Consensus is it is a forgery.

Moreover all SERIOUS biblical scholars would LAUGH at the "ufology-based explanations" of some parts of the bible.

That is not research, but a (bad) science fiction story.

Read ANY work from some serious biblical scholar (even non believers like Bart Ehrman) and you will see that what these people are claiming is beyond ludicrous.

======================

IN CONCLUSIOJN:

This work is either a hoax at the expense of extremely gullible people OR the work of some disturbed and ignorant person.

MY RECCOMENDATION:

Unless you want to laugh, do not buy this book.

If you are one of those who actually believe what this book says, the I urge you to look up what the ACTUAL facts are! Read what the LBT and the VATT telescopes are and do from reputable sites, not crackpot site, search what academic reputable biblical scholars say. Study astronomy and history of science.
4434919
This is a very interesting book, but in the end contradictions and missing citations undermine its authority:

Consider, for example, p. 175-176:  "One study estimates that from 1150 to 1300, Jews made up about 15% of the educated world's top scientists...Jewish scholars wrote noted poetry..." but later, p. 298, "Even in the golden age of Sephardic Jewry in Spain, except for Maimonides, and until the 1800s, except for Spinoza, Jews were almost absent from the annals of great science and art."

So, what is Entine's claim about Jewish contributions to art and science prior to the 19th century?  Should the reader believe it?  If Entine believes Maimonides is remembered for contributions to art and science, then its not clear his opinion should matter much-- Maimonides' science is part of the corpus of Arabic medicine, but is more derviative than original.  It is his philosophical and religious work that is most noteworthy.

On page 260, we are told "Geneticists are now convinced that using such percentage claims paints a misleading picture of group differences."  The text surrounding this statement makes a good case that the "percentage claims" referred to are indeed problematic.  But what is accomplished describing what geneticists are "convinced" of?  Was there a poll?  Is Entine somehow empowered to speak for the discipline?  On what basis is Entine making this claim?

More troublesome unsourced claims are not hard to find: On p. 249 "When Israel's War of Independence began, Jews controlled less than 7 percent of Palestine; after Jewish victory, at the signing of an armistice in December 1949, they occupied about 80 percent of ther land."  No source for this claim is provided, nor is there an explanation for what is meant by "controlled", "occupied" or even Palestine (what are its borders?).  Looking at a map, the only obvious understanding to be had is that the Negev desert is not "controlled" before the war, but is "occupied" when hostilities cease.  Why does the reader have to guess?

Numerous comparable examples could be offered-- claims are made, sources are too often missing, and details are too often left to the reader's imagination.
2493647
It is very interesting the amount of strawman, ad hominem's and even deliberate dishonest tactics being used in this so-called documentary. During the beginning of the documentary they try to equate the higher criticism was liberalism and then attribute the thinkers such as Strauss as antisemitic. Anyone who has read Frederick Strauss work that he attributed much of the Gospel accounts of Jesus as mythic creations. The earliest mention of higher criticism being equated with antisemitism is in an article titled "Higher Criticism, Higher Antisemitism," written by a rabbi who is complaining that the Higher Critics do not allow for Jewish Scholars to lay claim to the authenticity of the rabbinic claims of Jewish origins.

In many cases their conflation of Higher Criticism with Liberalism is based on a modern understanding of liberal politics, when in reality liberal politics in the 1920s had very many of the same traits that conservative politics have today.

They also make the most astounding use of an appeal to authority by claiming that this one fringe New Testament Scholar says that all the books of the New Testament could be dated before 40CE. And the most ridiculous claim being made above all is this conflation of this notion that of a scholar is going against the mainstream of his own school of thought he is to be taken credible on face value, and they use an analogy of law to get this across. Of course the difference is that in legal courts an expert is taken in to give information about evidence they deem to damning and then they bring in a second expert to verify independently of the other expert that this is what the evidence seems to point to and on the defendants side they bring in an expert to dispute the evidence. It may be one or the other. That being said however, these experts are in no way trying to convince other experts of their errors, they are in fact trying to convince the judge or the jury. In peer-review, you are supposed to provide evidence, interpretation of that evidence and a conclusion based on a follow of examination of the evidence through methodology to convince your peers who will rip it apart piece by piece in an attempt to falsify or find any errors. There is a huge difference in method and presentation of evidence and the crowd in which they convince between the legal system and academicians.

Another issue with this is that having a fringe academic and those who agree with him does not make him credible. What makes a case by a fringe academic credible is the evidence, method and conclusions they come and how many have been convinced by his case.

Basically, a bad DVD to buy if you are a skeptic, a good documentary if you are an apologist and wish to use bias to interpret evidence and would get a feel for the various strawman arguments to use in a debate to convince the gullible of your case.
3005707
This book seeks to blame Christianity for the "suppression" of rationalism in Western intellectual thought during the First Millennium (p. 337, hardcover edition).  Ironically, the book has its own anti-rational bent, depending more on misinformation than diligent inquiry.  Consider that when Charles Freeman selects evidence, he does not consider the counter evidence. For example, there is no discussion of concurrent events that discouraged scientific inquiry, such as the division of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasions, periods of major economic decline, the break-up of Western Empire into smaller nations, ignorance of the Greek language in the West, the rise of feudalism, and the proliferation of pagan superstitions in the church.  Freeman ignores them all.

Consider also that Freeman targets the Council of Nicaea in the Fourth Century as the focal point for the movement away from rationalism. There, he says, certain church leaders for the first time on a large scale proclaimed the deity of Christ, and with the Emperor's help forced it on the church as a condition of faith.  However, Freeman has a huge obstacle: the New Testament predates the Council by over 200 years and  clearly affirms the deity of Christ based on eyewitness accounts to His life, miracles and resurrection, not simply on an "ambiguous faith".  Freeman's tactic is to try to prove that most of the NT sees Christ as not God, but he offers no NT texts that actually back up the statements or he quotes out of context.  In the following examples, the parenthesis show the pages where Freeman's claims are made followed by NT references that refute the  claim.  Freeman claims that Christ: was not considered deity by Matthew, Mark or Luke (p. 90; see Matt. 1:23, 28:30, Mark 9:37-39, Luke: 24:47); may not have expected his teaching to spread beyond the Jews  (p. 97; see Matt. 28:19-20); may not have accepted Messiah status (p. 99; see John 4:26); and was driven to Jerusalem by insecurity  (p. 100; see John 10:17).  The claims are obviously false.  Paul is also egregiously  misrepresented.  Examples follow.  Freeman claims, "it is not clear whether Paul believed Jesus had been preexistent from the dawn of time" (p. 116; see Col. 1:16-17); Paul was "desperately afraid of competition," since he never asks his followers to personally evangelize others (p. 113; see 2 Tim 4:5); and  "does not go so far as to make [Christ] part of the Godhead" (p. 117; see Col. 2:9).  Again, all false.

Perhaps Freeman's most untruthful and outrageous claim is that Paul encouraged the rejection of rational thought, generating in Freeman's words, "the roots of the conflict between religion and science that still pervades debates on Christianity to this day" (p. 120).  Freeman tries to support this by quoting I Corinthians 3:19 (Freeman incorrectly references I Cor 1:25),  "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God."  But this verse is taken out of context.  Reading the entire passage in I Cor. 3, it is obvious that Paul is actually responding to those who promote cliques and personal status in the church.  Paul is not talking about the rejection of rational thought!

Freeman's thesis is no more than a personal dogma, around which his book modifies the facts until they fit.
489717
I have just finished reading this book and Miniter does a good job of presenting his case. His Bibliography is extensive and can be easily verified by anyone interested.

The book skewers myths held by both the left and right. I am appalled that some here will lie in attempts to throw some FUD at Miniter's book and therefore discredit him.  "Film Afficionado" and others should be ashamed of themselves.

Let me point out two cases and the rest you can investigate for yourself:

1.  Atomic scientists claim that low-grade uraniam CAN be further enriched into weapons-grade unanium.  (word of advice: never use Wikipedia as your reference for anything)

2.  Miniter's book did not claim "chemical weapons" were found at Mosul but "chemical agents" used to make chemical weapons, EXACTLY HOW THE WASHINGTON POST STORY DESCRIBED IT. The reviewers here are either dishonest or are relying on hearsay.

Regardless of your view of the War on Terror, Iraq, or President Bush, this book is a valuable indictment of the media and the poor job they do in educating the public.
2002254
This is the fifth of David Griffin's books on the events of 9/11. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the official account, Dr Griffin has been criticised on the grounds that as a theologian rather than a physicist, architect or engineer, he is not qualified to question the government account. Using a similar defence, many people in Congress and the press duck and run for cover when confronted with the issue, claiming inability to comment because of a lack of the necessary technical expertise.

In his latest, incisive polemic, Dr Griffin focuses on the welter of contradictions and inconsistencies of the official story. By adopting this approach, he shows that the only way to cling to the official story is to believe that it is possible for two mutually contradictory statements to both be true.

Griffin has thus placed members of Congress and the press in an extremely awkward position. If they accept that mutually contradictory statements are consistent with the official story, they demonstrate that they are intellectually unfit for duty. On the other hand, if they continue to ignore the contradictions they show that they are morally unfit, by underlining their complicity in the coverup of the greatest mass murder in United States history.
898220
Anyone who reads Bart Ehrman's commentary on the New Testament must realize that he is writing from the perspective of a non believer. It is difficult to understand why such a commentary can be found as relevant to understanding Biblical Inherency, since it starts with the premise that the Bible is not the word of God.

Many of the arguments by Dr. Ehrman are greatly leaning from the side of his bias and do not accurately reflect the truth that the New Testament documents are both reliable and were written by eye witness accounts of those who either saw the events they write about, or by detailed interviews of those who were themselves witnesses to these events.

This book answers in a condensed form, an intelligent and scholarly rebuttal of Bart Ehrman's unfounded commentary on the New Testament.

Doulos
946483
I warmly recommend David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", which does a great job of showing what this book is all about: a propagandistic collection of distortions and straw-man arguments in support of the Big Lie.

And if one is interested in recent peer-reviewed science based on other peer-reviewed articles, I recommend the February 2010 issue of the respected journal The American Behavioral Scientist, which is devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), focusing on 9/11 and the atrocities and Orwellian developments that it has been used as a legitimation for, while widely leaning on the work of independent 9/11 researchers.
1180839
Once one accepts the concept of Reification, it becomes obvious that one cannot construct a reality from mere metrics and numbers, regardless of the mathematical tools used. If one does, the "reality" obtained is in fact just opinion based on personal esthetics, bias, prejudice, or sociopolitical agenda. Gould demonstrates this time and again in reviewing a century of racist and classist-tainted research. IQ will forever lie outside true science because numbers boiled down from test scores will never be convincingly tied to any tangible, objective, repeatable reality.
Correlation matrices, factorial analyses and bell curves are beside the point, Gould maintains, since the basic concept of IQ is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. IQ's practical use is always to establish or reaffirm hierarchies, to winnow and discriminate. Binet's original goal for the IQ was to merely identify clearly subnormal school children so they could be helped. Once it was out of his hands, however, other, less lofty uses were found for the metric.
Gould shows convincingly that IQ testing was seized upon as a eugenics-based rationale to restrict US immigration from Eastern Europe beginning in the 1930's. Up to 6 million people, including many Jews and other undesirables, may have been denied entry into the US as a result. Go figure.
This reified acceptance of IQ's validity is alive and well today. Books like The Bell Curve and other hereditarian racist-by-definition works sell like hotcakes, yet are merely rehashings of the same old stuff. Many private schools use IQ testing to exclude undesirables (as if their five-figure tuitions weren't exclusionary enough!). Reading Gould's book will open one's eyes to the nasty, flawed basis and uses of all IQ testing, past, present and future.
4197956
After reading the negative reviews here, I wanted to see if it was possible to prove or disprove any of Mr. Haas's claims. I decided to find out if Mr. Haas ever assassinated any female Red Army Fraction terrorists in the former German Democratic Republic, as he claimed in his book. It was then that I came across this work:

[...]

This link is from the website of the German Commissioner for the Files of the Ministry for State Security of the Former German Democratic Republic. This authority maintains the East German intelligence, or "Stasi," files. The Stasi was responsible for a total of ten former RAF members receiving new identities in the GDR: Susanne Albrecht, Henning Beer, Christine Dmlein, Ralf Baptist Friedrich, Monika Helbing, Werner Lotze, Silke Maier-Witt, Ekkehard von Seckendorff-Gudent, Sigrid Sternebeck, and Inge Viett. To make a long story short, Roland Haas did not assassinate any of them. He is a liar. All of the female RAF members who hid in East Germany are still alive in 2013! They outlived their alleged "assassin"!