Apocryphal, or at Least Wildly Inaccurate
590813
Perhaps Prima couldn't find a writer who actually played the game.
Perhaps Verant Interactive gave them a load of bad information.
Perhaps they based it off the old strategy guide.
Whatever  the reason, this strategy guide continues the legacy of the original  "Official Strategy Guide" (of which the game makers now claim  they accept no responsibility for the content) in containing almost 80%  actual true things.
Good luck figuring out the other 20%.  Veteran  EverQuest players have spotted page after page of information in this  manual that is not in tune with the reality of the game.  Most of that  isn't even a case of it being outdated, it has never been correct, even  with the game being out over one year.
Expect a full disclosure from  Verant soon where they also disavow any information in this book from being  correct.  It makes the "official" title, officially, a  joke.
Oh, if you actually ARE an EverQuest veteran, adjust my rating on  this work to 4 stars as you will find it a hillarious comedy of errors.
2030482
I bought this copy by mail from its publisher, Truth in History. It is a brief book, and talks about the prophecy of Danials 70th Week from a Historicist perspective. That is good, as I think Historicism is more accurate than Preterism and *FAR* more accurate than Futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism.
The problems with this work are twofold. First, it talks about Protestantism in a generic way that embraces all denominations, but downplays the very Calvinist core of the Reformation outside of Germany. Pentecostals will be positively mentioned, but European Protestantism is not identified as originally Calvinist at its core. Second, it (and other items by its publisher) seems to lean to British Israelism, a ridiculous theory that is not supported by the Bible or secular history. British Israelism, in brief, holds that the Western European peoples, especially the English, are descended from the lost 10 tribes of Israel -and thus are heir to OT covenant promises. Go read Galatians. The Jewish nation has been disinherited in favor of the spiritual seed/children of faith. British Israelism takes the Judeophila of modern Christina Zionism and puts a weird twist to it -that Euros are the real Jews! Any Euro, such as myself, who has read the NT should be glad that they are not a part of the cursed nation of physical Israel that was judged by God and dispersed in 70 A.D.
This book is a two-edged sword. It smashes the lie of Futurism, but simultaneously slights Reformed doctrine and sows the seeds of the Christian Identity error.
3295487
Jack's book covers basic questions like "Is the Bible accurate scientifically & historically?" and "Is there a God?"

Since I, myself, am an author and have posted some blog entries of my research on this subject, this is familiar material to me.

However, I, myself, did not go into near as good of detail as Jack did here:

Jack not only give scientific examples of how Carbon-14 dating has been shown to be inaccurate (good proof that some scientists are wrong about the age of the earth and timing issue), but also explores archaeology and various philosophies -- one of my favourite examples is his quote of great theologian & philosopher, R.C. Sproul, who states that that only four options *exist* for the origin of the universe:

"Option number one, the universe is an illusion, it doesn't exist.
Option number two, it is self-created.
Option number three, it is self-existent and eternal.
Option four, it was created by someone who is self-existent."

Regarding historical evidence for the Bible, Mr. Wellman reminds us that "All the relevant non-Jewish historical sources of the time [including Josephus (AD 37 - c. 100), born of a priestly and royal ancestry] mention Jesus," and adds: "Why would nearly 100 ancient Historians include Christ in their writings if they knew he didn't exist? Josephus, Tacitus, Gibbons, and others (all of which are highly respected) would not have written about someone that was only a myth." thus showing strong evidence that historians and scientists view the Bible as VERY reliable from an historical point of view.

On the manuscript reliability, Jack has this to say: "When compared to most human historical documents, Biblical manuscripts reigns supreme by far...There are
over 6,000 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and even Armenian...Compared with human writings we have some 7 remaining manuscripts of one of the earliest philosophers, Plato, from
around 300 B.C. however the most recent copy of these compositions came 900 years after they were written!"

Honestly, Jack has done a far better job than did I in my meager blog entries on this subject, and I must admit I am a bit jealous. LOL

However, beyond the book here, I also know Jack in real life, and he is truly as honest as he is smart, and both qualities show in his books.

Yes, I'd give his book, "Blind Chance vs Intelligent Design?, Empirical Methodologies & the Bible," a 5 out of 5 rating, and I'm sure you would too. For the price, it's a great deal too!

Gordon Wayne Watts, LAKELAND, Fla.
1746139
Ms. Riplinger's book is more fiction than fact.  If people take the time to check on the people she quotes, they'll find she takes them horribly out of context - at times plucking a handful of words from four pages to create a presumably damning quotation.  This is irresponsible at the last, and libelous might be more accurate.  Furthermore, she frequently misrepresents the best translations from the Greek when citing textual variants.  She completely ignores verses and facts that contradict her findings.  Intellectually and scholastically, I would give her text a D-, but only if I graded her on a curve.  On top of all this, her ad hominem attacks on other scholars reveals a bitter person who bears no fruits of the spirit.
3779903
From the introduction:

"Even more lethal to the Christian cause is the unoriginal nature of Jesus Christ himself. Around 3000 BCE, the ancient Egyptians had the Sun God Trinity of Atum (father), Horus (son), and Ra (holy spirit)."

Wrong.  Dr. Long shows his ignorance of Egyptology.  Statements similar to this abound on the internet, and misinformation like this has spread because of idiots with publications.

More poorly-founded statements just like this one are just a paragraph away.  If you're going to waste my time, Jason, do it on a medium better suited to you.  May I suggest YouTube?
4002564
3 stars for entertainment value, can't go any higher, because I have actually done other research on the Illuminati. His account of the life of Pythagoras was almost perfectly plagiarized from Manly P. Hall. EXCEPT a very important part- his death. According to Hall, Pythagoras was either murdered by being burned alive along with his followers, or possibly escaping the blaze with the assistance of his followers, whom he left behind to burn, later dying of a "broken heart". No doubt, the author (who ironically keeps us in the dark of his true identity by using Adam Weishaupt's name instead of his own LOL) took some creative license, inserting a crucifixion and anticipated resurrection in order to confuse Christians. I'm surprised Hall didn't do that!

I'd also like to make a comparison to another book, Code of the Illuminati, by Abbe Barreul (Also available for Kindle, $2.99 I think). It was written after the dispersion of the Bavarian Illuminati, [which was founded by Weishaupt in 1776, and only lasted 10 years, and in 1786, he was banished from Bavaria and lived in Gotha, where he wrote 5 books revealing the truth about the Illuminati] (I am looking for English translations, none available as far as I know) Anyway, this book was written before Weishaupt died, and was an anti-Illuminati expose, which detailed each of the 10 degrees, and also blasted the group, citing purported "private letters" etc. I find it very interesting to point out that for all of the info (And I suspected while reading that this book was commissioned by the Catholic Church and much hideousness was added for color) NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION of Abraxas (alternately Abrasax) was made. I wonder how this pseudo-Weishaupt would account for that? A complete damning expose possibly by the murderous Catholic Church, definitely by a hater of the order and the founder, and no mention of the "pure deity" they supposedly worshiped! And also, the church didn't even murder him, only banished him. The leader of the Illuminati treated better than a Jew or a Templar. Hmmmmmmmm...... Maybe they knew he wasn't so bad after all? They just wanted him to stop? Think about it.

If you read this book, or any others in this series, do so with the same kind of faith you would put into a book about Cthulhu. Or else, I'd have to quote the real Adam Weishaupt- Oh, mortal man, is there nothing you can't be made to believe?
4591323
Reviewer Michael J. Edelman wrote of this book, "With Campbell as the putative sage and Moyers as his fawning acolyte, they put on a show that's a parody of Socratic dialogue." How true!
The ultimate contradiction in this sadly sacrosanct book of sophomoric sophistry is the statement to Campbell by Moyers, who has often claimed to be a Christian: "Far from undermining my faith, your work in mythology has liberated my faith from the cultural prisons to which it had been sentenced." Campbell was an atheist and a Darwinist. Note to Bill Moyers: there are no slime-snake-monkey people in the body of Christ. We're all descended from the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, through Noah and his wife. Did you get mixed up, Bill, and think Campbell was the apostle Paul?
I've spent years researching ancient art. My findings, including image after image of the art itself (what I like to call "evidence"), appear in these books&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Athena-and-Eden-The-Hidden-Meaning-of-the-Parthenon-s-East-Facade/dp/0970543816/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Athena and Eden: The Hidden Meaning of the Parthenon's East Facade</a>,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Athena-and-Kain-The-True-Meaning-of-Greek-Myth/dp/0970543824/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Athena and Kain: The True Meaning of Greek Myth</a>,<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Parthenon-Code-Mankind-s-History-in-Marble/dp/0970543832/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble</a>, and&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Noah-in-Ancient-Greek-Art/dp/0970543840/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Noah in Ancient Greek Art</a>.
None of Campbell's work was of any help at all to me in gaining a true understanding of what our ancestors were communicating to us in their art and literature. He didn't grasp the simple point that, for the most part, ancient art depicts HISTORY, not myth. Campbell's books lead away from truth, not toward it.
3151787
Everybody loves to play the role of iconoclast. Dispelling popular myths and dashing cherished beliefs is sexy.  Unfortunately for "Holocaust Analysts", as Irving cutely refers to himself and his anti-historical friends, the evidence doesn't indicate that Hitler was just a "patriot" whose aim was to return Germany to its former glory. Nor does it demonstrate that any of David Irving's other conclusions about Hitler, the Holocaust, or the Dresden Bombing campaign are correct.

Richard J Evans has excoriated the case for Holocaust denial and there is absolutely no way any honest researcher could continue to espouse skepticism over the Nazi's World War II atrocities. None of the arguments advanced by Irving's supporters to defend his theories stand up to the intellectual beating Evan's has served up in Lying about Hitler. Contrary to his cheerleaders' claims, Irving is not a great revisionist historian who seeks only to discover the truth about Hitler; he's an ideologue who parades his fallacious arguments continuously--despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary.

This is made obvious by Irving's deceitful attempts to exonerate Hitler of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the late 1930s and 1940s. According to Irving, Hitler was unaware of the slaughter taking place behind the eastern front because other high-ranking Nazis like Himmler and Goebbels intentionally kept him in the dark. Furthermore, according to Irving, Hitler was opposed to the brutality often ascribed to him by most historians. Hitler essentially had no policy of violence aimed at European Jews. The problem with this argument is that Irving had to distort, mistranslate, ignore, or otherwise obfuscate primary sources to make his half-baked theory plausible.

For example, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in his personal diary after the Night of the Broken Glass on November 9-10, 1938 that Hitler's views toward the Jews were "totally radical and aggressive" and that Hitler wanted to "take very sharp measures against the Jews." This diary passage alone implicates Hitler in the crimes committed against the Jews in Germany. How did Irving handle this admission from Goebbels? In his 1996 biography of Goebbels, Irving argued that Goebbels was lying! Irving claimed that Goebbels had been acting against Hitler's wishes but attempted to give the opposite impression in his diary! (pg 63)

Irving dealt with incriminating evidence surrounding the slaughter of Jews by the SS in a similar fashion. When confronted with statistics collected by SS officers tallying how many Jews they had machine-gunned, Irving claimed the officers were inflating the numbers to garner favor with Himmler. Irving called these statistics "meaningless" and insisted that these officers didn't "have time to count." (pg 115) Of course, as Evans points out, this is pure speculation on Irving's part.

These examples of Irving's fallacious scholarship go on and on. Evans exposes just about all of Irving's bogus revisions and smashes them to pieces.  Lying about Hitler is thoroughly researched, meticulously footnoted, and conclusively damning to Holocaust denialism as a whole and to Irving's arguments especially. Buy it, read it, and become smarter as a result.
3219828
This is a dangerous book because it has 'good stuff' mixed with lots of error. Scriptures are often 'truncated', lifted off pages out of context which changes the meaning, heavily relying on the worst Paraphrase (MSG), which seems 'off' at least 50% of the time, when compared to a reliable translation. Rick also takes a lot of 'license' in attributing 'feelings' to God, such as 'how to make God smile'. His description of what happens to us in heaven seemed strange. Scripture does indicate recognition, but no where does it say we are going to get a 'promotion' like our boss, as Rick claims. This idea of a promotion is consistent with a huge international apostate prophetic movement currently going on which talks about 'levels' of revelation and 'higher levels' in heaven and subtly 'new age' as well.

Within the book, Rick does say some 'good things' which is why I gave it two stars. He does present Christ as being the 'way' to heaven, but the gospel is watered down and slipped in between the pages in a 'piecemeal' way as if his audience would find the 'true gospel' too hard to accept. I found myself reading through several days of blatant error, then the next 'day' was excellent. This trend continued throughout the book. This is a 'touchy feely' book, which will appeal to the 'emotional side' of a person, captivating someone who does not bother to look up the scriptures in a good translation, which are footnoted and listed at the back of the book. Rick 'reads' like a very nice, person, who is very gullible,so he may not see the danger of some of his 'associations'.

To conclude- For anyone who chooses to read this book,try to not get caught up in how 'good it makes you feel'. If you do not know scripture well, I suggest looking up every scripture cited in his book (listed in the back) with the NIV,NASB,ESV,KJV,NKJV or NRSB,etc.,where weaker paraphrases are used. The weakest paraphrases used so lavishly are the MSG and CEV, but even the TEV And NLT were off at times.
1190328
The potential 5 star rating was affected by some research I was compelled to do concerning the validity of some information presented in this book.

The first English translation of the book of Enoch was done in 1821 by Richard Laurence, almost 100 years before the authors claim.  The word "Watcher" does in fact appear in the deluxe edition of this translation (1883) more than the two times the author states.  More on the level of ten to twelve times.  The author states that, "But they (The Watchers) were human nonetheless and I see no good reason to conclude otherwise."
This is of course his opinion, but there really is no objective reason to conclude this especially when considering what is written about these "Holy Ones," from which these Watchers came.  Chapter XIV #23 from the book of Enoch - "No angel was capable of penetrating to view the face of Him...Nor could any mortal behold Him."  Chap. XVII. Sect. IV #1 "...and when they pleased they assumed the likeness of men."  XXXVIII #4  "Neither shall they be capable of beholding the countenances of the Holy."  XXXIX #7 "All the holy and the elect sung before Him, in appearance like a blaze of fire."  #12 "Then my countenance became changed, until I was incapable of seeing." XLVI #1 "There I beheld the Ancient of Days, whose head was like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that of man."  LXX #1 "I beheld the sons of the holy angels treading on flaming fire....whose countenances were transparent as crystal." LXXXVIII #3 "I have begotten a son, unlike to other children.  He is not human; but resembling the offspring of the angels of heaven, is of a different nature from ours, being altogether unlike to us."  #10 ...and whose nature is not like the nature of man."  There are also other sections in Enoch referring to cows and sheep transforming into humans, as well as the excerpt in  Magicians itself about Isis turning into a sparrow.  Isn't the Egyptian belief is that "Gods can take on any form they choose"?

The author then goes onto state that the word "watcher" does not even appear in the Bible.  Not only does it appear, but in the exact context that should be expected.  Da. 4:13 "..a watcher and a holy one came down."  Da. 4:17 "..matter is by the decree of the watcher."  Jer. 4;16 "..that watchers come from a far country." Also, in Job 7:20, "watcher" refers to a "preserver", in J'g 1:24, "watchers" are referred to as "spies," and in M't 28:4 "watchers" are referred to as "keepers."
2836547
Dan Brown could've just wrote a regular murder mystery, and he might've got some good money from it. But that's not exactly what he did. Insted, he writes a book that totally assaults the Christian faith. I'm not a total Jesus freak, but I go to church, and I know my religion. About all of these so called, "facts" about christianity are completely false. Jesus never got married. There were no gospels telling that Jesus was just mortal. Constantine had nothing to do with the structure of the Bible. The book says that these "lost gospels" were burned by the Catholic Church, and that Constantine the Great assembled the gospels we know today. It also says that some of the "lost gospels" survived and were part of a collection of lost scrolls called the Deep Sea Scrolls, which were discovered in the 1940's.

In reality, there accually IS a collection of lost scrolls found in the 40's called the Deep Sea Scrolls. But those scrolls don't even mention the name Jesus Christ, let alone being a lost gospel.

Many church leaders have looked over many separate hand written Bible manuscripts, and they are completley the same, even word for word, to our Bible today. There are only 11 verses that were strangely added to today's Bible, and none of those even give a hint at suggesting anything that Dan Brown says in this book.

All these lies show that Dan Brown has either never looked into the acual facts, is completely ignorant to the acual facts, or is totally against the acual facts. Millions have already been fooled by this catastrophe. But you can save your faith if your a christian, by not reading this book or seeing the movie.
751108
This book presents an embarrassing and relentless display of authorial tendentiousness and ignorance. It is riddled with so many and such serious errors, both factual and methodological, that it is impossible for this book to have been subjected to any serious editorial review, least of all by competent scholars. To give but a few of myriad examples (the rest being discussed here[...]

# his treatment of the papacy links that institution's development to early Christological debates, claiming that "the doctrinal struggle over Jesus's nature...lay at the very foundation of the pope's claim to power. If Jesus was solely Divine [sic] in nature, then how could the pope legitimately claim to be the 'vicar of Christ'?" (83). I've written and especially read acres of papal history--silly and serious--and much else on the office, and not even the silliest and most jejune of commentators has ever come close to making a claim this absurd.

# he claims that "in 2001, Pope John Paul II expressed his sorrow to the Orthodox Church [for the Fourth Crusade] in his first visit to Orthodox territory, in Romania" (106). But the pope went to Romania in 1999, as anyone who can type "[...]" into a browser would easily find out. And the papal apology for the harm of the Crusades came in May 2001 in Athens, Greece. This is grade-school stuff. Does Little, Brown no longer employ fact-checkers or copy editors--or anyone capable of calling up the Vatican website to verify a few things?

There are many others, which should not surprise us because the author breezily tells us (p. 307) that he could not be bothered to do any actual research before writing this book, instead contenting himself with citations from Wikipedia and other oracles of sagacity. Even then he merely consulted them to "refine my memory." But how can one refine memories of what one neither knew nor understood in the first place?
2979973
All good lies have a bit of truth to them.  This book of course, is no exception.  Relying in part on historical information which today's "democracy is God-given and inevitable" crowd would find objectionable (which only speaks to the narrowness and ahistorical view of reality most modern westerners have), and lots of outright fabrication and innuendo, what you end up with is an "anti-Papist masterpiece".  Of course, anyone actually interested in actual Christianity, or a sober overview of Christian history will be left very disappointed.  The work is polemical (which isn't always a bad thing, of course);  it has a goal in mind, facts be damned.  If you want to understand Catholicism, read the various works on the lives of the Saints; pick up a good, simple catechism like the Baltimore series.  Indeed, I can think of any number of works better than this one as a place to start out.  Only the thoroughly ignorant, or the already convinced "anti-Catholic" fundamentalist, will be edified (let alone enjoy) this book.
642526
I am amazed that several (not many - and for good reason) on here actually encourage reading Dalcour's book.  The exegetical data is dreadfully biased & misleading.  For example, when discussing the anarthrous predicate nominative of John 1.1c, Dalcour appeals to the supposed "qualitative" force of the PN, citing Wallace's GGBB, Harner, et. al. for support.

What Dalcour fails to inform his readers is that on the same page he cites Wallace - Dr. Wallace equally states that the definitive or Oneness understanding of John 1.1c is "certainly possible grammatically" (though Wallace then gives reasons why he would not personally opt for such an interpretation, though many exegetes differ w. his reasons).  This is but one representative example of the type of shoddy research methods that appear(s) on almost every page of Dalcour's book.  His research is simply biased, misleading & clearly agenda-driven.

Further, as intimated in this book, Dalcour has no problem translating John 1.1 as "God was with God" - clear & open ditheism (not to mention how absolutely no reputable translation adopts Dalcour's quirky rendering).

It's my understanding that Dalcour has recently put out his 4th ed. - if it's anything like the first three, save your money.  At the beginning of the book Dalcour expresses amazement that the Bible "never says God is one person."  Not only is this entirely false (e.g., Galatians 3.20, The Classic Amplified Bible & Greek text), but perhaps Dalcour can direct us to the passage that specifically identifies God as "three distinct, divine, persons":____________?

In sum, what Dalcour demands of Oneness believers, he himself will never produce from the Scriptures.  Again, save your money.  Dalcour clearly has an axe to grind, but desperately needs to sharpen the axe!
4057600
Let me explain that I DIDN'T READ this book, therefore, my critique so far is more concerned with some of the author's claim that we find in the PRODUCT DESCRIPTION of the book, e.g. that "the Old Testament refers to medieval events" or that "Jesus was born in 1153".

The first doubt that arises is on the method the author has employed to draw his conclusions. For example, did he consider all the work of exegesis, of bible scholars, or of archaeology that somehow form the basis of the current time-line of events described in the Scriptures? It is obvious that anyone claiming such things must perform the additional work of re-shifting all the historical events that are chronologically related to the current time-line. For example, if Jesus has been crucified in 1186 as the author claims, then Ignatius -Bishop of Antioquia - that was killed in the Coliseum under the rule of the roman emperor Trajan would have been killed at the year 1293, which then implies that the roman empire is situated on the medieval times. Then, all the history from the fall of the roman empire till our days would have to be compressed considerably.

Also, take the chronological order of the popes from Bento XVI to Peter, a total of 266 popes. The author would have to conform the currently accepted 2000 years of pope service within roughly 1000 years.

Having said that, inevitably it comes to my mind Alan Sokal's hoax and I only hope the author is not doing the same, but to be sure of that one has to read it first. Even though I am quite convinced that his two claims in the "product description" of the book makes no sense, I would risk to give this book 3 stars based on faith that, whatever the argument he employs, it may be original, after all, Fomenko is an accomplished differential geometer and topologist.
533733
I have been marginally aware of G. K Chesterton, first through Robert W. Smith's works, and then later, discovering that a major character in the Sandman series by Neil Gaiman (Gilbert, aka Fiddler's Green) had been patterned after him. I have been reading a number of Infidels (Paine, Ingersoll, and Voltaire), and so am somewhat familiar w/this style of writing, and have somewhat become a fan of it.

 Unfortunately, when an author begins with attacking any rational and skeptical critic, insulting their intelligence, and inferring they are drooling idiots, then I am afraid my mind shuts down.  As Ingersoll observed, since the Church has been deprived of its instruments of torture, only one weapon is left, and that is slander (paraphrase). To call any skeptic illiterate, or accuse them of what is essentially brainlessness, is but a sugarcoated, sarcastic version of the ad hominem attack (and if the reader actually INVESTIGATES the writings of these skeptics, past and present, they will find that they are INDEED literate, and intelligent). He says this, this one about the early matriarchies: "matriarchy was simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remained fixed because all the fathers were fugitive and irresponsible." Who said this? Unknown. Sources cited? None. Moral Anarchy? I am not an advocate of political correctness, as I see it as subliminal censorship, but this coupled with his derisive trash about Asians, comparing Herodotus to a Chinaman, and saying the Asian is barely human (paraphrase)? And please, spare me the nonsense of societal antipathy. Bigot and sexist.  He goes on to attack the evolutionist, making fun of forensic science (but excuses for G.K: he had no idea how useful this is in reconstructing a human being in today's CSI labs). Again, the worst sort of Antinomianism, covered with flowery prose. Some of his imagery is wonderful; the conclusion was quite beautiful. But this errant nonsense about the 5 deaths of the Church? Please. As if the Spanish (or Germans) were abandoning their crosses during the French revolution. The Vatican was on the verge of closing its doors? And this idiocy about instinctive worship? Again, spare me. A child isolated, raised by wolves, NEVER starts praying: indeed, said child will behave as its environment dictates. His history is unsound; his psychology is simple egomania (this is how I would be, ergo, everyone else will be); he glosses over the glaring contradictions in the Bible with barely a blurb, simply dismissing them with a poetic hand, never addressing them; nor does he address the rivers of blood that wash up on the feet of Christ. The early church didn't survive simply because it was the best: it survived by crushing the opposition, and gaining a foothold in the Roman Empire via Constantine (who was, irony of ironies, an Arianist on his deathbed). And the wonderful rubbish of martyrdom: while there were those who died in the name of their Lord (RIP), the Christians only endured 12 years of actual persecution; the Romans were remarkably tolerant of other beliefs, and after Justin's martyrdom, an entire craze sprang up in the Christian community where members ACTUALLY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO GET MARTYRED. If C.S Lewis converted due to this long-winded, sophistic diatribe, then perhaps I shall skip reading anything by him. Words are but words, and rhetoric, however lofty and poetic, are not evidence of anything except that people will glorify the speaker if the words serve their best interest.

In conclusion: I have read many apologists, and thus far, they have failed the litmus test: that of logic.
1216456
While many of Mr. Ehrman's assertions sound good, he tries to apply modern ways of thinking to men who lived centuries ago.  This is not a reasonable thing to do.

For example, he is very concerned about the fact the scriptures were hand-copied for centuries, as were all books.  Yet he completely ignores the fact that there were people who made their living copying books.  They are called scribes.  This profession disappeared with the advent of the printing press, but prior to that it was a very important skill.  A scribe who could not accurately, and beautifully, copy text would not be able to work.  Mr. Ehrman's contempt for this profession is both obvious an intellectually dishonest.  After all he trusts other works, such as the writings of Ptolomy that predate the printing press, just not the Bible.

This book is simply not worth the space it takes up on a bookshelf.  But if you do want it, it should be displayed prominently next to other books that say the Apollo moon landings were faked, UFOs are really are from other planets and world will end next week.