Now these are the goals uniquely noticed upon reading the book; goals that the authors seemingly don’t intend. On their website they say that the goal of the book is to show “how and why old-earth views, which dominated Christians in the 19th and early 20th century, fell out of favor with modern conservative Christians because of the meteoric rise of a particular view of end-times prophecy” and to explain “how recent developments in biblical studies regarding biblical prophecy could very well be the undoing of modern young-earth creationism” by ultimately showing “the intimate connection between the beginning of the Bible and the end.”

The goals in the book, stated and unstated, are most obviously ambitious.

The Good of the book is that it tries to develop another eschatological construct that takes a full view of Scripture. In this, the heart of the book is most exceedingly Protestant: willing to reexamine thinking in regards to hermeneutics, eschatology and inter-covenantal relationships; unabashadly supporting a view of Scripture that sees everything as established. The book also has no problem whatsoever reexamining passages of Scripture in light of other passages. In fact (in quite an unexpected move) the book interprets the earlier portions of Scripture by the last portions. This canonical methodology is well-known, but I have rarely seen it applied from the Point of View of the book of Revelation working backwards to Genesis. Americans with a view toward Inerrancy may find that this is only possible when ones hermeneutic sees every verse as God authored (which may be bad or good depending on which side of the pond one finds themself).

The Bad of the book is that the authors’ goals have resulted in abject failure. Perhaps if the authors opted for a single channel (maybe the dethronement of Dispensationalism; or maybe the attack on Young Earth Creationism; or even a case for a Reverse Hermeneutic) the authors could have squeezed out a trilogy culminating in Covenant Creationism. Instead the book muddles through disparate topics and never makes a real connection between them.

Tthe authors perform little to no exegesis, ignore original languages (save when the original language contains a word that might support them), and flip-flop through a limited translation pool that suit their need at the given moment: usually the NIV, NKJV and once Young’s Literal Translation. I don’t recall the RSV at all, nor the NASB, and not even a citation of the robust NET found (and accessible) online.

Another bad is the logic in the book. You can read the first chapter online, but the rest of the book reads the same way. The authors argue that since other eschatological views are hard-to-understand therefore they came up with an Easy View that makes Biblical sense of it all. Indeed, the very chapter(s) where they deal with this Biblical sense (and introduce their argument as being solely Biblical), they spend more time citing Josephus (apparently the Second Canon) or explaining how Sumerian Tablets have some bearing on Genesis than they do spending time making Biblical sense.

Quite frankly, and as a counterexample, the plethora of views of the Atonement are quite varied and difficult; I can’t imagine losing them on the off-chance that they are difficult to understand. The same might apply to Theology Proper and Eschatology. Dig, good sirs!

The Ugly of the book is Legion. I might as well put a full stop and end there but tarry on I will.

The book is rife with categorical confusions and mistakes. For example, the authors are keen on calling any view of an expected second coming premillenialism or dispensationalism when amillenialists and postmillennialists all expect a second coming as much as any back woods dispensationalist. At one point, the authors actually have the audacity to use the term Dispensational Creationism, which I’m still trying to understand what they meant (it invoked, in my mind, an image of a creation of Jews separate from the physical creation of gentiles—and maybe with a gap on the sixth day for the creation of the church!). As if that injury isn’t enough, they add insult to their crime by calling Old Earth Creationists “Partial Dispensationalists” (p200)!

One can only assume that they sought a proper and acceptable curse word with the tone of skubulon but, not being able to find one in the King’s English, resorted to “Dispensationalism” as a proper fit. Giving the old Darbyites a good ribbing every now and then is to be applauded, but I tend to do it with what they actually said (about Israel and the Church) and not what I think they said (the earth was created either millions of years ago or 10,000 years ago–which has little to nothing to do with most Eschatological Constructs).

On another note, the authors actually label those who expect a New Creation (or even a renovated creation) as Gnostics (p204—because they believe the Fall has affected this creation) and then proceeds to speak of reality having an invisible, yet close, “heaven” where people who die pass easily into leaving their material selves behind (pg 211,212) which is abject Platonic thought ensconced in Gnosticism. Tthe difference in the authors’ Platonism is that they see the current creation as good (according to Genesis 1) and actually state that since Death and Evil occurred before the Fall, it makes “sense to expect Death and Evil after the redemption” (p217). Odd view of Good, that.

As if that all wasn’t bad enough, the authors make it a constant point to name and claim people and put them in their Full Preterist camp. RC Sproul, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine all wind up becoming proponents for Full Preterism (and their much beloved Chilton and Gentry, obviously) while the reknowned proponents and leaders of the Dispensational Creationist camp are Hamm, Morris, LaHaye and Scoffield. Ryrie is quoted once, Darby is attributed with stealing something he wrote in 1827 from a girl who saw a vision in 1830 (who Darby thought was demon possessed) , and with that the case against Dispensational Creationism is sealed.

Lastly, some odds and ends: the Bibliography is pitiable; the parousia has happened; and citations of other “Full Preterists” (which may sound like a recapitulation but bear with me). I often like to go into the Bibliography and hunt down the original sources to see what others said in their own context. The book ends stating that the parousia has occurred which should ably surprise the already cited Athanasius, St. Augustine and RC Sproul –all who expect the parousia to come. In the end, I not only thought the book was a failure, but I had little trust in the scholarship (if any) behind the book and even less trust at the orthodoxy.

Conclusion: I can safely say that anyone who wants to study Preterism should happily ignore this book and read David Chilton (who, rumors say, eventually became a Full Preterist after his books were published) or Kenneth Gentry (who rejects Full Preterism outright) or FF Bruce, who is a Preterist (not Full Preterist) that stayed within the circles of the Plymouth Brethren movement, wallowing in their torrid “Dispensational Creationism”.

I’m trying to attach a word document that goes into more detail—although not torrid detail—in regards to the problems in the book. It includes a partial bibliography and footnotes that can direct a reader to properly research the errors. Readers Beware: there hasn’t been a book this bad since Ken Hamm’s Book of Answers. That should give all readers pause.

PDF Review

I love the smell of book in the morning!

The Good of the book is several. It runs at 147 pages without the index making it a quick and easy read.

The fallacies that are covered touch a wide area in Biblical studies such as word-study, grammar, logic, presuppositions, literary concerns and even history. The use in this is immediately obvious when one can quickly employ the solutions to very common problems.

At one point he even deals with the use of the word love (agapeo) throughout the New Testament and the use of the word love (phileo) in the last chapter of John. That alone should be worth the very small amount that I paid on the title.

The Bad of the book is limited. I couldn’t really find anything specifically bad except that it was too short. The grammatical section of the book borders on difficult reading, but that not on account of being versed in Greek but likely for not being well-versed in the grammatical breadth of the English language. I found myself reading through the section several times to come to terms with what Carson was saying. I tend to blame authors for that but in this case, dealing with Greek Grammar, I took the blame instead.

The section also made me look into getting my hands on this software he called GramCord, and I happily put that recommendation here for anyone who spots this post.

If I was forced to state a bad is that the book really was too short. As a basic overview of some of the exegetical fallacies, the book is fine as it stands but one really would appreciate something that covers the full breadth of things. Even his final section leaves the door open to exploring even more fallacies (specifically in the structural or literary sort) but he states that since the book isn’t meant to be comprehensive, he won’t get into it.

The Ugly is the jacket. We all judge books by their covers and this jacket is subpar to say the least. You would think that someone with the acumen of Carson and the backing of his publishing house would have the clout to get a decent cover. Such apparently is not the case.

I will therefore also review blogs on this site, knowing that it seems fairly cowardly to do this anonymously, but also knowing that this way I don’t have to stand back as hypocritical when I’m kind (or not kind) to other sites.

Well, at least I hope that is what I can do.

The Good of the book is that we get to enjoy more Lecter and even more of Harris’ subtle writing with which he can paint a very well canvassed image with the barest of strokes. Starling remains virtually undescribed yet you automatically know what she “feels like”. Indeed, she stands out as the star in this book (unlike the movie where Hopkins is very much the star).

The Bad of the Book is that, with its quick pace you feel like the book should have been longer. Even the descriptions of crime, not overtly gory, are still interesting enough to create in one the desire to peek behind the curtain. Even this, isn’t a bad—I wanted more.

There Ugly of this book is non-existant.

The author of the book seeks to give us a basic overview and introduction to several worldviews beginning from the author’s own worldview (Christian Theism) all the way through the New Age Movement. The author is not trying to indoctrinate us in every point found in the worldview or even the major divisions throughout but he wishes to underscore some major features and question some major problems. By outright stating that his book is focused on overview the Author has saved himself from an embarrassing situation; not being able to accomplish his goal. Thankfully, he made sure to insert that disclaimer.

The Good of the book is just as possible to be listed as a bad: the Bibliography. The meat of the book comes in 219 pages with bibliographical notes that bring the count up to 241 (The remaining 5 pages are devoted to the index). Those biographical notes are a blessing for anyone (and this should be everyone) wanting to dig further into the material and are stated as such by the author. This edition actually features a much appreciated rewrite of the New Age movement section in light of how much has happened from 76 to 88. The worldviews are given pretty fair treatment considering what the author is doing (overview and not in-depth apologetics). The language is fitting with the subject and as worldviews grow increasingly complex the author stands with that view and exposes us to the language being used.

The Bad of the book is that you work your way through the book nodding your head at the overviews until you finally arrive at the Bibliography where you feel you can actually do some good reading. That’s problematic for any book title. The books should stand on their own and make you desire further reading. The book could have been longer and still accomplished its overview goal while simultaneously shedding some light on alternate worldviews. I find all of that pretty much a shame.

The Ugly of the book is that tThe theistic section should have covered different theistic worldviews. I know his purpose was to give an overview and finally summarize how each of these fall short but by ignoring alternate theisms he doesn’t really underscore how Christian Theism stands out. In this book it seems that it’s either Christian Theism or Naturalism and all that grows out of that. Failing to mention, say Islamic Theism, is a huge oversight and one that can leave the reader saying “fine, naturalism is absurd but why not believe in Thor or the Great Spaghetti Monster instead of the Christian God?”

I also think that the nihilism section may have consisted of some ungrounded generalizations for instance he opens that chapter with “Nihilism is more a feeling than a philosophy. Strictly speaking, nihilism is not a philosophy at all.” After this he proceeds to show how nihilism leads to despair and despair is the teaching of nihilism that grows out of a naturalistic framework. If he established it up front I wouldn’t be as critical.

In conclusion, the book is not worth outright buying but it is worth picking up and thumbing to the index. If you’re near a photocopier, spend the money to make a copy and then make your way to the library.