Me being a Mets this book is one of my favorites of all time. It has everything from his sighning with the Mets in '69 to his induction into the Hall of fame in '91.

when i read this book, i though it was really good. helen went through a hard but good life.

I love this book Helen Keller? Downstairs Helen's mother and father ate their supper sadly because their daughter acted up on their birthday? It is a good book.

All right, I have to admit that this book may be a plain old detective story throughout the book, but if you just be patient it gets better towards the end, such as Nancy's daring attempts (and close ones) to catch the criminals. Also, in one way this book can be sort of hilarious near the middle. It's where Senor Segovia says, "I'm sure I know where Carson Drew is, because of a source of information I have." Yeah right, like they can get him that easily! But still, it's funny and later Segovia is correct. So it's a good book, even though that part may have been the author's big mistake.

This book was neat because of the two strange cases, and just why would theives not take anything. Still, it became clear of the story. I surely knew who was suspicous. However I didn't know what the outcome was and I was glad I didn't know. It was also surprising that there are these "sink holes" in Florida! I'm just glad that I read this book and that it is so good.

Nancy and friends work on two mysteries while in Florida. One an elderly lady claims her house is frequently burglarized and her home ransacked but nothing is ever taken. The other, Nancy must find a way to stop an international ring of stamp forgers and smugglers.

This book is one in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series, which presents the view of various (mostly) Evangelical writers on theological subjects. This book is sorely needed because Evangelical apologists have had a history of writing critically and polemically of one another (one thinks of the Clark/Van Til debate), with the result of the layman having a difficult time deciding among the various positions.

The problem with this book is either that the writers are too timid or are more irenic than their label would indicate. There are three authors who present variations on the traditional approach: the classical method (Craig), the evidential method (Habermas), and the cumulative case method (Feinberg). These approaches are quite similar, although some differences do arise. When the reader gets to John Frame's presuppositional method, he expects to get a starkly different approach. After all, Van Til was notorious for attacking "traditional" apologetics as "Roman Catholic" or "Arminian." Well, Frame tells us that he agrees with most of what Craig writes. The final writer, Kelly James Clark (who represents the "Reformed epistemological method"), says the same thing.

Perhaps the editor could have selected a follower of Gordon Clark (a rationalist who denied the proofs of God's existence) or a fideist to present a contrasting apologetic method.

Before I write anything, I would like to suggest that the reader of "Five Views on Apologetics" first read "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Bow and Robert Bowman, Jr. (NavPress). Doing so will give you a good overview of the methodology taken by the different positions; it would be akin to reading a preview of this afternoon's football game, with a summary of the players and the strategy that will be used fully explained.

Overall "Five Views on Apologetics" is worthwhile for the serious-minded Christian. I do like these "View" books because they allow all sides to take part in a dialogue that certainly has more potential to get things accomplished rather than a free-for-all live debate. All sides get to give their side with succeeding rebuttals. This book certainly had some lively discussion as all of the participants had their own ideas of how apologetics should be handled. The five positions were: William Lane Craig (classical); Gary Habermas (evidential); Paul Feinberg (cumulative); John Frame (presuppositional); Kelly James Clark (Reformed Epistemological).

However, there were three weak points that I need to point out. First, I'm not sure the debaters were the best representatives of the positions they defended. For instance, Craig could be described as a combination classicist/evidentialist. Much of what he said could have been written by Habermas, as even Habermas admitted. Feinberg had, I believe, the weakest argumentation, as I just never did track with his thoughs. Meanwhile, Frame certainly has his own twist on Van Til's ideas, yet these twists make his position a "kinder, gentler" version of Reformed apologetics and thus is not truly representative of Van Tillians--and there are plenty of these thinkers out there. And Clark might as well let Alvin Plantinga write his section since Clark seemed to mention Plantinga in practically every paragraph.

Second, it is apparent that much of the differences quickly became similarities by the end of the book. In fact, Craig even mentioned how he appreciated the similarities the debaters had. If this is so, then why write the book in the first place? In fact, more than once a respondent to another's position declared, in essence, "Why, that could have been me writing! I think--fill in the name--really is a--fill in the position--like I am." This attitude prevailed through much of the book, especially in the concluding comments. (At the same time, perhaps we should rejoice that in a book of Christian division, so many similarities could be found!)

Finally, I think the book got a little too technical in some areas, especially by several of the writers. I think Craig is a master philosopher, and I've seen Bayes' Theorem before, but I'm still scratching my head trying to understand several pages of formulas he put together to support one of his points. Perhaps with some personal explanation I could better understand, but I'm thinking many reading this book would have been totally lost (as I humbly admit I was). Although I didn't agree with his stance, I thought John Frame did the best in explaining his philosophy in the simplist, most logical way possible.

Despite what I feel are its shortcomings, I do recommend this book for the serious student who is interested in apologetics. I enjoyed it very much and was certainly enlightened about the role apologetics takes in the Christian's life.

Few books have seriously tackled apologetic method, or how Christianity should be defended rationally. The last book I know of that surveyed options in this regard was Gordon Lewis, "Testing Christianity's Truth Claims" (Moody Press, 1976; republished by University Press of America).

This book presents five different approaches, each represented by one of its exponents: Classical Apologetics (William Lane Craig), Evidentialism (Gary Habermas), Culumulative Case Method (Paul Feinberg), Presuppositionalism (John Frame), and Reformed Epistemology (Kelly James Clark).

Much ground is covered concerning the Bible's approach to apologetics, where apologetic arguments should begin, how certain arguments for Christianity are, and so on. I will simply make a few comments.

The presentations by Craig and Habermas are the most worthwhile because they are the most intellectual rigorous and well-documented. They also tend to agree with each on most things and reinforce each others views. While I tend to favor a cumulative case method (influenced by E.J. Carnell and Francis Schaeffer, but with more appreciation for natural theology), Feinberg's comments are the weakest by far. He never mentions the leading exponent of this view in our generation (Carnell) nor Carnell's apt and well-published student (and my esteemed colleague), Dr. Gordon Lewis. Not one word about either one! His comments are brief, his documentation is thin, and he fails to advance anything very creative or helpful, I'm afraid. A better person should have been chosen, such as Gordon Lewis. Frame gives his "kinder, gentler" version of Cornelius Van Til, which still suffers from the same kinds of problems--most notably the fallacy of begging the question in favor of Christianity. Nevertheless, the notion of a "transcendental argument" for theism is a good one, but it should not carry all the weight of apologetics. Clark's material is philosophically well-informed (one would expect this of a student of Alvin Plantinga!), but apologetically timid. Clark almost sounds like a skeptic at times.

A few bones more bones to pick. The editor refers to Francis Schaeffer as a presuppositionalist. This is false; he was a verificationist with more in common with Carnell than with Van Til. Gordon Lewis's fine essay on Schaeffer's apologetic method in "Reflections on Francis Schaeffer" makes this very clear. None of the writers address the great apologetic resources found in Blaise Pascal. I also found at least two grammatical errors.

Nevertheless, as a professor of philosophy at a theological seminary who teaches apologetics, I found this volume very helpful and useful. But let's not get so involved in methodological concerns that we fail to go out in the world and defend our Christian faith as objectively true, existentially vital, and rationally compelling (Jude 3)!

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Denver Seminary

BOOK REVIEW

Can Roger solve the case or will the silver skull be gone forever?

This mystery book was about a boy named Roger who was invited to a silver home-tour. Roger was in charge of the guest book. He was also to keep track of suspicious-looking people on the tour. Roger became over anxious when he spotted two men who he thought might have stolen the silver skull. He soon found to that he and made a mistake as far as they were concerned but then became suspicious again. Roger himself overheard an egg customer of his own, Colonel Byrd, discussing the silver skull, which had belonged to Mrs. Hargrove but had recently disappeared. Roger began to investigate and started following the Colonel.

When he gathered enough information, he notified the police but not before getting involved in close call with the Colonel and his gang. The police were finally able to pin the theft on the Colonel.

Roger was congratulated and he went home to rest in his office tree house.

The plot of the book was about the theft of the silver skull from Mrs. Hargrove's house and how the crime was solved and who did it.

I liked the book because it kept the thief a secret until the end and it was easy to follow.

While in a former mining town near Lake Tahoe to investgate the disappearance of a movie actor, Frank and Joe become involved in a decades old feud between the town's youth. Before I read the book, I didn't expect it to be very good, but I was pleasantly surprised to find it well written and with an intriguing plot.

I really liked this book. the only reason i gave it 4 stars waz because i wanted to know what happened to a few characters that weren't mention in these books. But all in all, i liked this book and would reccomend it to all kids between the ages of 8 and 14.

This book is really good. Usually, I give 5 stars to Nancy Drew books, but I thought this book could've had more mystery in it. It was *very* suspenseful, though, and it had a good plot. But, honestly, it didn't interest me very much. I got bored with it after a while, because there wasn't much mystery. But read it anyways. You might like it!

i liked this book because it was VERY suspenseful and full of surprises. usually i give 5 stars to most of the nancy drew books that i read, but this one probably just deserved 3 stars. the reason is because to me, it didn't have much mystery in it. i mean, it did have mystery, but honestly, i just don't think that it had enough. but, every person is different, so read the book if you want to and see for yourself how you like it!

Nancy is on a tour of Europe and discovers that their leader is on a secret mission to help 10 refugee children. This is more of a spy mystery but it was very good anyway.

Frank and Joe go to Florida to help prevent a ruthless communications firm from sabotaging the launch of another firm's satellite and, also, end up looking for two porpoises stolen from an employee of the space center. For whatever reason, this book never kept my interest. Chet was the only one of the Hardy's friends to make an appearance in this book and, while he does go to Florida, he is absent from most of the book (I won't spoil why for anyone who does choose to read the book). There wasn't much action in the book and the ending was horrible. Some may like this book, but I didn't.

The Hardys go undercover at NASA and end up tracking down porpoises - all as part of the same case! This is a good kids book. I recommend it to all fans of this series.

This book is about satellites and porpoises, and they even have something to do with each other. A good Hardy Boys mystery for kids.

This book shows many cases, gives rarity & tell who madethe cases. There is almost no text at all in this book, it isbasically a picture book. The book is lacking in information on the different companies that made cases & on when the cases were made. For those who do not know about the cases a company name is not helpful without the company background. Without the time they were made they are not helpful in dating the images they hold. The book is lacking in that it does not show a single top folding case from the early years of photography c1839 to 1842/43. You would be better off getting the books 'Union Cases' by Krainik & Walvoord & 'American Minature Case Art' by Rinhart. The two books I recommend give more information on the cases & are not just a bunch of pretty pictures. Do not waste your money.

A "must have" reference book and price guide if one collects photo cases.Contains photographs of all cases from previously published books, and much, much more. Rated excellent.