I proudly declare that I am a long time fan of William F. Buckley Jr. and that this is a very good book. This story is a very enjoyable read. The writing is fine, as one would expect from reading Mr. Buckley's forty books. But this story also has an emotional tone that is, if not sad, at least elegiac. Its nostalgic melancholy sounds a new chord in Mr. Buckley's compositions. There was a touch of it in Tucker's Last Stand and Brothers No More, but this is softer and even a bit, well, if not sweet at least sweeter. I loved it.

Elvis is treated with respect and honesty while the character Mr. Buckley creates, Orson Killere, stands in for the Baby Boomers who were and still are fans of the King. This isn't the place for an analysis of all the ways Orson embodies my generation, but he is wonderfully drawn. You will enjoy getting to know him for his strengths and even his all-too-human weaknesses.

Thanks, Mr. Buckley for another gem.

Go figure: Bill Buckley writes a novel about ... Elvis Presley? And the book is ... great? But indeed, Buckley has taken on The King, and he has pulled it off, smashingly. I've read several of Buckley's books, and "Elvis in the Morning" is his best, by far. The entire plot and situation -- Elvis's friendship with Orson, a (historically fictional) young Army brat fan who is befriended by Elvis in Germany (when he was Corporal Presley), who becomes his confidante until Elvis's death, and who is the childhood best friend of Priscilla (who, as we all know, ends up in Graceland) -- are treated with a tenderness and a gentleness that I have never seen from Buckley before, or for that matter from very few other writers. Elvis is portrayed with depth, in striking contrast to the one-dimensional cartoon character treatment he now gets, and Buckley, better know as an Apostle of Bach, is unafraid to sing the praises of Elvis's glorious voice and love of music (and people .. and, sadly, pills). There are no glitches nor loose ends; there's nothing contrived -- it's just a very pleasant read that goes all too fast. The dialogue is superior: again, the best Buckley has ever done. This is a great vacation read for anyone, whether a fan of Buckley, Elvis, or just good writing.

It's a lot of fun to see debonair and sophisticated William Buckley drop his erudite (often pedantic) airs and just write for the fun of it (or as one fan noted, "so the rest of us can understand what he's saying!"). In "Elvis in the Morning," Buckley, the noted politico pundit, takes an unlikely subject (for him) and develops/presents it in a fascinating, readable, and enjoyable manner.

To say his prose moves rapidly is an understatement, as this clever--yet in places ever so poignant--novel moves with a real rock 'n roll upbeat, although hardly taking time for the traditional chorus rounds! Orson Killere is the young son of a German mother who works for the US Army in Wiesbaden. A devout Presley fan, he gets caught stealing Elvis records at the local PX. Elvis, stationed nearby, hears about it and arranges for a meeting. They become lifelong friends and confidents.

This is not the story of Elvis, but of Orson, or "Killer," as Elvis playfully calls him. Elvis, of course, is the pivotal point of the book, as like a proper musical recitative (or even leitmotiv), we keep coming back to him, continually until the King's death. This relationship between the two--often symbiotic, often close--make a fascinating story, whether one is an Elvis fan or not.

While this is a work of fiction, Buckley exercises literary license here and there, but his research is thorough and can't be faulted (after all, remember, this is fiction). His ability to capture the landscape and atmosphere is unquestioned and Buckley shows once again that reading (and in his case,writing) is also a fun undertaking. "Elvis in the Morning" is an odyssey or sorts and that said, don't expect to find the proverbial Trojan horse; just think of Orson as Cassandra, knowing what lies ahead but powerless to stop the inevitable. (Billyjhobbs@tyler.net)

I think that if you are into literature than you might like this book but I think that it wasnt as great as my professor said it was going to be

I read this book for OAC english. It is very hard to understand when Darl Narrates. Other than that it is a well written novel.
Knibb high football rules

i love the way willian faulkner wrote this book,u get each characters own thoughts, and personal expierences of the adventure this family went through. In the begining of the book, i guess it was because theyre were so many diferent nerators, it was kind of confusing, and hard to get into. But as i progressed through the book i found myself not being able to put the book down in curiosity of what would lie before me in the folowing chapters. i dont read much but i enjoyed this book.

This is a tragic book in a lot of ways. It is a reminder that America has not fullfilled her promise to all of her children. It would be great to read a book like this as an object lesson in the bigotry of the past. We have made some progress but there is still much to be done. James Weldon Johnson produced a wrenching tale. That it is somewhat autobiographical adds to the ambivalent narration. First the narrator feels shame in his heritage but then grows to accept himself and feel pride in who he is. This tells a tale that America is often loathe to hear but it is important nonetheless. The aspect of a mulatto man passing for white is sad. One should be allowed to feel pride in multiethnicity. This is a horrible stain on our culture that so many people had to live in denial of who they really were. This book is a valuable document of America's dark side. I would hope that it experiences a much deserved revival now that evidence of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings has reopened the discussion on this sad piece of our history. Read this book and weep but most of all read this book and learn.

An autobiographical tale of a very smart man, ( who is part black / park white ) raised in the north who discovers the south in his late teen years. It is a story of discovery of the world as he learns music, hard work, love, and the dark side of life.

I didn't get the doom and gloom impression of the south from this author, however, one must remember that the author here can pass for white. However, at the end of the book, Johnson regrets not having taken part in the civil rights issues of the day and wonders if he has forsaken his race for a wife, children, and monetary success. A bit of a rushed ending, but was very informative and interesting to read.

For a book which was first published in 1912, this is an amazingly relevant work for today. Johnson's novel (hidden in the form of an autobiography) graphically looks at relations between the races in American. The nameless main character is born in the South to an African-American mother and a white Southern aristocrat. He and his mother move to Connecticut when he is very young, allowing Johnson to show us the benevolent face of pervasive racism of the United States. Johnson avoids the easy "good" vs. "evil" view of the oppressed vs. the oppressors. Instead, the narrator becomes a permanent outcast, returning to the South upon the death of his mother and then to the ragtime era New York City. The style of the novel is clear and extremely readable--and very current. The end of the novel dives deep into the issue of racism, causing both black and white readers to question their long-held assumptions about who they are and who they appear to be to others.

It's sad and sickening that people buy such a book. It claims it's "science" only because the author realizes that cracked ideas like this serve no purpose in reality.

The author uses linguistics and fallacies to trick their audience (most likely a group of bible thumpers with no interest in truth) to believe what they say. However, this book lies about evidence, and twists evidence to fit this scheme.

The world is a big place with many deceptive egomaniacs. If you seek the truth for truths sake, stay away from religious mythology and be a commander of science...

This book confronts the true issue of the evolution argument: the philosophy. The naysayers who claim that there must be someone who designed a creator are simply uneducated in philosophy. Evolution is Naturalism, repackaged and sold as "science" and absolute truth. Naturalism was the beginning of philosophical ideas until other philosophies replaced it. Now it's back in the mainstream, and those who have never studied philosophy are being taken in by its claims. The contributors each make a solid point about the idea of intelligent design and the problems in pure naturalist philosophy. By reading this book, you can understand the true argument here. It is philosophy, not science, and it should never be displayed as science, because that is incorrect.

A previous reviewer mused:

"this book makes no sense, and cannot answer the fundamental logical inconsistency of the creationist argument. if coherence in structure in design presupposes a creator, who then created the structure of this creator? there then must have been a higher upper creator, who in turn must have had a creator, ad infinitum. if you are a creationist you will love this book, otherwise it is a waste of time."

Evidently, the book was not read. Dr. Dembski (editor) and the contributing works detail and critique the logical and structrual evidence of design and information extant in the universe.

The response of the "reviewer" quoted above expresses [a] that the book was not read, else why not address at least *some* of its content (or essential thesis), and [b] he or she was simply expressing their ignorance of the issues and of basic theology.

Modern science is in essential agreement that the universe has not always existed--it had a *beginning*, even time itself is said to have come "into being" at some specific point in the past.

Theology does not argue that God--the "Intelligent Designer"--merely preceded the universe, but that the Intelligent Designer is transcendent to it and is eternal. As such, his question is a non sequitor; it is illogical and pointless to ask, "who made this eternal uncreated intelligent being?"

An eternal, uncreated designer does not have a beginning or a creator. The "reviewer" is confused and confusing the categories of a infinite necessary being and a finite contigent being. This is a very low level, hack objection, but, sadly, we do still hear it from time to time.

Now, if the argument of theism were that the Intelligent Designer merely preceeded the universe, then there would be legitimate complaint--but no such thesis is postulated by theism.

So, we do have, by concensus of empirical science, a universe that did not always exist and came into existence sometime in the finite past. Theism postulates a transcendent, eternal intelligent Being that has always existed--indeed, that even created time itself and exists outside of the space-time universe.

Read the book for yourself. And if you want to understand basic issues of theism, get a good systematic theology.

In the fourth installment of the Leatherstocking Tales, Cooper introduces a nautical theme upon the surface and along the shores of Lake Ontario. The Pathfinder is ultimately a love story tinged with the conspiracy of treason, though it takes no extra-sensory perception to uncover the traitor long before he is exposed in the book. Cap, a grizzled saltwater veteran, accompanies his niece to visit her father stationed at the British outpost of Fort Oswego, NY. Once there, the two become embroiled in the confrontation between England, France, and their Native American allies for control of the lake. Cap is dismissive of landlubbers and "freshwater ponds", such as he describes Ontario, setting the stage for his mind to be turned by the derring-do of inland waterman, Jasper Western. Indeed, Cap is so outspoken in his contempt for the ways of his new found associates, that he becomes somewhat of an annoyance to the reader. Cooper chose to give the character little in the way of redeeming qualities nearly spoiling the pleasure one takes in Cap's ultimate and grudging respect for the wilderness and the men who master it. Such a thoroughly boorish character simply creates no emotional connection. But, Cap isn't guilty of treason. You'll spot the traitor shortly after he appears.

The Pathfinder is formulaic, utterly predictable, and, at times, almost childlike in substance, but throughout, as in all other Leatherstocking Tales, radiates the simple goodness, manly deportment, and rustic charm of Nathaniel Bumppo. Indeed, Bumppo as a character is so masterfully wrought that Cooper could place him in a melon patch for the duration of a book and still manage to eke out a classic. Having previously read The Pioneers, The Last of the Mohicans, and The Prairie, I find The Pathfinder the weaker of the four, but fourth in favor in this wonderful series of stories isn't any black mark. Indeed, it qualifies The Pathfinder as yet another loveable yarn from the pen of James Fenimore Cooper. 4+ stars.

In this, the third Leatherstocking tale chronologically (after Deerslayer and Last of the Mohicans), James Fenimore Cooper takes us, once again, to his vision of pure, unadultered, nature. Once again he weaves a tale around his ideas of morality, race, and religion. This time around Leatherstocking (known here as Pathfinder) is the pursuer of love, whereas before (in Deerslayer) he was the pursued.

These three books are the only ones that I have read to this point, and it is true that both this and the Deerslayer are more of romances than the Last of the Mohicans, which is an adventure.
Alot of people give the other books in the series flack because they are expecting the same as what they read in Last of the Mohicans. However, if you begin reading the book without those preconcived notions leading to disappointment, I think you will find that the other books are equally entertaining

All three are great books and I highly recommend them all.

I originally wanted to read the Last of the Mohicans because of the very enjoyable movie but I picked up this book and chose to read it first. I do not regret my decision. I was unaware when I began reading this book in the Leatherstocking series that it was not the first book in the series. A reader who has not read other books in the series can feel confident that they won't feel lost if they start reading this book. The book portrays very detailed images of the forests, lakes, rivers, and people of the French and Indian War time period during the 18th century. The character development and plot are very well done. The book also gives a glimpse of the harsh realities of war during this time period. The writing style of the book is also fascinating and reminds me, at times, of epic poetry. I highly recommend it.

History can be used to tell some smashing stories. Cormac McCarthy used the real Glanton gang for the plot lines and characters for "Blood Meridian." Larry McMurtry used the real Charles Goodnight/Oliver Loving story for "Lonesome Dove." But both authors honored the facts of their stories, and they brought imagination and empathy to the retelling.

Mr. Huebner brings only blood and gore, written in a thick style that turns oddly funny about halfway. How many times can you describe generals drinking whiskey by a fire? Four, maybe five, in this book. It's "Copy and Paste" run amuck. Every time a soldier fires a gun you're ankle deep in teeth, brains, blood, and bone. I can take a large dose of gore, but here it is just description. How many times can you shoot an Indian in the chest with a single-shot carbine before he falls down? Three, maybe four, in this book.

If you don't mind strings of cliches, history thrown into a corn popper, Indian skirmishes that turn into Vietnam-style assaults, zero character depth, then maybe you won't mind "American by Blood." But the book is just a bad cavalry movie from the 1950s updated with blood and gore in the name of realism, with a 1980s PC overlay.

I did like the title and the cover.

What a chore to read this first novel by Huebner! War at its worst is sometimes difficult to read about and trying to imagine the horrific details if you have never been exposed to blood and death is sometimes impossible. Knowing that our younger generations have had to fight in a war sometime, some place since 1776 doesn't make us non-veterans any more undrstanding. The author tries tomake you live the fighters' emotions by shocking you with more gory detail than you can assimilate thru his style of writing. If you have read the book once, you have read it twice because you have to keep reading the page over once or twice to see who "he" is and whether it happened to Huebner(Gus), Bradley(James) or Gentle (William). These men are real people set in the novel about the slaughter of the Native American tribes ordered by our government to clear the land of these "savages" so the white people could settle down in peace on the grounds soaked with the blood of both races. Mr. Huebner writes in an unusual way; with no quotation marks and a minimum of other punctuations, you become confused as to who said or did what. I forced my way thru to the final chapters where the author spent more time "bringing you down" from an emotional high by describing the beauty of the countryside. In this country's most costly mistake, the leaders refused to believe that "red" and white could co-exist. Beautiful cultures were destroyed by men with a vengence, especially after Custer's stupidity at the LittleBighorn. If any one peoples should be finacially awarded for their mistreatment, it should be the American Tribes whose land we sit on today. When you read this novel you will wonder "why didn't the soldier just give up and go home"instead of "just following orders." This book will make you rethink our American rights. Too much gore and the writing style dropped my rating from 5 to 4 stars. There was a place called "Pennsyl-tucky" when West Virginia was part of Pennsylvania!

I enjoyed this book on so many levels...the rich historical figures, the prose and style, the social context (was the aftermath of Little Big Horn America's Balkan-like "Final Solution")and most importantly as a view to man's struggles with himself. Huebner investigates what the days following Little Big Horn were like for the people on both sides of the struggle for the American west, and what that life and death struggle did to the "little people" involved. Huebner's work juxtaposes the beauty of the American West with a clear view of the carnage accompanying battle. I think he gets it right, as he loses me in page after page of beautiful and at times confrontational prose. I literally couldn't put it down, and look forward to more from this fresh voice.

The Great Reckoning is a long but great read. It will NOT appeal to those who focus on 30 second sound bites and 120 second interviews on Good Morning America. If that's your bag, forget this book. It also requires thinking, so if you don't like to think about things in general, or dismiss history and the liberal arts in general, this book will be a total turn off.

A number of people bought this book when first published as a "trading" strategy book. I don't know where they got that idea from, perhaps they simply assumed to much. Rather, it is about probabilities and possibilites in the 1990's on the macro level with plenty of caveats.

In retrospective hindsight, the authors had some outstanding hits, and some complete misses. However, on the whole, those who dismissed this book during the tech bubble are now looking at themselves in the mirror and wondering how stupid they were to dismiss it out of hand.

If you think through what they have to say, you begin to realize that some things will take longer to work out than others. A "must" book to read if you enjoy looking beyond the daily "noise".

All those who, in 1999 and 2000, rated this book 1-star should sit down and re-read this greatly informative and prescient book! Because its "timing" was off by a decade does not render this book useless, though it may indeed have cost investors lost profits. For this reason only do I give it 4-stars. HIGHLY recommended read!

This book has enough truth to make you loose sleep at night. What I found most interesting was that this country can't possibly continue much longer the way it is: Keeping people of african descent down. People in this country actually think that they are independent from the poor people in this country. Those same people they're oppressing will one day rise up and bite them in the [butt]. We all didn't come over here on the same ship but we're all in the same boat!

Then look no further, you have found what you want (with a few trivial restrictions). James doesn't think you need to bother with things like evidence; as long as it is a "genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds", believe what you want!

What does it take to be a genuine option? Not much; James defines an hypothesis as "anything that may be proposed to our belief; and just as the electricians speak of live and dead wires, let us speak of any hypothesis as either live or dead. A live hypothesis is one which appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed."

He continues: "Next, let us call the decision between two hypotheses an option. Options may be of several kinds. They may be-1, living or dead; 2, forced or avoidable; 3, momentous or trivial; and for our purposes we may call an option a genuine option when it is of the forced, living, and momentous kind."

His thesis in his words:

"The thesis I defend is, briefly stated, this: Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, "Do not decide, but leave the question open," is itself a passional decision,-just like deciding yes or no,-and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth."

To be "living", all it takes is for you to be willing to think it possible, which will apply to just about anything you want to believe. To be "forced", just oppose it to rejecting what you want to believe (because you are "forced" to either believe what you want or you will not believe it; there is no other alternative). To be "momentous", it has to be important to you, which will apply to everything that really matters to you that you want to believe. Now, all you have to do is pick something for which you can have no evidence, and then you can believe it, according to James. So he is telling you, practically, believe whatever you want to believe, as long as it is beyond the reach of any evidence.

It should be no surprise that many people would welcome such garbage, since James appears to justify believing what you want. The trouble is, people believing what they want and ignoring evidence and reason has led to crusades, witch burning, the Inquisition, etc. (After all, what test can you have to determine whether or not God wants you to expel the 'infidels' from the 'holy land', or whether someone is a 'witch' or not, or whether someone is a 'heretic'? You'll never believe any such stuff if you base all of your beliefs upon evidence, and consequently you will not be as much of a danger to society.) Of course, James wrote after many of those activities, so we cannot blame him for what others did before he wrote his essay. However, following his advice, one could do all of the above. We can blame him for that.

James is very good at making people feel comfortable with their current prejudices, and for that, many praise him.

A rather basic demonstration of one of the problems of following James comes up as soon as one asks which set of beliefs one wants to believe. Should you be a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Moslem, an agnostic, an atheist, or something else? Well, James is absolutely no help in finding out which of these might be true; he basically tells you to believe whichever one you want. Such advice is useless for discovering the truth about such important matters; he is telling everyone to just go along with whatever prejudices they prefer. And if your preferred prejudice leads to the torture and killing of 'infidels', well, James has nothing to say about that. He tells you to believe at your own risk what you will, but ignores the rather obvious risks to others. It is difficult to imagine a worse essay than "The Will to Believe".

If someone tries to defend James by claiming that you need to understand James' "pragmatism" to understand "The Will to Believe", you should realize that pragmatism is not mentioned in this essay, which was first given as a lecture, and is the first essay in the book THE WILL TO BELIEVE AND OTHER ESSAYS IN POPULAR PHILOSOPHY. James developed those ideas later (PRAGMATISM came out many years later). Furthermore, James mentions in "What Pragmatism Means" (in PRAGMATISM) that no one knew what pragmatism was at the time when "The Will to Believe" came out (he does not mention the essay by name; you have to compare the dates he mentions with the date of this essay). So James did not require an understanding of pragmatism to understand this essay.

There have been several books that have exposed James, but they have generally been expensive academic books that go out of print in no time at all, after practically no one has read them. James is around because he is easy to read, in an inexpensive edition, and tells people what they want to hear.

If you want to think, and if you really want to find out the truth about things rather than engage in wishful thinking, James gives extremely poor advice. The three-part essay "The Ethics of Belief" by William Kingdon Clifford is far better (it is often reprinted in philosophy anthologies in a severely edited form). But since Clifford advises people to think rather than simply believe what they want to believe, he is far less popular. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who said: "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do." Unfortunately, Russell was right about this. The popularity of James and the relative obscurity of Clifford is a rather telling proof of this.

Probably James' most famous essay is "The Will to Believe". Most people buying this book will be primarily interested in it rather than the other essays.

William James was extremely careless in his famous essay "The Will to Believe". Most people don't notice this because he tells them what they want to hear, so they don't bother thinking about his arguments very carefully.

However, a complete refutation of James' famous essay is provided by A.J. Burger in his essay "An Examination of 'The Will to Believe'" in his recent book THE ETHICS OF BELIEF. You can find it by searching Amazon by its ISBN: 1-931333-07-6 (paper); ISBN: 1-931333-08-4 (cloth). That book also contains the complete text of James' essay "The Will to Believe" plus it includes William Kingdon Clifford's famous essay "The Ethics of Belief", which is an essay that prompted James to write "The Will to Believe". With Burger's book you can compare what different people have said on this important subject, rather than getting only the rather one-sided view of James.

In Burger's book Burger explains how James confuses his own terms and theory. For example, James confuses actions and beliefs (for example, the belief that it will rain is not the same as the action of using an umbrella, but James confuses the two - Burger explains the difference). Burger also shows how James' examples often do not fit in with James' theory, and fail to illustrate what James wanted to illustrate-this gets so bad that James even contradicts himself. Burger exposes how some of the examples James uses to illustrate his theory actually violate it.

Burger points out logical fallacies in James' arguments, giving the names of the fallacies committed. Burger explains in detail with examples of problems in James' essay.

James is telling people what they want to hear, so they don't bother to carefully examine exactly what he says. People find it easier to believe things without bothering with reason and evidence, and James tells people that they can do without such things. Within certain limits, he says you should believe whatever you want to believe. Many people are grateful for the excuse James provides for them having unreasonable beliefs, so they are not too motivated to look for flaws in his reasoning. (Following James' position, one might even burn alive a little girl in an oven. Think this can't be so? Read Burger's essay.)

So, if you want pretty lies to lull you into a sense of satisfaction with what you already believe, then by all means, read James. But if you want to think, read Burger instead. And with Burger's book, you get both essays, plus a third essay which was the catalyst for James' essay to begin with.

Dover did a fine job reprinting this book. But a good edition of a bad book is still not worth owning.

Philosophers are notorious for not feeling a work worthy of attention unless it is poorly written and arcane. Karl Popper was ignored, so was George Santayana, so was Arthur Schopenhaur. In the world of philosophy, it doesn't so much matter what you say- If it did, Wittgenstein and Hegel wouldv'e been dismissed out of hand- but how poorly you say it. This collection of essays, while garnering more attention than the above authors, might've been taken more seriously if it wasn't so easy and fun to read.

In these essays we find a man who is what the philosopher should be. His ideas describe the way we think and act instead of conceptualize the way we 'should' think or act. The first few essays are on religion, the validity of which James does not confirm nor deny. Simply put, James sees religion as a handy tool for action. God makes the world more manageable. It synthesizes a world that appears random, it explains- however truthfully- a world than seems in need of explanation. James, I believe, is an agnostic in the truest sense. Experience can confirm or deny God and as long as one is open to experiential evidence, the pendulum can concievably swing either way.

The next essays give a basic outline of what would later be pragmatism. Ideas, James conjectures, are tools for action. We not only act because we think, but think exclusively because we act. The essays here are a bit repetitive, but James' prose is so crystal-clear that you'll want to keep reading.

Finally, we come to the last two essays that deal with 'mysticism' and the 'supernatural' phenomena that psychologists, philosophers, and scientists would rather not even consider. Both the believer and sceptic will find use in these essays as they dismiss both the scientists snap-denial of 'psychic' phenomenon and the believer's untested belief. Neither party, it seems to James, wants to examine evidence and come to a responsible conclusion, what ever that conclusion is.

James has been admired, chastised, name-called, idolized and scrutinized for his unbridled agnosticism. Whether you come to admire or discard James' unique thoughts about thoughts, these essays are clearly written, accessable, erudite and witty. If you're not a philosopher, read this. If you are one, read it but don't tell anyone you did so!

"the prophet who prophesies will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord ONLY IF HIS PREDICTION COMES TRUE."(Jer.28:9)

This is the inerrant litmus test of Bible prophecy: 100% Definitive Factuality in ADVANCE of freely chosen agent decisions, 0% error rate. Openism is DOA,AWOL,Mene-Mene-Tekel-Uparsin at this point! The handwriting is on the wall!

"Hear the Word of the Lord all you exiles in Babylon. This is what the Lord Almighty says about Ahab and Zedekiah who are prophesying lies to you in My Name. 'I will hand them over to King Neb. and he will put them to death before your very eyes. Because of them, all the exiles from Judah in Babylon will use this curse: The Lord treat you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon burned in the fire.'"

An irrefutable case of EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY about the future free decisions of Ahab; Zedekiah; King of Babylon specifically using fire for execution; and all exiles using the exact, precisely predicted curse based on the free decisions of Ahab, Zedekiah, King (all inextricably interlinked) in the OMNI-Mind of God, freely played out in time

Openism's 'extensive indefinite forecasting' cannot account for such prophecies. (Too many to list here - see separate reviews for 'Beyond the Bounds'; 'God Under Fire'; 'Bound Only Once'.)

Why must Gregory Boyd set up a hyper-Calvinist view as straw antagonist, then make his 'case' for why his Open Theory is the 'most Biblical' (compared to what??)? Ajarism (Free Futures are seen by God as through an ajar door darkly) can't help but seem more palatable by comparison with the ultra-Calvinist
'Closed door known but to God' or Liberal Process 'Wide-Open door unknown to God'.

The nebulous argument for 'Infinite Intelligence' to compensate for 'Non-infinite knowledge of free futures' (known as Divine Nescience,i.e Ignorance) is verbal legerdemain for denial of genuine, meaningful OMNI-science as the Bible teaches.

God is, according to Boydian theory, MULTI-scient or MAXIMI-scient (God knows a lot, more than anyone, the maximum logically knowable, but not quite EVERYTHING as the Bible says).

Instead, Gregory makes God out to be of such great intellect to work around His deemed lack of Infinite Foreknowledge of all future mortal free Shalls and Shall nots, Wills and Will nots. Boyd invents a new sub-Attribute to compensate for eviscerating another Attribute to allow God to come out O.K. in the end.

But it backfires. It only creates a deity in a limited human's intellectual image. In exchange for the Biblical Jesus of Infinite awareness, foresight, prescience and precise knowledge of all Space-Time events/decisions from Eternity Past to Eternity Future and all in between, we are left with a supreme weather forecaster or chess grandmaster. However as we all know, weathermen are often surprised, wrong, erroneous and mistaken. Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue have both lost against each other. Is this the sort of Jesus that Gregory Boyd sincerely believes in, trying to persuade others to accept,too?

'Infinite Intelligence' is woeful consolation for 'knowing' free agent futures as predominantly possibles, maybes, contingents, risky what-ifs, potentials, probables, likelihoods,
projections, indeterminates, variables, random chance, unpredictabilities, uncertainties that may after all not materialize to divine expectations/forecasts.

It is here that the equally nebulous Boydian concept of 'Theo-Repentism' must be triggered to explain how Jesus handles free futures that don't work out as anticipated. When confronted with new information, or in relating to free decision makers, the Eternal Lord Jesus then changes the divine mind, repents (of wrong-doing, wrong-guessing,wrong-imagining, wrong-thinking,wrong-prognosticating, wrong-speaking,wrong-predicting, wrong-prophesying, etc.) or regrets, rues prior decisions based on incomplete data, wishing they could be do-overs or in need of retraction or repair. Infinite Intelligence kicks in at this stage for 'divine damage control' to salvage a draw and prevent checkmate from all the free-ranging opponents who act/decide contrary to the limits of divine predictability in the chaotic chessgame/meteorology of life.

Sound puzzling? It is. Especially when you read the seminal book by Gregory Boyd that started it all: 'Trinity & Process' (see separate review), based on Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes' (see review where you discover that Boyd's Omnipotence is no less limited than his Omniscience).

It seems OMNI (Latin for All) cannot mean OMNI anymore, at least for Open Theorists. What then becomes of OMNI-presence? Infiniteness? Eternality?
Transcendence? OMNI-sapience (ALL-Wise)? What happens to all the Historic-Evangelically understood Trinitarian Attributes? How are they Openistly redefined/updated for modern consumption? Only God knows (or, maybe He doesn't? Stay tuned!)

Most unfortunate that books like this which incorporate non-evangelical 'theology' alongside historic Christianity are distributed for uncritical consumption by a non-discerning readership. Seeking wider respectability, Openism/Ajar Theory merely shows with every published page how far Boyd-Pinnock-Sanders have headed AWAY from the Bible and TOWARD a vivid, free agent imagination a la borrowed elements of Hartshorne's Processistic, non-Scriptural philosophic fabrications.

The LORD said it best in Job 42:7 "I am angry with you..because you have not spoken of Me what is right."

This book rates 3 stars for including 3 Biblical/Evangelical views, but subtract stars for Gregory's use of contemporary philosophic presuppositions applied to selective misinterpreted Bible texts to provide a marginal audience the latest heterodox option to counter the straw antagonist of hyper-Calvinism.

Ultimately can't persuade in any cogent, balanced, unbiased way.

The OMNITrue One Who has Eternal Exhaustively Divine Definitive Foreknown Factuality of ALL Free Futures, Infinitely Uninformable ,Unrepentable,Inerrant, Incorrectible, Infallible, OMNI-Present (Ever-Present I AM in ALL point-moments of space-time: Length-Width-Height-Past-Present-Future), Eternal, Limitlessly Aware,OMNI-Relational,Interactive LORD Jesus said,

"Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?"

Just one Scripture from Jesus settles the Foreknowledge Issue once for all:

"I AM TELLING YOU NOW BEFORE IT HAPPENS SO THAT WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT I AM HE." (John 13:19)
Not forecasting, possibilizing, but TELLING. Not if, but WHEN.
Not may,might,could,perhaps should, but DOES happen. 0% Uncertain. 100% definite. That's genuine Omniscience. Amen.

Interesting that this book would present as one of the "evangelical" options of what God knows and when He can know it:
the curious notion that God possesses EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING (a la weather prognosticator or chess grandmaster) subject to all the iffiness and unknowable randomness of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Chaos Theory working themselves out in a fallen world unbeknownst in advance to the Creator! Boyd's presupposition is THE FUTURE DOES NOT EXIST YET, EVEN FOR THE OMNISCIENT/ETERNAL CREATOR GOD, except as mere possibilities yet to be freely actualized.
Therefore He is the deity of what is humanly,logically possible.

Boyd's Neo-Processistic philosophical theorizing becomes more incoherent with each book. How can God know how He will definitely act in the future if He doesn't know how sinners and demons will definitely behave? If our decisions don't exist until we freely make them, how can God's decisions exist until He freely makes His in response to ours in response to others in response to the devil's in response to... ad infinitum?? If all God can know are ultimately possibles (not actuals, definites), then ALL He can know about future agency is INDEFINITE (MAYBE). Thus Boyd teaches EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING - which he calls Omniscience! Talk about verbal legerdemain! God can only know what is humanly,finitely knowable

A careful study of the Bible shows rather the truth that there is NO LIMIT to the extent (past,present,future) of God's knowledge. It is ETERNALLY EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DEFINITIVE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY OF ALL FREE FUTURES-OMNIPRESCIENCE
His understanding is INFINITE. That God definitely knows in advance precisely what sinners and demons WILL/WILL NOT do doesn't mean therefore that they are thus forced to, or thereby lose their agency/moral responsibility. Neither is God to blame for the foreknown exercise of their agency. He retains full final say, ultimate control and awareness as definite in advance of ALL they will choose to do. Because some mortal minds can't reconcile this profundity, Open Theory (Ajarism) is the misbegotten result. With all due respect to sincere but sincerely wrong Gregory Boyd, there is little about Neo-processism or EIF (EXTENSIVE INDEFINITE FORECASTING) that can be understood in any sense as Biblical or Orthodox Truth about God's Attributes such as OMNISCIENCE/OMNIPRESENCE. God is ever PRESENT at every point/moment of space/time, including ALL the FUTURE. The I AM is ALREADY THERE/THEN waiting for us just as He IS with us HERE/NOW.

Otherwise well-written. 1 star for attempting to resurrect the long-discredited 'Nescience' pseudo-theology of the late 19th Century (with some elements of 16th Cent. Socinianism) via a self-refuting misunderstanding of how God interacts with ALL FUTURE MORTAL AGENCY: Comprehensively, and for Open Theorists, Incomprehendible.

Most of the reviews on this page miss the boat entirely. Rather than actually reviewing or recommending DF the reviewers are merely venting their anger because their particular view is challenged.

Pay them no mind. DF is an excellent book. Buy it and read all the views with as much of an open humble mind as you can. It's better than the alternative spoon feeding that is rampant in many circles of Evangelicalism today.

The glossary is a great idea more publishers should follow.

Keep em coming Eddy, Beilby, Gannsle ....etc.