The book is written in detail. If you are interested to be a microbiologist, you must buy this book. But the content is too much for other medical students, and is not useful clinically. Nevertheless, this book is interesting.

A VERY VERY fast response seller! I like u!!

This book contains no-holds barred debate among advocates of 3 answers to the question, "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" John Sanders defends the inclusivist belief that conscious belief in Jesus is not necessary for salvation while another author claims that salvation is possible after physical death. Ronald Nash defends the belief that Jesus is the only Savior, a position he defends in greater detail in his book titled "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" also available from amazon.

Three differing views of the fate of those who experience physical death without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is fascinating, but limited. Again, as it seems to be, not all Christian views are presented.

Certainly, we who hold the Lutheran confession would side with Nash, who easily out of the three represented does the most exemplary job of using God's Word correctly. Nash is correct in his chastisement of his two opponents for not lack of good exegesis of the Bible. It is truly sad but commonplace to find such poor, hurried exegeis as exemplified by Sanders and Fackre.

It would have been good to have one argue: univesal grace, grace alone, the means of grace, and the mystery of why some saved and others not? This would have given the complete Biblical picture. This is not demonstrated by any of the three in this book.

However, as exemplary as Nash is with his defense of restrictivism by not only showing the proper exegesis and hermeneutic of the other two sides, he has some glaring weaknesses himself. As those of the Reformed are bent to do, they always want to let logic and reason dominate, rather than letting God's Word suffice.

Or as Luther would say, "What is not spoken of in God's Word must be left to the heavenly academy for resolution." We do not have all the answers to all mysteries in God's Word!" As Moses said so profoundly on his deathbed, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." (Deut. 29:29)

Nash suffers, as Sanders catches him, on Double Predestination. Calvinists cannot say that Christ died for all, but only for the elect. This is the classic error of Calvin. As well, they hedge the truth of God's Scriptures of the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Sanders does not confess the B.C. Means of Grace as St. Paul does in 1 Cor. 10:1-11, that Christ was present with them, but most did not have faith and were disallowed into Promised Land. This typology extends throughout OT, allowing OT saints the same (Romans 4) as we NT saints, faith in Promised Messiah (Christ).

However, to deny infant sin (Age of Accountability) that Nash puts forth is unbiblical (Ps. 51:5) Furthermore, Nash is wise to attack inclusivism on premise that grace is with all until rejection of Christ and Gospel, and he shows forth Biblical attack to destory this false teaching.

Nash certainly is far and away the more faithful Biblical presenter, aside from the errors already identified. Further, he does not profess Christ's descent into hell as for what it was: Christ's victorious announcement of victory over the demon angels, nor is he correct is declaring Luke 16:19ff as being a parable. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as parabolic, see Art Just's Commentary, Volume II, pg. 630ff.

Cudos to Nash for calling the other two's hand for not showing the Biblical evidence for their positions, while discounting his opponents Biblical proofs and offering restrictivist passages, Nash has provided the debate with the sure foundation of what God says about this controversial topic.

Contrary to Sanders and Fackre, Nash did an excellent job refuting both inclusivism and PME, and presented his case for restrictivism well. Though I don't agree totally with Nash's restrictivism (since I hold to unlimited atonement), he does a good job presenting a very persuasive case for the traditional evangelical understanding of the destinies of the unevangelized. Sanders' inclusivism leads to the heresy of works-salvation (unbelievers who positively respond to God's light and walk in His ways will be saved even without knowledge of Christ). Such heresy leads to another heresy: that Christians also must do good works to earn or maintain their salvation. His interpretation of Romans 2 on pp. 46-7 is horrible (he follows the interpretation of the "new perspective" that Paul was not opposing Jewish works-salvation but Jewish nationalism). ... Overall, a good book for those who want to be convinced of the truthfulness of restrictivism.

The table of contents of this text indicate a wonderful range of topics, from resolution, abstraction to multi-level simulations and even the object-oriented paradigm. However, this text is simply too ambitious and none of these topics get covered in an real detail. (390 pages)

This team has put together a comprehensive collection on a topic that is so hard to keep up with. The reader can take in as little or as much as needed. "Distributed Simulation" is a good reference and important reading for anyone in the field.

This annual product of the California Legislature (since supplanted by the 2001 version) has expanded with haphazard, ill-considered accretions for years. Despite incessant tinkering and wholesale additions, it remains utterly devoid of humor and editorial elan. It is stunning for its sheer weight and capacity to bore. Connoisseurs of statutory surplusage will salivate over this one; the merely curious should just stay away.

This book was horrible. I was forced to use it in a mandatory brainwash...er, history course for school. The book essentially goes like this:

We settled Massachusetts, and the indians, blacks, gays and women were persecuted.

Then, we started a westward expansion which led to persecution for indians, blacks, gays, and women.

During the revolutionary war some white guys fought or something, but it is important to note that the indians, blacks, gays...

This book is a proselyting tool, a transparent piece of propaganda. I didn't convert.

This book tries to teach history without actually including any concrete information. It outlines general trends without emphasizing the historical facts on which the trends are based. While it's certainly important to recognize progressions in history, it's extremely difficult to learn about them based only on the text's vague, 50-page summaries, all of which fail to mention any form of historical evidence.

As a student, I found this book's approach to teaching history disastrous and mildly insulting. First of all, it fails to convey even the most cursory knowledge of history by shunning, at all costs, cruel Old Regime teaching methods that might require DATE memorization or familiarity with historical FACTS. With nothing to "Lock On" to, it's very hard to retain anything. Even worse, however, are the implications of the book's approach. I like History because I enjoy being able to look at a set of evidence and trying to figure out, based on otherwise stale information, what *actually* happened, what life was like. Somehow, I got the sense that by describing outright "what life was like," the book implies that to force students to learn INFORMATION is useless, that students are unable to think for themselves and interpret historical information with any accuracy.

I think I should comment, also, on one reviewer's dismissal of this book as "Nouveau History." I come close to BEING one of the "Tenured Radicals" this reviewer had so much disdain for, and I still hated this book. I would hate it if I were communist. There's so much wrong with it that to criticize it for its left-wing perspective is plain silly.

I would recommend "The American Promise," by James L. Rourke, Micheal P. Johnson, and a few others instead.

This book provides a balanced overview of U.S. History up to 1877. The treatment of social and cultural history is particularly stong. The prose is, for the most part, quite lively.

Shoddy speculative fiction from one of America's worst crime writers.

This book is largely a reprint of Nash's wildly implausible 1970 book, Dillinger: Dead or Alive?, though coauthor Ron Offen is left out of the credits this time. The "evidence" for Dillinger's survival as presented in Nash's first book was based mainly on erroneous notations in Dillinger's long missing autopsy report and has been largely rebutted by more serious Dillinger researchers, notably Girardin and Helmer in Dillinger: The Untold Story. New "evidence" introduced by Nash in The Dillinger Dossier consists mostly of the revelations of "Blackie" Audett, an obscure ex-con and author of a volume of tall tales entitled Rap Sheet. Audett, now deceased, claimed to have known every major outlaw of the 30s, to have been involved in nearly every crime of the period, and to have aided John Dillinger in his permanent escape from justice. This alleged eyewitness to the Kansas City Massacre, who was in Leavenworth at the time, seems to have found a willing dupe in Nash but Audett's word doesn't hold a candle to the three known sets of postmortem fingerprints taken from the dead man by the FBI. While scarred by acid, the prints remained easily identifiable as Dillinger's. This book originally came with a mail order offer of Nash's taped interviews of Audett. It seems that few, if any, who ordered the tape ever received it and at least some got a refund check, with no further explanation. The late Joe Pinkston, author of Dillinger, A Short and Violent Life, owner of the John Dillinger Historical Museum and himself a trained lie detector examiner, once suggested to this reviewer that possibly Nash, or his publisher, realized that the tape could be tested with a PSE (Psychological Stress Evaluator) which would indicate Audett was lying, and removed the tape offer for this reason. At any rate, The Dillinger Dossier, like most of Nash's books, is one best avoided by serious historians but perfect for conspiracy freaks and anyone who appreciates a good joke.

This book (an expanded and updated version of Nash's earlier "Dillinger: Dead or Alive") tells a fascinating tale and (as is always the case with Nash) tells it well. Was John Dillinger really gunned down at the Biograph Theatre in July, 1934, or was the dead man a double set up to take the fall? At first, the idea that Dillinger might have survived the Biograph shooting for several decades seems right up there with alien abductions, but Nash makes an excellent case. And with what we now know about Hoover's FBI, the idea that the Bureau would have covered up the debacle for decades to avoid criticism is hardly shocking -- in fact, it's pretty hard to believe that Hoover would *not* have covered it up.

Even if you don't buy Nash's central hypothesis, the book is a great read, full of colorful period detail. If you have any interest in Dillinger or the early history of the FBI, buy it.