As a generic science fiction novel, this book isn't bad. It's not
great, but not bad.

As a Star trek novel, however, it's pretty
weak. The idea isn't bad: a novel in which Spock and Sulu are the
primary protagonists, rather than Spock and Kirk. But the author seems
to have a weak concept of the characters he's attempting to use; his
concept for Sulu isn't too egregiously bad, but his Spock fails in
many cases to demonstrate his established competence, presumably
because the author begrudged him the starring role he wanted to give
Sulu. His Vulcan strength and endurance are nowhere to be found, as he
shows no sign of having any physical abilities beyond those of a normal
human.

Worse, his playful bantering with Dr. McCoy is portrayed as
much more serious bickering, showing no understanding of the true
relationship between those characters. And worst of all, the author
demonstrates no understanding at all of the Prime Directive, which he
tries to make into a major plot point; Sulu is concerned, at one
point, that he may have overstepped the bounds of correct behavior and
violated the Prime Directive against interfering with a primitive
culture, completely ignoring the fact that the entire storyline from
the word "go" violated that directive. The very fact that
the Enterprise was there, that the natives knew of their existence,
and that the prince had been educated on Terra clearly and blatently
violated the prime directive.

As a story demonstrating why there IS
a prime directive, this story was fairly good. But as a story claiming
to be set in the Star Trek universe, it was wildly inconsistent with
established parameters.

Star Trek: Shadow Lord wriiten by Laurence Yep is a Sulu/Spock with a flavor of "Highlander" to give it some character. So sword fights are the norm and phaser fire is kept to a bare minimum.

This book starts out on a mission to a primative and very violent planet called Angira where Sulu/Spock are to accompany Price Vikram to his home planet... then all hades breaks out as they are caught in an ambush. This book features the sword fighting skill of Sulu and those of Spock as well making for an interesting tale as modernization is shunned. With the future of Angira hanging in the balance, it is upto the skills of both Sulu and Spock to carry on with the mission as their survival and that of Angira are all dependent upon their abilities with the sword.

To say this one is different is an understatement. This book takes Sulu and Spock and a Prince called Vikram to a hostile world. It has more adventure than most obscure Treks. The most contemporary theme here is a society afraid of modernization. There are no phaser fights here folks. Highlander style sword fights are the norm here. Think of Sulu and Spock inspired by Highlander.

Cossé's essay-length book has a provocative premise: How would proof of God's existence effect a secular modern government and its keepers? While the writing is swift and crisp, I was disappointed by the hasty, too-neat ending. (The concluding pages read as if the author had run out of steam, or interest.) Still, Cossé deserves credit for staging her intriguing scenario in a credible fictional landscape. The opening pages, when one of the characters walks across Paris at dawn, observing an awaking urban world he is convinced will be transformed by the divine good news, are especially strong and evocative--much more so than the later unfolding of the plot.

I read with interest -- and a chuckle -- the complaints of some reviewers about the 'humor' in this novel. I found humor in abundance within its pages -- not the 'belly-laugh' sort of humor that we Americans have come to expect from TV sitcoms and films, but the 'wry smile' sort of humor that is more touching and subtle. Cosse's writing is both humorous and meaningful -- but there is a lot more to this little book than humor.

Interestingly enough, the book I read just prior to picking up this novel was Simon Mawer's THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS, in which a priest deals with the discovery of an ancient scroll that has the potential to destroy his church, the message within being one that repudiates all that Christianity has stood upon for nearly two thousand years. In A CORNER OF THE VEIL, the opposite occurs -- a manuscript is received by the Casuist order in France that proves, after hundreds of years and innumerable attempts by philosophers and thinkers, the irruftable existence of God.

It would seem that the church would look upon such a find as a victory of sorts -- everything they have been espousing over their history has been verified on paper, in terms that anyone can understand. And while it is true that those who read the proof -- spiritual and secular people alike -- are touched by it on the deepest possible level and reduced to tears of joy, the proof brings sheer terror and panic to the hierarchy of the church and state. Grim predictions are made that, if the proof is made public, it will mean the end of society as we know it, chaos, the end of the world.

The struggles and machinations the proof sets into motion are both humorous and thought-provoking. Without giving away any more of the story, I will simply say that I felt the message to be one, not of revelation, but of affirmation. The novel is not anti-religious in any form or fashion that I can see -- nor is it indoctrinarial in the least. I found it to be intelligently conceived and written, a very compelling and moving work -- one which I can recommend heartily.

Being French, I read the book in its original language. I am very glad to discover that my American friends will be able to read this excellent book, full of surprises, with a very fine sense of humor and very well written.

the title was intriguing, but it was downhill from there. the book had little to do with the title, which always makes me question the motives of the author. is there some message they are aching to express, or are they looking to simply enrich themselves?

1) The authors claim that their "financial survival is dependent upon successfully trading the markets" yet you should not assume that they traded any of the examples set forth in the book.

2) The "secrets" revealed consume less than 20 pages with the remaining circa 180 pages being filled with charts and related examples (at least half of the book), performance summaries and trading signals (over 50 pages), and other various and sundried fluff. Thus, the book seems to be exploiting the herd mentality of those who buy books on the financial markets rather than the markets themselves.

3) What type of "secrets" are revealed here? "Investment Secrets", of course! "Investments" like futures contracts and index options. Who is revealing these "secrets"? A "Hedge Fund Manager", of course! Hey, why not? It could very well be that the revelation of hedge fund manager type secrets will produce higher profits (with much less risk) than actually trading the secrets.

4) I have a relatively high I.Q. yet I actually bought this book........Mooooooooooooooooooooooo

In my daily work as a Stock Broker in Sweden I encounter questions about good trading books all the time. Customers feel that most trading books are quite expensive, and a good way to avoid overpriced, worthless items is by asking an experienced professional. While I truly do not feel that the mystery of the markets can be revealed in a book, I can honestly say that this book is well worth its price.

Above all, it gives the open-minded reader insights in highly effective approaches, concepts of trading which I have used successfully for many years. In fact, strikingly similar methods to the methods in this book have been "discovered" and used by investors, brokers, and traders that I know, even before this book was published. In my mind, this is another good indication that many of the patterns presented are valid in real-life trading.

While I do not use the patterns in this book in the exact same manner as they are presented, the concepts and the insights are the same. Time spent studying these concepts will be time well spent. I consider Investment Secrets of a Hedge Fund Manager to be among the best trading books I've read. It contains no hype, just precise and sound swing trading techniques. I recommend it highly to all market participants, novices and professionals alike.

Some of the other books that I consider to be among the best are:

Market Wizards 1 & 2, Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, Trading Systems and Methods, How to Make Money in Stocks, Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets, Street Smarts, Japanese Candlestick Charting Techniques, Secrets of Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets, Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, Trading by the Book, Exceptional Trading.

Of the hundreds of trading books I have in my personal library and the thousands which I have access to in my professional life, Investment Secrets of a Hedge Fund Manager remains a personal favourite.

I still rank it as one of the most informative books on trading I have had the pleasure to peruse...

Sometimes it's really hard to understand how different books from a favorite author can be. I thoroughly enjoyed the previous installments in Mr. Shames' Key West capers, but I can't explain what has gotten into him. Everything I liked about his books - the plot and most of all the humour - have disappeared and only Key West as a background remains. It's hard to list all the faults of this book, but Shames' biggest mistake is probably to start the book with the situation he usually puts his heroes in at the end of the others: he's moved to Key West a long time ago,lives a comfortable life there and doesn't do much. All the ensuing complications are hard to understand - I didn't like the hero in this book at all . I sincerely hope that Mr Shames didn't model him after himself - the character is even revealed at being an author, albeit one who has only troubles with endings. In this books the author has a lot more problems. Add a few of the most unerotic scenes I have ever read to the mix and I'm all but ready to throw in a fittingly bad pun: It's a Shame.

I have read a few of Laurence Shames' novels and have very much enjoyed his style. Shames keeps the plot simple and the characters vivid in most of his novels. "The Naked Detective" starts out with a great premise then dissolves into a sub-par effort for Shames.

The novel starts with Pete Amsterdam who is a private eye, only to avoid a large tax bite. He lives in Key West avoiding the IRS and possible clients. Then walks in Kenny Lukens a cross dressing bartender/boater, with a huge secret. Kenny fears that his life may be in danger after robbing his employer. Two bank bags our buried on Sunset Key by Kenny and he wants Amsterdam to find them. Cash is in the first and whatever is in the second is what is causing Kenny's angst. Amsterdam says no to the case and rejoines his relaxed life. Then Kenny Lukens ends up dead. Amsterdam then throws himself into his first case invovlving mafia, blackmail and crooked cops. Amsterdam also meets Maggie a yoga instructor friend of Lukens and a little spark of passion ensues.

The story is solid throught the first half of the book and then falls apart in the second half. Shames great character development takes a back seat in this one. It is very hard to like any of the characters including Amsterdam. The ending is very cloudy and comes out of left field. Not sure if Shames tried for the shocker ending, but what he did accomplish was only confusion. A reader may not catch the motive here.

The name's Amsterdam. Pete Amsterdam. A tough no-nonsense Key West private eye solving cases with style and ease like a modern day Philip Marlow. Yeah, right. A wacky caper that could only have been dreamed up by Laurence Shames, The Naked Detective is the story of a reluctant gumshoe who would rather be drinking wine naked in his hot tub instead of trying to solve a puzzling murder mystery.

Pete Amsterdam never wanted to be a private eye. He only opened Southernmost Detection on the advice from his accountant. A write-off. A legitimate tax dodge. Butt naked in his hot tub, Pete is approached by a woman (who turns out to be a man) looking to hire a detective. Amsterdam declines to take the case and the next day, the would-be client turns up dead on Sunset Key. Coincidence? Pete decides to investigate and find out for himself. The results are both amusing and intriguing. A fast moving mystery that will keep you guessing whodunit up until the very end.

Laurence Shames has a knack for making the reader feel like he's in the middle of the action. It's not as good as some of his previous books, but an enjoyable read nonetheless. I am anxiously waiting for the day when he writes a Key West novel featuring all of his memorable characters (Charlie Pont, Bert the Shirt, Ziggy Maxx, Tommy Tarpon, Arty Magnus, Joey Goldman, Sukie Sperakis, etc.) Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Slogged through 12 or 15 pages of this adjective-drenched drivel. Got to the line where he describes a guy's crooked pinky finger as "independent" and i had to quit. This is truly awful.

After reading (and loving!!!) Florida Straits, Sunburn, Welcome to Paradise, and Tropical Depression, I was looking forward to more of Laurence Shames books. But he disappointed me, big time, he left Bert the Shirt, Sandra & Joey and the other wonderful characters and went on to write more violent, harsh stories minus all the warm characters he had created earlier. I don't know what happened to Laurence Shames - it's as if someone else took over the writing.

This is the rare crime novel that is truly funny, charming, and eccentric without being absurd.

The plot is neatly turned, the characters well-drawn, and the dialogue extraordinarily deft--I don't know if this is how Mafia people talk, but it's certainly how they should talk.

Unlike many humorous writers, Shames seems to treat his characters with true affection. I look forward to reading more by this writer.

Set aside, for a moment, the question of whether you want abortion to be a right or not, and consider only how the Court got to the point where
it made its ruling. It had, first, to assume the right, nowhere spelled out in the Constitution, to review the constitutionality of laws. It had,
next, to extend its reach to state laws, which had several times been explicitly placed beyond its grasp. It had, then, to rely upon a "right to
privacy" which exists nowhere in the language of the Constitution. The issue that confronts even those who support abortion is : are we a
nation of laws, a constitutional republic, or are we mere creatures of the judiciary, prey to their every whim? For if we are to allow the Court
to seize new powers and create entirely new "rights" when we like the results, we must also be prepared to acquiesce when they start arriving at
results we abhor. To accept that the Court can make unprincipled decisions is to abandon the notion that they can be bound by principle.

It is especially important to note here that it might have been possible to secure abortion rights without utilizing these subterfuges and
imperious court rulings. People who wish to have a right of privacy protected by the Constitution need only propose and pass an amendment
that would do so. This is the system that the Founders, in their wisdom, put in place for making changes to our system of governance and to
what rights we choose to afford special protection from government. It also has the very great advantage of actually being democratic. In
particular, such a radical alteration of the scheme of protected rights would seem to be best accomplished via the democratic and constitutional
processes, rather than by judicial fiat. Presumably, proponents of privacy rights chose not to follow this course because such an amendment
would be unlikely to pass. They instead chose the judicial route precisely because it is antidemocratic and allowed them to overcome the will
of the people. This success has been followed by entirely predictable hostility on the part of many Americans, as should be any effort to make
an end run on democracy.

Meanwhile, although conservatives could spin out even more compelling arguments for a right to life, which is after all specifically mentioned
in the text of the Constitution, many ask for far less than this. We really would just like the Court to butt out and allow the States to regulate
abortion as their citizens see fit. This, the direction in which the country was headed before Roe was decided, would allow the more
permissive states on the two coasts to permit fairly easy access to abortions while allowing more traditional states and populations to restrict or
even ban them. It would return the issue to the rough and tumble of democratic debate and restore the primacy of the Constitution, rather than
of judges. It's hard to see how one can both believe in our system of government and oppose the idea of returning abortion to the political
sphere.

As for the rest of Mr. Tribe's book, bad enough that his discussion of the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade is so dishonest, Mr. Tribe also
includes a history of abortion in America that has been thoroughly discredited, much like Michael Bellesiles's fabricated history of gun
ownership. It reaches a spectacular height of delusion when he asserts that the absence of anti-abortion laws early in our history indicates a
general societal acceptance of the practice. We might similarly argue that terrorism was accepted in the 19th Century because there were no
anti-terrorism laws. He proceeds from there to a discussion of abortion in other societies that is a complete non sequitir. Should we also
legalize infanticide because the Chinese use it? Maybe we're just lagging behind other cultures in not practicing female circumcision? This
kind of reasoning hardly deserves the name.

When we get to Mr. Tribe's attempt to reconcile the opposing sides of the abortion debate, the partisan nature of his analysis is perhaps
adequately demonstrated with just a few quotes :

[T]he feeling that abortion should be blocked by government may grow, at least in part, out of a reflexive willingness to enforce
traditional sex roles upon women and to impose upon them an unequal and harsh sexual morality.

Note the contempt for tradition and morality? the assumption that opposition to abortion is "reflexive" and a mere "feeling", while support
would of course be reasoned? and the incoherent thought that prohibiting abortion is unequal? Of course, Mr. Tribe fails to consider that
allowing abortion is unequal too, since men can't have them and it takes the decision out of men's hands. The argument that abortion has to be
made legal if women are to be treated equally with men makes about as little sense as arguing that rape should be made legal in order for men
to be treated equally with women.

At another point he refers to antiabortionists as believing, "that men and women are different by nature and that they have intrinsically different
roles to play in society." Did I miss something? Are men and women now the same? Perhaps we've located the real problem in this whole
debate. Maybe Mr. Tribe just isn't aware that it is only the female of the species that bears children. His real disagreement is not with abortion
opponents but with Nature.

And so, having misled us on the law, the history, and the biology of abortion, Mr. Tribe arrives at his final advice to us :

For both sides...a greater measure of humility seems in order. If we genuinely believe in the democratic principle of one person,
one vote, then each of us will have to treat the votes, and hear the voices, of our opponents as being no less worthy or meaningful
than our own.

On both sides of the abortion debate, this will require an unaccustomed and in some ways unnatural forbearance. Right-to-life
advocates are inclined to respond to pleas for tolerance by insisting that the exclusion of the fetus from the processes of voting
and debate distorts the discussion profoundly from the outset, for reasons that bear no proper relation to a moral or just outcome.
That the fetus is voiceless and voteless, they may say, follows from a biological condition but is irrelevant to how society is
morally bound to behave.

And pro-choice advocates are inclined to react to pleas for mutual respect by insisting, no less vehemently, that it begs the question
to attribute legitimacy to the views of those who tell women how to lead their lives and what to do with their bodies. To submit a
woman's fate to a popular referendum, they may insist, already assumes that the matter is properly one to be resolved by voting.

In the end, the answer to both sides is the same : In a democracy, voting and persuasion are all we have. Not even the Constitution
is beyond amendment. And since we must therefore persuade one another even about which 'rights' the Constitution ought to place
beyond the reach of any temporary voting majority, nothing, neither life nor liberty, can be regarded as immune from politics writ
large. Either some of the views expressed in the political arena are to be privileged and untouchable from the start or all views are
to count equally, those of the supposedly less sophisticated no less than those of the self-professedly more tolerant elite.

The reader will feel justified in believing that they've accidentally wandered into a different book at this point. For in what has come before,
Mr. Tribe has demonstrated that Roe v. Wade is not the product of "one man, one vote", and in defending it anyway has effectively shown
himself not to believe in democratic principles. And, whatever his point about the voiceless fetus, the complaint of pro-lifers is that their own
voices are not heard, because the Court has placed abortion beyond the reach of anything except a Constitutional Amendment or an activist
Right-wing majority. So the point that he has italicized (presumably indicating its importance), about voting and persuasion, is quite wrong, as
he must well know. It is possible for the Court to create a privilege for some views, as it has done with abortion, and to thwart the both the
majority and the Constitution itself. The clash of absolutes, as it regards the opposing views of whether abortion is morally defensible, is
probably unresolvable. But it is vitally important to our democracy that we resolve the clash between those who favor judicial usurpation of
power, so long as it achieves ends with which they agree, and those who believe that courts must be bound by the text of the Constitution, as
written, by the American people. Perhaps we are at the point, that Albert Jay Nock foresaw, where our society has become :

...tired of itself, bored by its own hideo

Professor Tribe gives every argument a fair hearing. Every position is respected. I kept waiting for his bias to show, but it never did. Finally, an impartial and well reasoned book on abortion.

firmly in historical and legal contexts, making it possible view the question of conflicting rights from a fairly objective point. Whether one is pro- or anti-, this text offers information and supporting arguments for a variety of positions, and looks at the relative merits of each. Religious hysteria aside, if one is looking for a thoughtful text that permits one to form an opinion on the debate, one could do worse than to start with this book.

"Between Two Fires" reveals little new and signficant material on the Native American's role in the Civil War, but it does attempt to cover both sides of the War. Hauptman should be commended on making Indian involvment on both the sides the focus of his book, but his clumsy narrative dilutes the subject's impact.

In this book Hauptman tells about a little known part of Civil War/American Indian history-the Native Americans who fought on both sides of the conflict. Before reading this I generally thought of the Civil War as a period when the Plains Indians got a brief respite from their battle for freedom and the tribes of the East-well, I didn't really know.

While Hauptman gives us some interesting facts, however, he never really treats the obvious question. Why? Why did so many American Indians put their lives on the line for a battle between two factions of whites? Unfortunately Hauptman devotes little time to this part of the issue, simply stating over and over that the Indians saw this as a way to ward off even further dislocation and perhaps as "a bargaining chip" with their conquerors. I would have liked him to go into more detail. For example, was it individual Indians who chose to fight, or were they encouraged by tribal leaders? Were there any negotiations going on between Indians and whites? Were the whites making promises to the Indians in order to recruit them? In his last chapter, Hauptman tells us what we already know. Whatever the Indians hoped to gain pretty much came to nothing. But he doesn't tell us what, if anything the Indians did to fight this outcome.

This was worth reading because I learned some interesting things. For example how Indians were seen in the South vis a vis Blacks; how different tribes viewed slavery, etc. However, I was hoping for more.

A rich and infinitely interesting subject -- a sad, mistreated people join in a war to help the very ones responsible for their wretched condition in a last, desperate effort to secure a happier existence for their tribes by proving their worth to their oppressors. I did not find this book particularly well written and often felt its lack of narrative interest getting in the way of my enjoyment of and attention to the subject. There were many points that made the book well worth reading however, and if it did nothing else, it gave me a deeper understanding of the "Native American ordeal" leading up to and following the ACW. It also did a good job of pointing out how the story of the African American's emancipation has overshadowed many other stories of the Civil War and while their (the African Americans') situation was well improved by war's end, the Native American's problems were just beginning and that theirs is perhaps one of the "real" tragedi! es of the Civil War. Although I don't feel the book lives up to its potential given its rich subject, I would recommend it to anyone looking for an entirely different slant on Civil War history.

How in the know is Leamer? He calls Radney Foster ROdney; he calls Shania's breakout album WHOSE BED HAVE YOUR BOOTS BEEN UNDER (which was the first single from THE WOMAN IN ME, the album's real title) in at least three places (in the same chapter); and derides one star's album as "only" having reached number two on Billboard's charts. Author tries too hard to expose all the singers as hypocrites (Garth, Wynonna and Naomi, Reba, LeAnn) and it gets tiresome, whether you like country music or not--and I do.

The title hints of an expose on the shallow musicality of Nashville-built songs (3 chords and maybe a bridge if you're lucky), but does not go there. Instead, by mounting a collage of more than 19 performer snapshots, it exposes how and why the country music industry systematically saps talent, authenticity, and creativity -- and why everything on the radio sounds the same -- and why every CD has only one or two listenable songs. Recommended especially for anyone who has ever considered signing away his/her musical authenticity. Probably not a book for the fans of the 19 stars spotlighted; fans would probably rather not know what's reported here.

While Leamer may not have gotten all of his facts straight, I believe that the people who are offended by this book are only offended because they have to face the truth about their "beloved" "new country" stars. I wouldn't call many of these singers in this book "country", to begin with. They "used" country as a vehicle to get their foot in the proverbial door to establish themselves as pop artists. In the heydey of Cash, Jones, Jennings, Nelson, etc., these people didn't hide their dirty laundry. They aired it, and admitted their wrongdoings. These "new country" stars want to appear as angels. As a very famous country singer said (and I may be paraphrasing here), "These younger stars don't live cleaner lives than the older ones did--they just live their lives more secretly." That is "THE TRUTH".

I quite agree with Eric's review. The book is simply a collection of Chinese proverbs which were only valid during the Warring State Period about 1500 years ago.

This is mainly because negotiation and war are totally different concepts. The former is a win-win practice, and the latter is a win-lose or lose-win practice. Many of the 36 strategies were definitely not designed for negotiation, but only for fighting against enemies.

The books gives a biased view about Chinese negotiations. We may say that some of the vices can be universally true, not just applicable in China. However, they should not be recommendable for doing business or conducting negotiations. The consequence can be devastating. No companies today loves the idea of bad reputation.

These stories passed down from generation to generation in China with the purpose to educate people to guard against evil practice. However, the highest modal behaviours lie in Confucius or Taoist teachings: Language (including negotiations) only have meanings if you treat your counterpart fairly and openly.

In sum, these strategies should not be seen as related to part of the Chinese business practice.

If there is one thing - if not the only thing - that can be said for sure about China, it is that there is no such thing as a China expert who knows it all.

For newcomers entering China and Chinese negotiations ( and as a reminder and reality check for seasoned China hands alike ), the application of Sun Tzu's ancient 36 strategies to negotiations with the modern Chinese and the insights gained are a good initiation to a better understanding " why and how " things in China are as they are.

Studying these lessons will help the new China hands make a great leap forward on their never ending China learning curve.

This is a very informative book even from a native Chinese perspective. It really captures the ethos of the Chinese social thinking, in its most essential strategic sense. I wish I myself had read that long ago.

I am afraid that there is little that one can say for this oddity except that it is the worst assessment of any biblical translation in print. My only question is how they found someone to publish it in the first place. Vance stammers on unintelligibly and repetitively without dealing with the translation of the NASB at all. At the end of it, all a person wants to do is go out a buy a copy of the NASB update. The logic: if Vance hates it, it must be something of a masterpiece.

My first review of DOUBLE JEOPARDY appears below. In retrospect I realize that it was inadequate. I have subsequently used the book quite frequently and therefore have had reason to reconsider of my initial judgement.

Some of the my initial reservations remain in place. The author seems to lack objectivity when evaluating the NASB. He even goes as far as to deny it could be the word of God (171). That is unfortunate and spoils what could otherwise have proven a very useful book. I would recommend that in future editions the author softens his harsh language and looks at the problems in the NASB in a way that would suggest he does not have an axe to grind. The strengths of the NASB are not discussed nor is adequate attention given to the translation philosophy of the NASB. The author's obvious preference for the King James Bible is apparent throughout the work.

On the positive side, DOUBLE JEOPARDY is a long, detailed and painstaking critique of the New American Standard Update Bible (Foundation Publications). In Part one the author traces the history of the NASB and its editions. Part two is a word for word comparison of the NASB and the NASB update. Those who are interested in the origin and development of the NASB will find this book useful. If for no other reason, this book is worth having because it provides a word for word comparison of the NASB and the NASB update.

Some people,sadly a vast majority have not realized languages change down through the years. The Koine Greek used 2000 years or so ago is no longer the Greek language many bible institutes study,and even the Strongs Concordance uses. Also "The Greek manuscript" is not accurate either there is more than one Greek manuscript out there. So for these critics to listen to their modern scholars and use thier modern Greek, and modern bibles to criticize it is sad the ignorance out there. I recommend anything Laurence Vance writes,unless you follow down the slippery slope of modernism.