Like all of you who read this review,you're Everest junkies who probably won't even get near this mountain, but are hooked on all books about it.
High; Stories of survival from Everest and K2 is NOT what you're looking for. This book is nothing but one-chapter excerpts from other books. It's like walking into a movie half way through: You have no idea what's going on. Also, there are no maps of either Everest or K2, so if writers of these chapters (and some of them are BORING writers!) describe trouble on Everest's north col or K2's Abruzzi ridge, we can't picture these places in our minds.
This book (unlike all the other Everest books I bought and immediately read) has been sitting on my bedstand for months. I only read it when I wake up at 3AM and can't go back to sleep. Just reading from this book puts me back to sleep reeeeeal fast!
Don't bother with this one. The Everest season is happening right now. Maybe more books will come from this year's hikers.

I very much enjoyed and highly recommend this book. I've read many of the books from which these chapters are selected, yet there was much fresh material for me. The editing was so masterful that even though the chapters are from different writers, mountains, and times, they flowed together seamlessly

High does for climbing what the movie The Thin Red Line did for combat: It explores not the details of the event, but the inner thoughts of the participants. You read what it feels like to have a climber dying in a tent next to you. You learn about the humilation of having frostbite while back at home. You are with the widows who trek in the paths of their husbands to glimpse the mountain graves of their loved ones.

While I can understand that some reviewers felt the selections dropped one into the middle of a big problem high on a mountain without the broader context of the expedition, I didn't feel this was a problem. I don't need the beginning, middle, and end to enjoy a brief tale. There are plenty of books that give all those details, yet few that are gripping to read from the first page to the last.

This is the first book i've read that was a collection of excerpts from other books. The only thing i didn't like was that the book itself was big and bulky. Well anyways, just buy it. you won't be disappointed.

I expected a careful, general overview of the various uses of technology in music. This book is clearly for a classroom that uses Macs and the specific software indicated. There is not one entry for Finale, nor microphone/recording techniques. The book is pretentious in its organization (academic music ed. types) and woefully lacking in providing the required general overview of concepts, and prefers to teach specific software applications, many of which are not mainstream.

Not exactly the greatest book I've ever owned...the computer background information is woeful (I found 3 glaring mistakes in 70 pages of material by just skimming). The book has generally good information on the software it covers and a pretty good intro to MIDI.

This is a great resource for a lot of people. Whethr you are a music teacher looking to enhance your music teachning with some technology, or you are a professor wanting a textbook for a music technology class you are teaching, this book has something worth-while. David B. Williams and Peter R. Webster are veterans in the field with many years' experience.

It's a hardcover, so not the most comfortable field guide to throw in a backpack, but I don't have any other complaints about this book.

Animal profiles are accompanied by excellent color photographs, basic statistics about each animal (distribution, habitat, abundance, etc.), and a shaded map outlining just where each animal's distribution is. Entries for each animal are detailed enough, but don't seem to go on so long that a person would lose interest.

One more gripe: pictures of the animals feet, so that pawprints could be identified easily, would have been a welcome inclusion here. The Simon and Schuster's Guide To Mammals, by Boitani, is an inexpensive book that includes this feature. It might be a helpful second book to get on the topic.

It's an exciting book for young naturalists, too, who will likely get stirred up just by seeing some of the photos (star-nosed mole, northern flying squirrel, big brown bat, etc.).

Essays on conservation, the region, and tips on observation precede the main body of the book. The essays are short and well-written. They should be helpful to anyone who wants to scout out some mammals in the Carolinas, Virginia, or Maryland.

ken32

In the Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William Webster demonstrates that Protestant ideas were not invented in the 16th century as some would suggest. Webster deals with four major concerns in his book: the authority of Scripture, church government, the Lord's Supper, and justification by faith alone; he quotes the church fathers on these important issues.To begin with, William Webster shows how Scripture is authoritative because of its intrinsic value as God's Word, as opposed to the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture derives its authority from the Church. After all, Scripture was authoritative before any church council. From here, he shows that the first infallible council to determine the canon did not come until The Council of Trent (Webster lays out a multitude of reasons why The Council of Carthage was not considered "infallible," and how the Apocrypha was not canonized until the Council of Trent. A fact that even the New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests). After this, Webster goes on to show that Scripture alone is our sole rule of faith. He quotes many of the church fathers. St. Augustine stated: "What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule of our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher." He also examines the church fathers use of the term "tradition," and compares and contrasts it with the way the term came to be used in the Medieval Church. In the area of church government, Webster shows that no bishop had supremacy in the early church. He includes writings from the fathers on the meaning of the word "rock" in Matthew 16 showing that many believed the term was speaking of "faith" or "Christ". Even those who believed that Peter was the "rock" did not apply the term to his succesors in an exclusive sense until later on. Webster also looks at beliefs about the eucharist in the early church. Although some of the church fathers said things that are irreconciliable wtih the Reformed position, there is also a tradition in the early church that is in blatant opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation. He provides quotes from the church fathers using the word "symbol" to describe the bread and wine. For example, Clement states, "The Scripture accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood." He also provides Augustine's homily on John 6, in which Augustine interprets the passage figuratively: "To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again." Webster goes on to show the development of Marian dogma within Roman Catholicism and how the Protestant view of justification has support in the writings of the church fathers. This book is definitely the most thorough Protestant apologetic available in the area of church history in the last decade. In it, he shows that Protestant ideas were present in the early church, yet he doesn't try to turn every church father into John Calvin (he doesn't look at the past with rose colored glasses). In the back of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Webster includes about 50 pages of primary source material from authorities in the chruch. This book is also "Catholic friendly" in that Webster, who was once a Roman Catholic, is not rude, sarcastic, or mean. I thank God for such a needed book.

A definite 5-star rating book of prime importance. Webster focuses on major issues and in a non-polemical way, raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.

This book is becoming more and more popular in challenging the alleged authority and supremacy of the Roman Church. Webster certainly puts the Church of Rome to the Bar of History and finds it lacking in that court. The book is well organized, fully documenting the claims of the Roman Church as derived from official source documents and depicting the shortcomings of those claims from both historical sources and Scriptural interpretations as given by the early church fathers. Webster was well educated in the Catholic Church, attended parochial schools until a teenagers, and then a Benedictine monastery throughout high school years. He thoroughly understands the Roman Catholic faith and its doctrines.

Both the Councils of Trent and Vatican I contented "that the Roman Catholic Church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. And secondly, that no one, the Church included, is to hold an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Webster does an excellent job in not only challenging Rome's authority in interpretating Scriptures but also proves that "the Church cannot even claim unanimous consent from the early Fathers onwards for it current teaching on the nature of tradition itself, much less for a comprehensive body of doctrine with the exception of the broad biblical doctrines such as the existence of one God; the inspiration of Scripture; the recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; and baptism." -p. 31.

Challenged also is the Roman Church belief in 'development of doctrine' or 'unfolding of doctrinal truth'. This is a theory that the apostles left truth in germ form in Scriptures which took centuries to develop fully and was revealed to the Church as the need arose. "If any doctrine is claimed as a true development it must be consistent with the truth of Scripture (its alleged source) and should be supported by the testimony of the Church to the manner in which it has been increasingly understood in the course of history." -p. 19. Webster states that no one denies that there can be a development in understanding the deep truths of Scripture over time (such as the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual natures of Christ), "but the theory now under consideration cannot legitimize Roman Catholic tradition for its fails two very important tests - the test of Scripture and the test of history." Of importance to Webster is to examine what interpretation of Scripture was held by the early church fathers.

I would recommend this book to anyone that needs to do research on the historical claims of the Roman Church and wants to be able to defend his views against those that makes claims that cannot be supported by historical documents.

This book is a must read for those who are unaware of the actual extent to which historic church fathers disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church's claims on various matters of dogma. This is very important for a number of reasons: 1) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed a place as the only true legitimate church intended by Christ. 2) The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that its doctrines were universally taught by early church fathers. 3) The Roman Catholic Church insists on adherence to its dogma as requisite for salvation.

William Webster does not solely rely on openly debatable or elusive scripture passages to make his case. More impressively, Webster takes a look at the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church "on its own turf" as he quotes from the early church fathers and demonstrates how they contradicted the teachings of the Roman Church. This is a powerful argument against a church which relies on the unanimity of consent of historical early Christian Church leaders as a basis for its own credibility and divine authority.

Roman Catholics who are honest seekers of historical truth regarding the claims of their own church will appreciate the non-combative, matter-of-fact manner in which historical facts are objectively presented in this book. This is definitely not an "in your face" anti-Catholic book. Non-Catholic Christians who question Roman Catholic claims to supremacy and having an unbroken, consistent chain of theological thinking and dcotrine throughout history will appreciate the informative, concise, and organized presentation of the real historical truth.

Webster begins the book establishing the debate between Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) as a basis for Christian teaching, versus scripture and "tradition." He then moves on to discuss the papacy, and how various dogmas such as Papal Infallibility, Marian Dogmas, the priesthood, Penance, the Eucharist, and Justification changed and evolved throughout the centuries. The book also contains excellent appendices and notes.

An excellent, informable resource and a must for anyone's apologetics library.

The book is subdivided into only 3 of the 4 classical methods for spectrometric identification of compounds: IR, MS, and finally NMR (covering 1H, 13C and very little of 19F and 31P). UV is left out in this edition, so maybe getting a hold of the old edition's UV chapter (which is extremely well-written) might be desired. The MS and the IR chapters are also well-written and explained out. It is in the main technique (NMR) that the author fails to deliver the subject in a straightforward manner and lacks what I think is most important in this field: a large number of exercises and problems.

This book lacked information in my opinion. Silverstein started a good project but just didn't give enough information about IR interpretation, mass spec, C-13 NMR, etc. He focussed on 2-D NMR a great deal, and I believe that there are much better textbooks on this subject.

This book provide a the basis of the fundamentals of Spectroscopy in many fields (IR, HNMR, CNMR, DEPT, COSY, HMBC, HMQC, TOCSY, MS, and much more) It has many real problems in an special chapter. And the most important, it has a lot of important tables and spectrums.

The title contradicts scripture itself ... "The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" ... has the author never read the scripture with open eyes and did he not recognize that even in scripture, the pillar and foundation of all truth is the CHURCH (see 1 Tim 3:15). Any bible-believing Christian should see that...isn't that what believing the bible is all about - believing what it "actually" says. There's much better stuff out there to read if you're looking for the TRUTH. Try looking where Jesus promised to leave all truth...the CHURCH. And, where in scripture does it say that scripture alone is the basis of all TRUTH. This principal seems to be a tradition of men.

REVIEW CONTINUED...

Let's summarize the work of Catholic scholar and theologian Yves Congar -- since Webster and King have tried to use him to support their Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical assertions -- from Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (1967), pages 23ff

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only -- as wrongly claimed by Webster/King -- but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The "rule of faith" or "rule of truth" was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of discipline, conduct/behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted "materially" of the Scriptures, but "formally" of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition -- the Church's Tradition -- is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow "the order of tradition" received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not "succession of doctrine" only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century -- these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally "sufficient" or exclusive.

See also Congar in "Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians" for his conclusions on "material sufficiency" in the Fathers.

Congar demonstrates and concludes (after much evidence and analysis) that the Church Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura in the "formal sufficiency" sense required by the Protestant Reformers. Webster/King accept this distinction and set out to prove "formal sufficiency" from many quotations of the Fathers. However, they fail to overthrow the consistent conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Congar above.

Joe Gallegos in his 160 pages on the Fathers (see Not By Scripture Alone, p. 389-554), following Congar's research, analysis and conclusions, has conceded the "material sufficiency" of Scripture in the Fathers, so "formal sufficiency" is where the debate needs to center. The vast majority of quotations brought forward by Webster/King on the authority, inspiration, inerrancy, power, beauty, etc of Holy Scripture in the Fathers ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE. Even the perspicuity (clearness and clarity) of Scripture in the Fathers contradicts the assertions of Webster/King since the Fathers universally interpreted the text of Scripture in accordance with Catholic doctrine today (despite Webster's assertions on Matthew 16:18 which is not a problem -- note the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Matthew 16:18f, paragraphs 424, 442, 552, 586, 756, 881, etc).

Webster/King really could have saved us and them a lot of time by cutting out a great amount of irrelevant material from the three volumes, perhaps add more of a direct "biblical defense" (which is where ultimately their case must be established) of Sola Scriptura, and trimmed it down to one book of about 500 pages.

Volume 3 contains a lot of quotations from the Church Fathers, about 99% of which are irrelevant since no Church Father pitted the Tradition of the Catholic Church or the Dogmas of the Catholic Church AGAINST Scripture, which is what Webster/King would have you believe.

Vatican Council II affirms Sola Scriptura to the fullest extent according to their logic since: the Council Fathers teach the inspiration and authority of Scripture; the inerrancy of Scripture; quote from 2 Tim 3:16-17 the classical Protestant proof text; call Scripture the "Word of God"; say the Word of God for the Church is the "supreme rule of her faith"; that Scripture presents God's own Word in an unalterable form; they are the voice of the Holy Spirit bringing the words of the prophets and apostles to us; that ALL the preaching of the Church, and the ENTIRE Christian religion should be ruled by Scripture; the Word of God has force and power as the Church's support and vigor; the children of the Church get strength for their faith, food for the soul, and find a pure fount of spiritual life in Holy Scripture (see Vatican II Dei Verbum, 11, 21).

If you are an Evangelical or Catholic interested in this issue, you should get these volumes. Then take out the 38 volumes of the Fathers edited by Protestant scholars and see what Webster/King do not tell you. They are available online. And don't forget to purchase the 600 page Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and compare especially the chapters by Sungenis, Blosser, and Gallegos where they have already answered much that is found in the Webster/King volumes.

Phil Porvaznik

catholic4areason should note that the title of the series is based on a quote from the church Father, Irenaeus. So it would seem that he has not read either. To say the title contradicts Scripture is to say Irenaeus contradicts Scripture.

Phils criticisms are dealt with directly in the books and supported by a great deal of documentation. An example of where his review is misleading is when he claims Webster and King say that the early church contrast scripture and tradition. In fact, not only do Webster and King NOT do this, one of their points is that the modern Catholic church DOES. Tradition, as understood by the patristics, is completely circumscribed BY Scripture and that is one of the MAJOR POINTS. Therefore, the supposed 'contrast' or 'dual authority' of Scripture and Tradition is a result of modern Catholicisms redifintion of the early church's understanding of 'Tradition' (pradosis). Why Phil would seem to suggest otherwise could only be to keep naive Catholics from reading the criticism.