Talking Pots is a book with an aggressive scope, suggesting that the deciphering of the meanings of prehistoric pottery can be made clear in 174 pages. Of course the stated purpose is to alert ceramicists to the potentials of symbols and symbol combinations (page 18), but ceramicists already know this. The book then proceeds to provide interpretations for many bowls and provide definitions of symbols so that apparently any layman picking up the book may use it to gain an understanding of the intended messaging within the bowl. No doubt prehistoric Puebloan bowls contained symbols and complex messaging, but there is no way that outsiders to those cultures are going to be able to actually determine the intended meanings and know the interpretations are even remotely correct from this book, but the fact that no one is around to debate you makes it seem easy. This assumes, of course, that Cunckle's identification of the symbols is correct in the first place. Identifying iconography is one thing and often dubious with prehistoric icons, but understanding the iconology, the beliefs associated with the images, is a whole other matter. It is interesting to note how easily we can apparently decipher prehistoric images, the images of a culture totally unlike our own, of a culture whose language we don't know and most assuredly do not speak. And then of course Cunckle shows how easily the same rules and symbols to interpret White Mountain wares can be carried other to interpret other types of pottery from other groups such as the Mimbres - as if all Puebloan peoples conveyed information in the same manner and used the same symbols. A brief look at Hopi, Zuni, and Eastern Pueblos' works clearly shows this is not the case, that Hopi symbolism does not translate directly into Zuni such that a Zuni could look at a Hopi bowl and ever actually understand it without first knowing Hopi culture inherently. Buy the book and enjoy it for what it is, a fun read. Do not take the interpretations too seriously. Many of the whimsical and crudely drawn cartoons should alert readers to the lack of seriousness of the addressed issues.

AFTER READING THIS BOOK I FELT LIKE I COULD ALMOST READ POTS I HAVE SEEN IN MUSEUMS. THE GRAPHICS BREAK DOWN THE POT DESIGNS SO YOU CAN SEE THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS. AN ELEMENT CAN BE FOUND THROUGHOUT SW ART. ONCE I WAS ABLE TO SEE THEM I BEGAN TO GET A FEEL FOR THE ARTISTS INTENTIONS. I USE THIS INFO EACH TIME I SEE A SW DESIGN.

I had to read this book for an assignment in my 9th grade social class. I was really not looking forward to it, and I'm currently not looking forward to writing a paper on it. I would not recommend this book for recreational reading, but it really enhances your outlook these issues. It gives you a better sense of what's out there, but making you fall asleep in the process.

This is a collection of stories and poems like any other collection published by a small press--it includes an array of good fiction and poetry by people no one has heard of except the editors. In fact, most names in this book are friends of the editors--I know one of them myself, and he's told me as much. But what makes this book worth buying is this: the editors new the RIGHT people. Not all these stories and poems are exceptionally brilliant, and not all these writers and poets will go on to greater things, but all the work here is cerainly good. And the editors may have stumbled across a new genre of literature, as well--many people talk about Southern literature, or cowboy poetry, or the fiction and poetry of New England and the Southwest. But White and Todd have set aside a new region: Gulf coast America. Rick Bass comes from here, as do perhaps Flannery O'Connor and Anne Rice.

More interesting, though, is the chance to see early drafts from newly recognizable names. Notably, there is a story here called "Rise," by award-winning author Tom Franklin. "Rise" is actually an early draft of "Blue Horses," a poignant story of the extremes people will go to for their friends; "Blue Horses" was later included in Franklin's first book, Poachers.

So while the Gulf Coast Collection is good for all the reasons any such collection is good (and it is--by all means read the other, very excellent work), reading this gives you the added pleasure of discovering a new genre and seeing early work by an established author. And who knows: you may discover someone new yourself.

This was an excellent fantasy novel published in April 1993 about Sheela Queen of the Thorgon's (a northern barbarian tribe). The story begins with the defeat of Thorgon by Rhodia, and centers on Sheela's growth as a queen and her quest to gain allies needed to free her people. Unfortunately, after she gains the first of her requisite allies, the book ends with "Chapter One" of the sequel, "The Palace of Evil". Because the sequel slated for July 1993 was never published, it leaves the reader with the frustration associated with reading part of a novel.

The Politics of Rightousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism by James Aho is certainly a well researched and well written book about an issue of supreme concern in our country. There are times, however, particularly in the first 150 pages of the book, during which Aho's subjects and points seem to be forgotten and/or spread too thin. In other parts of his book, he seems to base some of his premises on farfetched ideas and foundations. Albeit the foundations of many of the Identity ideals are farfetched within themselves. Regardless of these lulls in Aho's focus, I would strongly recommend this book to anybody who is interested in learning about these dark and mysterious cultural misfits.

I'd have to say that this book, is rather, shall I say...plebain. Read it if you want. Don't rely on my review if you want a boring, unhorific story and a wasted check!

Mr. Cloud has joined the club of the misinformed and written a book attacking Dr. White's "The King James Only Controversy" (an excellent book on the translation issues). I asked Dr. White about Cloud's book and he responded:

"Mr. Cloud has been offered numerous opportunities to make his case in public in debate, both on this [King James Onlyism] and on his anti-Reformed polemic, and refuses to do so. He has nothing new to add to what has already been shown to be without merit."

Dr. White has exposed the deceptions and poor scholarship of this crowd again and again (you can see several of his responses on his website at aomin.org). Why do you think Mr. Cloud is afraid to debate Dr. White?

Dr. White certainly seems to have evidence, history, and the facts on his side. He is also a man of God who has led many to Christ and is very active in battling the cults. The last resort of the prideful men who refuse to accept correction is inevitably the old name calling routine (usually "heretic" or "Satans serpent" or something to do with hissing).

If the naive "experts" out there promoting known errors & deceptions would just humble themselves for a minute, maybe we could end the insanity of forcing a 17th century translation on modern Americans who haven't the foggiest idea what words like astonied, bolled, chapiter, eyeservice, handstaves, hungerbitten, magnifical, nitre, phylacteries, sodpdoiler, winebibber, and wot just to name a few that do not even appear in my dictionary, even mean. Not to mention all of the perplexing phrases ("superfluity of naughtiness," "at your hand," "taken with the manner," and "in the gate", "compass about") and even common words that have changed definitions over the last several hundred years (readers, even pastors sometimes, THINK they know the definition, but they actually do not). God does not want confusion, he wants a clear presentation of the WHOLE truth, from Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that anyone that believes in him will be saved; to Revelation, and all the way back to Genesis. We should learn and love God's Word, and give it to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, in the LANGUAGE THAT THEY SPEAK.

You will find the truth on the KJV controversy in Dr. Whites Book, carefully explained, and well documented for further study. Dr. White is rational enough to actually provide SOLID EVIDENCE for what he believes as opposed to the weak unconvincing arguments of the "Clouds" in this debate.

The reputable, excellent modern translations such as NIV, NKJV, and NASB all support the same fundamental doctrines as the King James translation but do so in a way that any modern American can fully comprehend.

Acutally, I've grown quite weary of the argument over whether or not God's Word is inerrent and inherent in King James' Version of the Bible. I have been studying the Bible for almost 30 years, notably using the King James Version as my main bible. However, it is ignorant and foolish to discount other VERSIONS (as is the KJV) of the Bible as being inferior or unworthy of use. Anyone who would claim that the Phillips, the Revised Standard or even the New KJV is inferior to the KJV, and that the KJV is the final authoritative translation and rules above all others, are idolators at best. The King James' Version was written for a certain generation. Some modern versions bring language up to date while preserving content most admirably and adequately. Finally, my brethren, is it not now most apparent that since the argument continues to rage, and the battle lines have been drawn so fiercely, that the teachings of Jesus have had little effect and affect on our characters? Does it surpass us, in our understanding, that the TRUE Word of God, exists not merely on paper spread with ink, but indeed and truly is the RHEMA, the Word that gives us life and makes us new again? If God, through His esteemed Word, teaches us, admonishes us and demostrates His love to us, then are we not to view that Word as the bond that permits us brotherhood and an element of peace? IS HIS WORD ALIVE IN YOU!?

Cloud points out the weak and innacurate arguments in James White's "The King James Only Controversy." Indeed, White didn't address much of the strong evidence against the "modern" versions--Cloud points this out.

While I do recommend this as the "other side of the coin" to anyone who has read White, I think there are some better and more informative choices out there too. Cloud has a couple of other books with vastly more information. I'd especially recommend "8 Myths of Modern Bible Versions."

One negative criticism I had of Cloud's book is that he spent about 30 pages (the whole book is only about 140!) describing in detail the heretical views of various individuals involved in the modern "evangelical" movement, and the wickedness of ecumenism. While I agree with Cloud 100%, I think much of what he was saying wasn't necessarily relevant to the topic of White's book. It could have been condensed into at least 10 pages, if not less. Much of what he was saying was, if memory serves correctly, verbatim out of some of his other writings.

The other thing I might mention is that it seemed at times Cloud was maybe a little strong in his PERSONAL criticism of White. I've read another book of White's, and in general I agree with him on a lot of things (except textual criticism, of course). I believe that White wrote his book with a sincere and caring (though misguided) heart. I think Cloud would probably disagree.

Not to be confused with "West Point" by Norman Thomas Remick, this offering is basically a book of pictures without a theme other than as a fortuitous exploitation of the Bicentennial year. If you already have a very good coffee table book, like Robert Stewart's "The Corps of Cadets", you certainly do not need this one. If you do not have a coffee table book, I would still recommend the thematic array of pictures that "The Corps of Cadets" offers. And the latter book was done when there was a clear need for such a book. We don't need another one.

Photographer Marcia Lippman was artist-in-residence at the US Military Academy in 1986, and spent a year photographing images and life at West Point. More than 15 years later, her photographs have been published as yet another of the many, many books commemorating the Academy's bicentennial.

Ms Lippman is a good photographer, and the photos in this book (all black and white) include some interesting explorations with light and shadow, the mass nature of life in uniform, and the like. The cover image, as well as several others, is almost Hitchcockian. The minimal text strives for a kind of High Art ethos that often seemed out of place with what was actually being shown (kind of like those NFL Films efforts to turn football games into modern Iliads).

Maybe I didn't take enough art appreciation courses in school, because as I looked at many of the images, my first response was to ask, 'What's going on?' There are a few pages of captions in the back of the book, but they're not always helpful (example: 31. Formation, Central Area). West Point graduates will probably be best able to understand what they're seeing, and maybe the images will be particularly evocative for them. But personally, I didn't feel compelled either to set this out on my coffee table, or to return to it again and again to absorb the masterful artwork. And apart from cashing in on the bicentennial, was there any particular reason to publish these images now, as opposed to fifteen years ago, or fifteen years in the future?

It never ceases to amaze me when non-Catholic apologists, hostile ones at that, believe they know Catholicism better than practicing Catholics. James White begins by presenting what the Catholic Church claims as its position and then tells us what it "really" is(according to him of course). Worst of all his tone is sometimes condescending and often outright offensive. He never mentions the Protestants he is at odds with, say Martin Luther on the True Presence or even R.C. Sproul. He appears well versed in the Church fathers and early church history, but somehow he is at odds with just about every historian(non-catholic ones) I've ever read. Go right to the source. The writings of the Church Fathers are readily available as is the catechism of the Catholic Church.

James White critiques roman catholic doctrines of salvation, the mass, the doctrines of purgatory, grace,the atonement of Jesus Christ,etc. His contention is that the Roman Church either has ignored Scripture or simply twisted the Scripture to maintain its doctrinal practices.He provides very good arguments concerning the Catholic Mass and the problems it faces in light of finished work of Christ on the Cross.He quotes extensively from Catholic sources aware of the fact that too often Catholics charge their critics with a lack of understanding of basic Catholic doctrine - the contention being that you would become a Catholic if you just understood what Catholic doctrine is all about.He makes very good use of footnotes in documenting his arguments.I would recommend his book as a good critique for those studying Roman Catholic doctrine. END

Here's a quick response debunking the entire notion of Mary as another redeemer and at the same time explaining what Catholics believe about Mary:

Jesus was Mary's Savior. The only difference is, He preserved Mary from Original Sin, while the rest of us are cleansed of Original Sin when we are saved. The reasoning for this is that it was proper for Christ to be borne into the world in a sinless vessel. The reason for the sinless vessel was because of His holiness, not Mary's. She was conceived sinless only so He could be borne in an immaculate womb. Her role in the whole thing was incidental and secondary.

As for the "co-redemptrix" thing, that results from confusiuon concerning the Latin title. The doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix states three things:

1. She co-operated with God by agreeing to bear the Savior into the world.

2. She helped Jesus during His earthly ministry.

3. She suffered terrible anguish when Jesus suffered and died on the Cross.

That's it. There is no mention whatsoever of Mary suffering for mankind's salvation, nor any mention of making her equal to Christ. So why the title "Co-Redemptrix", you ask?

In American English, "co-" means "something equal to", a "partner in"; such as "co-worker", "co-signer", "co-lender", etc. People naturally assume that "co-"anything means "an equal partner to".

But in Latin, "co-" is a derivative of the word c-u-m, meaning "with". Therefore the title "Co-Redemptrix" literally means "with the Redeemer", or "alongside the Redeemer". It does NOT mean "equal to the Redeemer", or "another Redeemer", anything like that.

Unfortunately, most Americans know diddly-squat about Latin anymore, so there is a vast misunderstanding about this doctrine based on the title. Personally, I think that "Co-Operatrix" would have been a better choice, since it explains the doctrine more clearly and would avoid the confusion, but the Vatican doesn't consult me on these things.

If you truly want to understand what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about Mary, it would make sense to ask a Roman Catholic. This book serves as a discussion of Protestant misconceptions, not Roman Catholic teaching. It's important to see all sides before reaching your own personal conclusions. I like Miravalle's Introduction to Mary for a quick survey of true Roman Catholic teaching.

Those who rail against James White don't understand the facts and the Truth. That is, that Mary is not another Redeemer, just like the Pope didn't descend from the Apostle Peter, and just like the Mass is not the real body and blood of Christ, and just like praying to the saints and the sale of indulgences will not get you into heaven, just like purgatory doesn't exist, and just like the Roman Catholic Church is a false system with a false prophet at its head. These are indisputable facts and the truth rings out in Scripture. We look to Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher of our faith. It was Christ who took our sins on the cross and shed His blood. Not Mary. She was a sinner in need of a Savior, and she was not conceived without sin, which is the height of heresy. People get real. Get this great critique. The Scriptures say the just shall live by faith, not by some co-mediatrix, called Mary. Highly recommended!!!