3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Did he read this book?, January 15, 2003
bmscrh summary of this book demonstrates that he/she didn't read it very carefully (prior bias?); there are many ERRORS in the review. I found it fascinating and mostly plausible. Serious students of the Bible should read this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
looking up, January 1, 2008
Patten's obviously meticulously researched and documented works are stunning. His style of writing is pondering and lacks the zip of the pop culture, but his theories and the subsesequent content is the freshest, most probably of any I've heard, and sure does explain a lot of what we could only shrug about before. With another good writer or editor and a reprinting I think Patten's two primary books could really shake up the status quo. Like he said, the evidence is not as much found in looking down, but up. I imagine our scientists could learn much more if they could think outside the box they've put themselves into. I would suggest that readers of his stuff take it slow and easy...try to understand before breezing on to the next topic...and I'd say the best laughing is done by those who laugh last.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Limitations of Pattens Catastrophism, August 14, 2007
The review of Patten's Catatrophism and the Old testament by The Reader was not really convincing. He seems to dismiss Patten for the same reason he dismisses Velikovsky, but offers no reason for either. The Reader wrote his review in 1997. Everything I have read about catastrophism in science for the past ten years (2007) has only confirmed the essentials of Patten's thesis. The Reader wants to simply laugh off Patten, but I think he is overly sensitive.
Patten's is a real explanation of causes and relations, which explanatory power is the main criterion you want in a scientifically-satisfactory explanation, which he explains in both his books.
Patten as a catastrophic scientist is convincing in both his former and latter works: Ice Epoch and Old Testament. His theological conclusions in Catatrophism in the Old Testament I think, are over extended. Some are plausible - crustal skid in Joshua's long day, could be; the destruction of Sennacherib's army by a discharge of electricity from Mars, could be- but others seem to be incredulous to my mind.
Both of Patten's books are strictly scientific in the presentation of the data. Patten's thesis is the most complete theory of catatrophism I have ever read. Nearly all the discoveries I have encountered to date confirm the essential parts of his scientific work, however I would flag his limitations at the point using a scientific explanation to prove theological conclusions.
They may or may not be causally related in some cases, but it is up to the reader to accept that by faith, not the writer to assert it dogmatically. Both of Patten's works are highly readable and thought provoking, as opposed to laughter provoking. I recommend them both unreservedly for serious study and comparison with the observations.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No