More Than Dates & Dead People: Recovering a Christian View of History

Customer Reviews:

More Than Dates & Dead People.............2007-09-08

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS BOOK Do you plan to send it?

LBlanchard

Discovering the love of history.......2007-08-14

I hated history in school, but now I understand why this was so! History was taught to me from the evolutionary, secular humanist mindset, and thus it could have no purpose, plan or meaning. I thoroughly enjoy history now, because I have been freed to see that all history, even our own seemingly inconsequential little lives, can have enormous influence.

Even if you are not Christian, Mr. Mansfield's method of dissecting history is spot on: you only need to understand 5 arenas as you examine the people and times of the past: 1) religion; 2) culture; 3) Law; 4) education; and 5) art.

What is religion? It is "ultimate concern." It is that to which men willingly give their lives, what occupies their thoughts, their money and their time. No society or individual is free from it, including Richard Dawkins.

What is culture? According to Mansfield, culture is "religion externalized." Differences between cultures are simply the expression of ultimate concerns that permeate a society. Understanding different cultures requires looking at the next three aspects (law, education and art).

What is law? It is a culture's attempt to set standards of moral behavior, to deal with matters of truth, fairness, and justice. I must quote Mansfield here: "You will sometimes hear people say, 'You can't legislate morality.' This isn't true, though. In fact, morality is all you can legislate. For example, why don't we have laws that require pink flowers in all second-story windows boxes? These laws sound silly, don't they? And the reason they sound silly is that they have nothing to do with morality, with right and wrong. That's why we have laws that deal with murder, stealing, personal assault, and discrimination. These are issues of truth, fairness - what is right. They are issues of religious truth [ultimate concern]."

"This also explains why laws vary so widely between countries of the world. In some countries with an Islamic heritage, it is permissible to chop off the hand of a thief. This is because of the teaching of the Koran. In some countries, a woman has no rights to speak of, and this is, again, because of the religious system that shapes the legal system....All of these laws sound strange to us because we have a different religious system behind our laws and a different understanding of what is true, what is right, and what is fair."

What is education? It is the transmission of ultimate concern from one generation to the next.

What is art? Religion or "ultimate concern" symbolized (in art, music, film, literature, etc.). Art communicates the hopes, dreams and beliefs of a people.

Isn't that a handy way to categorize history? Truly it is "more than dates and dead people!"

Mansfield gives a helpful list of resources at the end of his book to help the reader get started. He includes books, magazines, films, organizations, etc.

Excellent little book. Very engaging.

Couldn't Put It Down!.......2007-07-14

This is my favorite introduction to the study of history. This concise book is required summer reading for my homeschool academy humanities students. It is well written - easily digestible & interesting, generously seasoned with humor. The first sentence is an immediate hook. I cannot recommend this excellent book highly enough.

Theory of history.......2007-01-09

Provocative historical interpretation, albeit with a theological bias. Even more focus on the Reformation as an historical turning-point would strengthen it.

Alive in History.......2001-07-21

This ia a lightwieght book about a sometimes heavy wieght subject. It takes a novice at history and helps put it in a light that makes it relevant for study. This book would be very good for those who hate to study history. For those who already love history, it is a great example of looking at it in a different way.

It got only 4 stars because it was too short. I wanted more however, the author gave the reader the tools to do it on their own.

A Must Read for all History Buffs

Book Description

Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World

Average customer rating:

The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World
Katharine Wiltshire
Manufacturer: Palgrave Macmillan
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Ancient | History | Subjects | Books

General | World | History | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 1403966095

Book Description

The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World Katharine Wiltshire A timeline of ancient history based on the greatest museum collection of antiquities in the world today he four principal cultures of the ancient world-Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome-are featured in this au-thor-itative reference book and timeline for readers of all ages. Based on the unmatched collection of antiquities in the British Museum and the Museum's own Timeline Project, The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World spans the period from the earliest neotlithic settlements in 5000-6000 BC to the end of the Roman Empire. Illustrated with full color photos of arti-facts from the British Museum Collec-tion, the fourteen page timeline, that allows readers to compare the develop-ments of the four cultures at a glance, can be detached from the book to hang on the wall. The timeline is accom-panied by a thirty-two page book that provides in-depth background infor-ma--tion on the four main cultures and features illustrated articles on the most important people, places, objects, and events in the time-line. From the well-known, like Tutan-khaman, to the little known, like the female pharaoh Hatshepsut, this timeline guides readers through the distant mirror that was the ancient world. Katharine Wiltshire works in the education department of the British Museum. History 1-4039-6609-5 $22.95 $33.95 Canadian 113 /4 " x 9" / 32 pages Includes full color throughout, plus 14-page timeline Palgrave Macmillan May

Average customer rating:

Timeline of the Ancient World
British Museum
Manufacturer: Palgrave
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000UAA22Q

Product Description

Very large, oversized hardcover with printed boards. 32 pages plus a 14 page pull-out time-line. The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World Katharine Wiltshire A timeline of ancient history based on the greatest museum collection of antiquities in the world today he four principal cultures of the ancient world-Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome-are featured in this au-thor-itative reference book and timeline for readers of all ages. Based on the unmatched collection of antiquities in the British Museum and the Museum's own Timeline Project, The British Museum Timeline of the Ancient World spans the period from the earliest neotlithic settlements in 5000-6000 BC to the end of the Roman Empire. Illustrated with full color photos of arti-facts from the British Museum Collec-tion, the fourteen page timeline, that allows readers to compare the develop-ments of the four cultures at a glance, can be detached from the book to hang on the wall. The timeline is accom-panied by a thirty-two page book that provides in-depth background infor-ma--tion on the four main cultures and features illustrated articles on the most important people, places, objects, and events in the time-line. From the well-known, like Tutan-khaman, to the little known, like the female pharaoh Hatshepsut, this timeline guides readers through the distant mirror that was the ancient world. Katharine Wiltshire works in the education department of the British Museum.

Average customer rating:

Supplementing Nabrasa's Review

RULER-AND-COMPASS IMPOSSIBILITY PROOFS DEMYSTIFIED

Ruler and the Round: Classic Problems in Geometric Constructions
Nicholas D. Kazarinoff
Manufacturer: Dover Publications
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Science | Subjects | Books
General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books
General Geometry | Geometry & Topology | Mathematics | Science | Subjects | Books
General Geometry | Geometry & Topology | Mathematics | Professional Science | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Geometric Constructions (Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics)

Famous Problems of Geometry and How to Solve Them (Dover Books Explaining Science)

Geometric Transformations I (Number 8)

Geometric Transformations II (New Mathematical Library)

Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry (Dover Books on Mathematics)

ASIN: 0486425150

Book Description

A number of geometric constructions are impossible to complete with just a ruler and a compass. This book discusses the most famous of these "impossible" constructions. Part I explores ground rules, history, and angle trisection. Part II treats nonconstructible regular polygons and the algebra associated with them. 1970 edition.

Customer Reviews:

Supplementing Nabrasa's Review.......2006-05-18

This review is meant to supplement the interesting and informative review by Professor Frango Nabrasa. I agree with Nabrasa's favorable assessment of the book, but I find his review to be excessively polite or insufficiently critical (I cannot tell which). Either way, I find his review potentially misleading. It will be impossible to follow this review without having read Nabrasa's, which appears on the same webpage.
Although I agree with Nabrasa's substitution of the expression `collapsing compass' for Kazarinoff's unfortunate `collapsible compass', I find the entire discussion of "ruler and compass constructions" to be ahistorical and anachronistic. The Greeks were perfectly clear that geometrical objects were abstract or ideal and that they are in no sense constructed. The constructivistic language used in Euclid must be understood as metaphorical or as referring to an ideal geometer. The idea that an actual geometer could literally construct a line from, say, the center of earth to the center of sun is too absurd. Moreover in the whole of Euclid's ELEMENTS there is no mention of a compass of any kind, nor for that matter of a straightedge. Incidentally, Nabrasa nowhere mentions that Kazarinoff uses the word `ruler' to mean "straightedge" while the majority of writers in the field take a ruler to be a measuring device having graduations--something straightedges lack--even though Kazarinoff mentions on page 59 Archimedes's simple trisection of an arbitrary angle using a "marked ruler".
Nabrasa wrote: "It [the book] has an intriguing and pedagogically effective discussion of the differences between a rather strange idealized device that I call the collapsing compass and the device familiar from high-school geometry that I call the non-collapsing compass. With the collapsing compass one draws a circle given the center and a point on the circumference, but one can not carry the length of the radius to other points to make copies of the circle -- the compass "collapses". But with the non-collapsing compass, once one circle has been drawn it can be copied over and over wherever a center is given. It is not that the collapsing compass can be collapsed or closed after used (as is implied by the word `collapsible' which Kazarinoff uses); rather it must be collapsed, it cannot be kept open any longer than needed to draw one circle. An appendix presents the reader with enough practice using the straightedge and collapsing compass that there will be no uncertainty about which facts are being proved. The practice is not just exercise: it is used to give a cogent and accessible proof of the fact, justifiably called astounding by Kazarinoff, that any figure constructible from given points by means of the straightedge and non-collapsing compass can be constructed with the straightedge supplemented only by a collapsing compass. Moreover, as far as I know, RULER AND THE ROUND is absolutely unique in that it provides a brief but informative discussion of exactly what a mathematical proof is."
In the first place Nabrasa misspoke slightly when he said: "With the collapsing compass one draws a circle given the center and a point on the circumference, but one can not carry the length of the radius to other points to make copies of the circle -- the compass `collapses'." Later on he praises Kazarinoff's proof that indeed this can be done. The problem of course is that instead of "one can not carry the length" he should have said "one can not simply carry the length ... as with the non-collapsing compass".
In the second place Nabrasa gives the impression that Kazarinoff is or might be the first to prove the astounding fact. But everything needed for knowledge of that fact goes back at least to Euclid: the gist of it is in Euclid's proof of Proposition 2 of Book I, as was pointed out to me by Prof. Martin Davis. The only reason I can think of to explain why neither Kazarinoff nor Nabrasa mention this historical point is that they did not know it. The idea that Kazarinoff would risk seeming to take credit he knew was due to Euclid is so contrary to Kazarinoff's character as to be absurd. Incidentally, to be historically accurate, Euclid did not say a word about proving that what could be constructed in one way could or could not be constructed in some other way: there is no comparison of different kinds of constructability anywhere in Euclid's ELEMENTS. Thus, even attributing awareness of the issue to Euclid would be unwarranted.
In the third place Nabrasa is being somewhat less than candid when he says that the Kazarinoff book "is absolutely unique in that it provides a brief but informative discussion of exactly what a mathematical proof is". For one thing "absolutely unique" is an exaggeration: "rare" would be more appropriate. For example, see Durfee 1963, 9. For another, Nabrasa himself thoroughly disagrees with the peculiarly elitist and subjectivist theory of proof espoused by Kazarinoff in the book (per. comm.). In fact, I cannot believe that even Kazarinoff himself would continue to espouse it once its fundamentally unscientific implications were made clear to him. (The reviewer was an admiring colleague and friend of Kazarinoff both at Ann Arbor and at Buffalo.)
The postulate that is most germane to the discussion, Euclid's third, is often translated: "To describe a circle with any center and distance". There are two standard non-constructive ways of interpreting this. First it can be taken in a strong sense as saying that given any point P and any line AB, there is a circle having P as center and having radius equal to AB. This corresponds to "postulating" a non-collapsing compass. Second it can be read in a much weaker sense: given any point P and given any point Q at any distance from P there is a circle having P as center and having radius equal to PQ. This corresponds to "postulating" a collapsing compass. If it is interpreted in the first or strong sense then (augmented by the first two postulates) Euclid's Proposition 2 follows almost immediately and Euclid's proof looks like the work of a puristic and prolix amateur. However, if it is read in the second weak sense then Proposition 2 is far from obvious and Euclid's proof becomes clean and "elegant". The weak reading follows immediately from the strong. I would say that it is obvious that the strong reading does not follow from the weak. -- John Corcoran.
Bibliography
Durfee, W. 1963. Fundamentals of College Algebra. New York: Macmillan.

Euclid. c. 300BCE/1956. Elements. 3 vols. Tr. T. Heath. New York: Dover.

Kazarinoff, N. 1970/2003. Ruler and the Round: Classic Problems in Geometric Constructions. New York: Dover.

Nabrasa, F. 2003. Review of Kazarinoff 1970/2003. Amazon.com.

RULER-AND-COMPASS IMPOSSIBILITY PROOFS DEMYSTIFIED.......2004-03-21

This thoroughly readable and enjoyable book for a general audience was written by an accomplished and respected mathematician, former Professor and Chair at two of the world's best Departments of Mathematics, the University of Michigan and the University of Buffalo. Unlike many other writers of popular mathematics books, Kazarinoff does not betray his beloved field by over-simplification, pontification, or dogmatism. On the contrary, Kazarinoff has deep faith in the intelligence and critical abilities of his readers and he makes ever effort to help them to become genuine participants in a small, but richly fascinating and beautiful corner of mathematics. His aim is to help the readers to gain personal knowledge of several mathematically, philosophically, historically and culturally important mathematical facts. Although these facts can be stated in short simple sentences, they were discovered to be facts only after centuries of intense mathematical research by some of the world's greatest minds. The simplest example is the fact that it is impossible to trisect the angle, i.e. there exists no general construction method or algorithm using only straight-edge and compass for trisecting an arbitrarily given angle. "RULER" in the title refers to the straight-edge; "ROUND" refers to the compass.
The Kazarinoff book, again contrary to the vast majority of popular mathematics books, carefully explains the nature of the mathematical facts to be proved: the relevant fundamentals of geometry, what a construction is, exactly what can and can not be done with the straight-edge, exactly what can and can not be done with the compass. It has an intriguing and pedagogically effective discussion of the differences between what I call the collapsing compass and the non-collapsing compass. With the collapsing compass one draws a circle given the center and a point on the circumference, but one can not carry the length of the radius to other points to make copies of the circle, the compass "collapses". But with the non-collapsing compass, once one circle has been drawn it can be copied over and over wherever a center is given. An appendix presents the reader with enough practice using the straight-edge and collapsing compass that there will be no confusion or uncertainty about which facts are being proved. The practice is not just exercise: it is used to give a cogent and accessible proof of the fact, justifiably called astounding by Kazarinoff, that any figure constructible from given points by means of the straight-edge and non-collapsing compass can be done with the straight-edge supplemented only by a collapsing compass. Moreover, and here, as far as I know, RULER AND THE ROUND is absolutely unique: it provides a brief but informative discussion of exactly what a mathematical proof is.
In each case, Kazarinoff wants the readers to know exactly which fact is being argued for and exactly what a proof of it would be like -- so that the readers can make their own judgments of whether Kazarinoff has actually proved it. On page 5, at the end of the section called "PROOF" he says to the reader concerning the arguments to be presented: "I hope they convince you too". In what other popular mathematics book have you seen such respect for the reader, such openness, such modesty? In what other popular mathematics book have you seen concern for the reader's opinion? This book is an implicit insult to the elitist high-priests of popularization with their breezy enthusiasm, their hocus-pocus "proofs", their mumbo-jumbo, their scientistic dogmatism.
Ironically, it is Kazarinoff's openness the leads him to temper his realism with what to my mind seems to be an unacceptable level of cultural relativism and to temper his egalitarianism with a sometimes hard-edged elitism. Nevertheless, his frankness and independence are truly refreshing and his sincere effort to share with non-experts his profound mastery of the material can only evoke gratitude. Of course, there is room for disagreement about the details and about how well he fulfilled his goals. Judgments on these issues are to some extent subjective and will depend on the background of the person making the judgment.
I first read a library copy of this book in 1970 when it first appeared. A few months later, when I decided to reread it, the library copy was on-loan with a long waiting list. I tried to buy a copy but by then it was out of print. Recently, I went to Amazon.com to try to get a used copy and was thrilled to learn that it is back in print with a 2003 date.
Who should read this book? Mathematics majors should look at this short 130-page book as early as possible because it might reveal to them what subject they have chosen:, or at the very least it will reveal to them what a serious, accomplished mathematician thinks the subject is. Mathematics teachers, especially those who complain that their students do not know what a proof is, might pick up a pointer or two from reading it. Logicians might learn something from it, especially from the section on pages 5 and 6 about what proofs are. Historians and philosophers of mathematics will find many original and thought-provoking perspectives in this book. Kazarinoff does not belong to any of the identifiable "schools" of philosophy of mathematics-he gives no signs in this book of having paid any of them the slightest attention. He is not selling anything and he is not spinning anything. I can not think of a better book for people curious about mathematics. - Frango Nabrasa, Manatee FL

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Parks & Recreation, published by National Recreation and Park Association on March 1, 2003. The length of the article is 1971 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Promoting active living: why public health needs parks and recreation.
Author: Richard Killingsworth
Publication: Parks & Recreation (Magazine/Journal)
Date: March 1, 2003
Publisher: National Recreation and Park Association
Volume: 38 Issue: 3 Page: 48(5)

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books