Dark Matter eLiquid

Enjoy the wonderful flavor of our latest VapeSafe eLiquid - Dark Matter.

Dark Matter tastes like German chocolate cake. For those of you who have not had the fortunate to try a piece German chocolate cake recently, this is a great way to experience the flavor without getting any of the calories. German chocolate cake is a layered cake filled and topped with a coconut-pecan frosting. Traditionally sweet baking chocolate is used for the chocolate flavor in the actual cake. The robust filling and topping is a caramel made with egg yolks and evaporated milk. Once the caramel is cooked, coconut and pecans are stirred into the mixture. Finally, rich chocolate frosting is spread around the sides of the cake to hold in the filling.

Dark Matter eLiquid by VapeSafe captures the essence of German chocolate cake. Dark Matter eLiquid delivers plumes of vapor and rich chocolatey flavor that you'll want to enjoy again and again. Try Dark Matter today!

Technology Information:

The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?

Description

Does it matter whether the New Testament documents are reliable or not? Is it so very important that we should be able to accept them as truly historical records? Some people will very confidently return a negative answer to both these questions. The Christian might answer that the historicity of the New Testament and the truth of Christianity do not become less vitally important for mankind by being ignored or denied.

Reviews

Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2010-05-29
Summary: "Fantastic Book, Terrible Editing"

First and foremost, this is an excellent apologetic book defending reliability of the New Testament, chasing many tough questions all the way to original sources. I learned a great deal from Bruce's work, and have found in reading other newer books that today's authors add little more than what Bruce has written here. I rely on Bruce for additional information related to the Bible quite frequently, and recommend his books in general. (+5 stars)

That said, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable" has about the worst editing I have ever seen. There is an average of a typo per page. Most of the book looks like it was written into it's final format through the use of Optical Character Recognition software, or read to write software. Words printed either look similar to what would make sense, or they phonetically sound similar to what would make sense. This is very distracting, and would make citing this book awkward. It is upsetting that such a nice book that is so easy to comprehend is packed with typos. The book dates back several decades; I think this publisher is new because it is copyrighted 2009 by Wilder, first edition although it has been in print since 1960's. Hopefully the publisher will take the time to improve the editing for a second edition very soon. Let me include one example for illustrative purposes, "This summary of the way in which the shirt gospel may have been built up 15 based on biblical evidence..." Took me awhile to tease out the meaning, but I'm pretty sure his original intent was "This summary of the way in which the third gospel may have been built up is based on biblical evidence..." (-1 star)

If you are looking to strengthen your faith that the New Testament is grounded in fact, this is a fantastic book that is a very quick read. However, you may want to wait for Wilder's second edition, or seek a different publisher.

---

Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-05-22
Summary: "Still the best introduction to the subject"

This is the first book I recommend to people with questions about the historical reliability of the New Testament. Bruce devotes brief chapters to dating and attestation, to the formation of the canon, to textual criticism, and then to the Gospels, Paul, and Luke-Acts individually. He compares the New Testament documents to what we know of the first century from archaeology, classical history, ancient Jewish writing (including the Talmudim, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls), and the earliest Christian writers.

All together, he makes a compelling case for accepting the New Testament writings as historically reliable accounts written by eyewitnesses and published within living memory of the events they record. I especially enjoyed the chapter analysing Luke's evocation of different places and his precision with respect to the complex and tangled matter of Roman administrative titles. Bruce manages to get a surprising amount of detail into a relatively short book (124pp). Although it was originally published in 1943 and has not been significantly reworked since 1959, it holds up remarkably well.

---

Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2010-03-22
Summary: "Solid Scholarship"

As most reviewers' have already commented on the scholarship attributes of the book, which I generally agree with, I will focus my comments on the publisher, Wilder Publications, LLC (2009). This is by far the poorest book I have ever tried to read in regard to the printing accuracy -- it is literally full of typeset errors. It is so bad in certain areas that it is difficult if not impossible to make sense of what is written. So if you desire to purchase this book, please try to get an older version from a different publisher, even if you have to buy it used. My rating of the book is out of respect for the author but in no way reflects my satisfaction with the publisher. I would not have bought the book if I had known the publishing was so poor.

---

Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-01-31
Summary: "New Testament Insight"

This book provides a good insight into authors and receivers of the New Testament documents. How they were received and why some documents took longer to be perceived by the various churches to be authentic and canon. A worthy addition to your library and knowledge base.

---

Rating: 3 / 5
Date: 2010-01-13
Summary: "Excellent scholarly work; atrocious published production"


Bruce's work on New Testament reliability is concise, incisive, and persuasive. The content of this book is outstanding.

However, Wilder Publications 2009 printing of Bruce's classic work is absolutely appalling. I honestly cannot believe that a publisher sent this copy to press with the number of errors, misprints, spelling mistakes, etc. that are contained. I have not yet read a complete page that was error-free, and ALL of the errors I have come across so far would have been easily identifiable through the use of a proofreader. A couple of examples: page 10, talking about the timeline of Jesus' ministry, Bruce writes that Jesus' public ministry would have commenced in September or October, AD 27.1. The Wilder edition presents it as "September or October, AD a7.1". A few pages later, while discussing the closeness of the NT manuscript tradition to the time of Christ, Bruce compares it to other ancient writings. At the top of page 13, the Wilder edition presents Bruce as writing: "For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day." I don't know how many years "goo" is, but I suspect that it is 800. There are a few regularly-recurring errors: the word "in" is presented as "m"; there are random quotation marks that do not belong; words run into one another without a space between them. Occasionally letters are missing from words (e.g. Matta an logia instead of Matthaean logia), and sometimes entire words are missing from sentences.

It appears that Wilder Publications ran an earlier edition of Bruce's work through a digital scanner, and sent the resulting copy directly to the printing press without ever running it by a proofreader. I tried to find an email address for Wilder Publications, or at least a phone number where I could relate my concerns, but came up empty. I will send them a letter to the post office box listed inside the book.

Basically, Bruce's work is excellent; I can't recommend it highly enough. But do NOT buy the 2009 Wilder Publications edition of it. My 4th-grader could have done a better job of proofing it.