Found this forum that has some interesting discussions on eschatology:
If/when dad is ready to read up on the subject, I can also recommend a couple of excellent books. My only disappointment with them is that they still use the old misleading nomenclature - Amillennialism, Partial Preterism, etc.
Guess it was too much to hope that FINALISM would have general currency by now.
...so he's been reading up a storm...
Funny you should use that word. Sam Storms is one of the recommended authors:
But dad might be better off starting with this one:
However, hang fire on that purchase until existing stock has sold out. Apparently, older editions are riddled with typos, & you know how much I hate those. The new stock has a better chance of being proofread. The author cut corners on proofreading initially coz of the prohibitive cost. Now if he asked me nicely.........
PS Alternatively, if he can't wait that long, and prefers a lighter (as in shorter) read, this book also comes highly recommended, and has been responsible for turning many away from all forms of chiliasm:
Fair dos, but be warned:
I really wanted to give this book five stars, but withheld a star for two reasons. First, I have never read a book with so many glaring typos and errors [he obviously never read Keith Scott-Mumby's 'Cancer Research Secrets', which is absolutely dire]. There are misspelled words, missing articles, missing conjunctives, and misused words littered throughout the book. It is not possible to go three pages without encountering an error, and often there are multiple errors per page. The inside jacket says "The author of this book has waived a portion of the publisher's recommended professional editing and proofreading services." All I can say is ---WHY??? Is it the cost? The author really shot himself in the foot here. Spend the money and get the book cleaned up! My second issue with the book is all of the Calvinistic buzzwords (sovereign grace, irresistible grace, etc...) and nuance that pervades the text. It is an unnecessary distraction (and irritant to many who reject Calvin's theology) that could be jettisoned without affecting any of the eschatology or arguments. Yes, I get that the author is a die-hard Calvinist, but in a debate, why not stay on topic?
To which the author replied:
Dear Finance Prof,
Thanks so much for reviewing my book. I am grateful for the four stars, but grieved that so many errors appear to remain. You are not the first to raise this complaint.
To answer your question, Yes, the cost for editing was prohibitive, in a book this size running into many thousands of dollars. But also, I have proof-read the book at least six times, trying with all my might to strain out the proverbial gnat. Alas, I now know the book so well, my mind gets ahead of my eye.
To encourage you, I now have a trusted sister in the Lord who is combing the book, for the first time, for any and all errors. I hope she finds them all; if they are indeed as copious as you say, I will most certainly submit a clean ms to Redemption Press for a next edition.
Finally, I trust you did indeed buy the most recent edition (an older one does remain available on Amazon, which I am unable to remove). If you bought it in the Kindle version I will make you a deal. If you will send me a list of any errors you find, I will send you a complimentary copy of the new, improved print edition as soon as it is ready. If not, please pray for Susan, my editor friend, that the Lord gives her eyes to see!
My contact info is email@example.com
Thanks again for taking the time to review my book. I means a lot to me.
Sincerely in Christ,
Finally, you should also be aware that the author is in the process of writing an abridged version of the book, much like Cornelis Venema did with his excellent book on the subject (The Promise of the Future), though a publication date has yet to be announced.
I only mention this in case your dad prefers a shorter read. The full version runs to over 650pp, but there's little doubt about its standing as one of the best in its field.
Yes, hopefully she'll do a grand job. And as the author himself discovered, it's a fallacy to imagine that anybody can proofread. There are good psychological reasons why most ppl cannot proofread. One reason was suggested by the author himself - he's so familiar with his own text, his mind simply races ahead of his eyes, so he misses the clangers.
Another reason is that even when errors are encountered, they are 'corrected' at a subconscious level - like a sort of autocorrect - so again they are missed.
ANECDOTE: I once worked for an architectural practice, and word got around that I was a bit of a whizz at proofreading. One of the associates asked me to proofread his contribution to the practice rag. It was just one paragraph, so of course I agreed. I proofread it while standing in a queue at the bank. On returning to the office, I asked this associate if he checked his piece over before giving it to me.
He said he checked it over several times, and was therefore quite confident that it was error-free. So you can imagine his surprise when I informed him that I found no less than six typos, including a misspelling of the word 'building'!! He was shocked. Six bloopers in the space of a single paragraph, from a highly educated and qualified architect who apparently cannot even spell building.
But of course he could spell building. His brain simply supplied the missing letter. When I explained to him how he managed to miss all his mistakes, the penny dropped, and he cheered up a little. But it proves my point - proofreading requires a specific mental discipline that most of us don't have. You hafta stop your brain doing what it does naturally, and that's not as easy as you might think.
Ask the missus, who teaches English (among other subjects), but still hasta pass her literary efforts by me before sending them out. And yes, she makes plenty of mistakes too.
Hope you enjoyed the sound of my own trumpet.
It doesn't bother me half as much as you think it does. If/when I correct you (or a n other), I do so largely for your benefit, not mine. If it's unwelcome/unappreciated, I can stop quite easily w/out psychological harm to myself!
It annoys me a lot more when I see it in books. There is no excuse for poor editing or non-existent proofreading.
With one or two exceptions when you tried (and failed) to explain to me who is left to populate your millennium following the second advent, there's nothing wrong with your comms skills chuck. Or vekky's. Or rainy's. Or even tansy's for that matter - despite all her typos, etc.
It's trapper's comms skills that have me stumped. His and that number guy. Both write reasonably good lingo, but what they write is incomprehensible. Either trapper lives on his own planet, or else he's too spaced out to make any sense. Have you ever managed to get any sense out of him? Coz I sure as heck haven't.
Personally, I would hesitate to call it a gift. I would say it's closer to being something like an ability or aptitude. Can it be taught? Well, I asked the missus (who is a qualified teacher after all, innit?), and she reckons no, so who am I to argue with an expert?
So then I asked her, why can I do it, but others not so much? Coz I'm so bl**dy annoying was her reply, & I'm sure vekky would concur. Then (slightly more seriously) added that it's connected to 'literary intelligence' (whatever that is) and an ability to ignore my brain's autocorrect function.
For example, if autocorrect is primarily a function of the left hemisphere, it's possible that a more dominant r. hemisphere overrides or switches it off. Which implies it can't be taught, coz it's physiological/anatomical rather than an acquired skill.
BTW, she thought it was a gift, but that's where I part company with her.
So, upshot is there won't be any lessons today in proofreading I'm afraid. You don't need them anyway.
Ahhh how suave and debonair you are to bring up our difference within that post. ;)
Not to mention urbane, sophisticated, intelligent, scholarly, handsome; and a gentleman & acrobat to boot, right?
As for the rest, let's agree to differ yet again. If passages such as Mt. 13 & 25, Jn 5, Rom. 8, 1 Cor. 15, 2 Thess. 1, Heb.12 and 2 Pet. 3 don't convince you, nothing I say ever will. It's your own prejudices that are getting in the way of letting you see the truth, but who knows, maybe light will break forth in those darkened corners one day.
You may not believe it, but you now know too much to hold back the flood of truth much longer. One day your dam will give way to an irresistible force, and you will wonder what took you so long to see what was in plain sight right in front of your eyes.