Killing Patton

Killing Patton by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

A review by John Haynes 

This book is not really a lot about Patton. Sometimes when reading, I even forgot that it was supposed to be about Patton. It would better be titled How America Won the War in Europe.

Some good things about the book. I like the references to Patton praying. I’m not sure he was a Christian, but he definitely knew he needed the help of the Almighty.

Problems with the book:

On p. 162, it says that on FDR’s fourth inauguration, “In addition to the veterans and dignitaries, a smattering of black faces can be seen in the crowd, reflecting Roosevelt’s hope for a more racially integrated nation.” Perhaps FDR wanted more black faces, but it’s absolutely not true that he wanted a “more racially integrated nation.” If that were true, why did he discriminate against Japanese Americans during that time in what is known as the internment? That was an awful time, and it was even upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944). That case was based on the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Interesting that on page 171, Roosevelt is quoted as saying that “[o]ur [C]onstitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument . . . [b]ut it provided a firm basis upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.” All manner it seems except Japanese Americans.

On p. 166, it says that “Roosevelt has lifted America up from the lowest point in U.S. history to make it the most powerful nation on earth.” He did nothing of the sort. It was World War II that lifted America up. Roosevelt was a socialist, and it was his policies that led to the kind of big government we have today.

p. 203 In the footnote, it says that starting with Eisenhower, “every president for the next forty-two years served in World War II.” There’s one problem with that. If it’s 42 years, that puts it at 1995 when it ends. Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, not 1995. He was the first of that era who was not a WWII vet.

On page 240, the authors make some significant errors about the Bible, repeating some of the same mistakes of Killing Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PXMBB3RXPCQE?ref_=pe_620760_65501210). Speaking about King David, they say that “[h]e was said to be ‘a man after God’s own heart’ [which is true, (1 Sam. 13:14)], despite the fact that he slept with his best friend’s wife, lied about the act, and then ordered the husband sent to the front lines so that he might be murdered in battle.” Ostensibly this is talking about Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. But much of this is not true. Uriah was not David’s best friend. He didn’t even know him, and we know that from the fact that he inquired about Bathsheba when he was contemplating sleeping with her (2 Sam. 11:3). If he were Uriah’s best friend, he surely would have already known that Bathsheba was his wife. Also, it is worth noting that nowhere in Scripture does it say that David lied about this act. Maybe he did, but there’s no evidence of this.

Later on that same page (240), the authors get it wrong about David again. In discussing David’s price that he paid for this sin, the authors say that he lost “a son at a very young age and eventually [lost] his entire kingdom.” I don’t know what son they’re talking about, but it would have to be the baby that Bathsheba gave birth to as a result of their sinful encounter. David lost other sons, but no other was at a “very young age.” I don’t know why they can’t be more specific.

Second, David never lost “his entire kingdom.” He was a great king until the day he died. The kingdom split not after David died but after Solomon died.

The ending was a big disappointment. The authors talk about the accident that led to Patton’s death, but you must fill in the blanks or go back and read the Prologue. I think that is poor writing. It’s okay to give a tease at the beginning of the book, but I don’t think the way this was written is very good.

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

By David Instone-Brewer

A review

By John Haynes

p. 14 He says that there are “two valid grounds for divorce, but remarriage is not allowed unless on of the former spouses has died.” About that he says this “is the one given by most established churches.” Really? I don’t think I even know of one church that holds this view. Anecdotal, I know, but still important.

p. 16 He deals with the idea of “no one can separate.” The passage that Jesus said in Matt. 19:6 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (NIV). It does not say, he goes to great lengths to point out, “no one can separate.” But is there a real difference?

He points out that the phrase “let not man separate” is an imperative. He is correct, but he fails to understand what that means. The imperative mood shows a command. Jesus was saying that mankind must not under any circumstances separate. So how is that really different from saying “can separate”? I’m not sure there is a real difference.

p. 20 He talks about God giving us Scripture, which by definition means the Old and New Testaments. He says that Scripture is “full of histories, letters, prophetic messages and praise songs. [But] it contains almost no theology.” What? Has he never read the book of Romans? This is a stupid statement and factually untrue.

p. 35 He discusses three more biblical grounds for divorce (in addition to adultery and desertion). He addresses Exodus 21-10-11:

“If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. ¹¹ If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment” (NLT).

He then switches into lawyer mode and says that this passage shows case law in the OT. Even though we don’t practice polygamy or slavery, he says, we still should draw principles from this passage. The problem is that polygamy and slavery are part of the case here. You can’t divorce it (no pun intended) from the passage.

p. 36. Regarding the man who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he says that Moses “decided that he deserved death.” Moses did no such thing. God declared his punishment (Num. 15:35).

p. 40 “A good lawyer might argue that she did not use the magical legal phrase ‘Time is of the essence.’” What? What does that have to do with anything?

p. 71 “Paul’s wife had probably did in childbirth (as happened all too often in the first century).” How in the world can he make a statement like that? He doesn’t know anything about Paul’s past!

p. 72 “The present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). . . . Historians guess that he must have been referring to the famine that was afflicting the region at that time.” Again, another leap.

“In general Paul approved of marriage.” Glad he thinks so. I think Paul approved more than generally.

p. 94 “Origen, the greatest of the church fathers at the start of the third century.” Rather dubious statement. Iranaeus (died in 202) was better in my opinion. There was also Hippolytus and Tertullian, who both rivaled Origen.

pp. 94-95 “A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” Not true. He says that if separated, you must remain unmarried. Read the text, please!

p. 96 “Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time.” You cannot argue from silence, and he knows this!

p. 98 “We have concluded that Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 (and par.) only exclude divorce for “Any Cause,” but does this mean that Jesus accepted  the grounds given in Exodus 21:10-11? As we saw earlier in this chapter, we can probably assume that he did accept them because if he had not he would have said so.” This is putting words in Jesus’ mouth. Not allowed.

p. 99 “Later in the chapter, when [Paul] suggests that people should postpone their marriage plans because of the famine. . . .” Paul never mentions a famine. You can’t put words in Paul’s mouth, either.

“Although Paul does not specifically say that these three areas of neglect can be grounds for divorce, the fact that he talks about them as obligations implies that he accepted them and agreed with them [Ex. 21:10-11]. . . . If Paul did not accept these grounds for divorce, he would not have used these verses as a basis for his teaching on the obligations within marriage.” But Paul isn’t using them as proofs for divorce. Not at all.

p. 100 “In summary, Paul accepts all four Old Testament grounds for divorce.” No he didn’t. He didn’t prove this at all.

p. 106 Apparently this author has also written a book called Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. So how is that different from this book?

p. 206 “Jesus is using preacher’s rhetoric when he tells people to gouge out the eyes.” Preacher’s rhetoric? Never heard of that. How about hyperbole?