Amazon.com: A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days: Dave Hunt: Books
Here are two of the reviews:
I have had a copy of Dave Hunt's book for a number of years. As a Church historian I was shocked by his poor understanding of history, Church documents and outright dishonesty in his handling of sources. When Hunt can find a source he can't simply twist, he simply makes things up to suit his purposes.
On page 339 (paperback), Hunt wrote: "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine bluntly declares:"
And then he lists this indented quote with brackets in the original:
"Man can obtain a knowledge of God's Word [only] from the Catholic Church and through its duty constituted channels."
"When he has once mastered this principle of divine authority [residing in the Church], the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the divine Church teaches on faith, morals and the means of grace."
So what's wrong with that two paragraph quote? No such thing exists - at least not the way he listed it. Let me explain. Yes, there really is a Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, but you won't find that quote in it as he listed it. First, check Hunt's own footnotes. You'll discover that the pages on which this quote appears is pages 25-27. I have a copy of the catechism from the same publisher. The quote does not appear on the pages listed. Maybe that was a simple error. Look through the catechism, however, and this is what you'll discover. The second paragraph of the quote is on page roman numeral vi. In other words, it's on the second page of the catechism. The first part of the quote is on page 36!!!!! That's right. Hunt transposed the two quotes, pretended they were one contiguous quote (after listing them in the wrong order) and then got the pages wrong or simply falsified the page humbers. Hunt's book is filled with rank dishonesty. To say that Hunt took the quotes out of context is a gross over-simplification.
Another example shows up on page 95. Here Hunt cited Henry Chadwick, the author of Early Christian History, as proof that "Pope Leo I (440-61) boasted that St. Peter and St. Paul had 'replaced Romulus and Remus as the city's [Rome's] protecting patrons." Hunt's intention is clear. He wants his reader to believe that Catholicism is merely paganism with a veneer of Christianity pulled tautly over it. The problem is that his example doesn't work for him. If you actually read Chadwick's book, however, page 243, you'll discover that Chadwick made it clear that Leo was a champion of Christianity, told his fellow Christians to not mix their Christian beliefs with paganism and unearthed and stopped a Manichee infiltration of the Church. Chadwick is clear. Hunt tries to falsify Chadwick's opinion of Leo. Such handling of sources is not only dishonest but thoroughly unchristian. Such dishonesty, however, is par for the course for Hunt.
A friend of mine, also a Church historian, was given this book by an anti-Catholic when he was considering becoming a Catholic. He saw through it instantly and was saddened to see that people believed these sorts of things. We were fortunate. He had a master's degree in church history and so did I. Most other people lack that sort of education, don't read much, won't bother to check Hunt's sources and will be fooled. Sad.
72 of 138 people found the following review helpful:
There should be a "no-star" option. . .,
1) The "Whore" which, according to Hunt, is the Catholic Church, is said to sit upon a seven-headed beast. Hunt assumes that this refers to the Catholic Church, since the Church is headquartered in Rome and ancient Rome was built on seven hills. Assuming that the intelligent reader would even consider such an analogy to be reasonable, it must be pointed out that geographically, the Vatican is not located on ANY of the hills of ancient Rome.
2) Hunt assumes that since the city of Rome is referred to in Scripture as "Babylon" the "Whore" must be the Catholic Church. Again, he misses the rather obvious point that Scripturally other cities are also referred to as "Babylon", namely Sodom and Jerusalem. He further misses the point that when Rome is referred to as "Babylon" the context refers to the pagan empire which persecuted Christians (including John, the author of Revelation) for centuries.
3) Hunt bases much of his eisegesis on certain nativist interpretations of "history" made popular in Great Britain and the United States over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, these views of history bear no resemblence to reality -- as a simple check of basic history texts, Catholic, Protestant, or secular -- will demonstrate.
4) Finally, Hunt bases much on the oft repeated lies and distortions popular since the 1960's blaming Hitler, the Holocaust, and (especially) Pope Pius XII for World War II.
All in all, the book is couched in offensively sanctimonius language, obstensibly suggesting that the author really loves Catholics and hopes to rescue them, etc. This reviewer finds that sort of language insulting and condescending at best.
The informed reader will quickly see through this volume, regardless of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, Mr. Hunt is saying things that some want to hear and will continue to repeat and propogate, regardless of truth and meri
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!