Disliking Kingdom Through Covenants more

Well it turns out that the book "Kingdom through covenants" is falling apart in my hands like wet tissue paper.
This by way of example is going to the real point of today's blog post: what I hate about Christian academia.

The writers of this book are digressing considerably into something I actually hate: academic language. This has a few distinct characteristics:

1. Bloviation.
   An extensive examination of the original base language that takes 10 pages, 500 different competitive perspectives or explanations, and then manages to say exactly what the English says.
   
2. Squabbling.
   "Voorhees states that the concept of the suzerain treaties form the basis of our understanding of covenants. Higgins adds that this is fundamentally unsound, relegating the Hittite treaties as a suitable comparison, however falling in one or two key areas. Not surprisingly, Yorgens corollary takes umbrage with Borsophiens theory in this respect, regarding the vassal, lordship hypothesis."
   It's like sitting down to eat a thanksgiving meal, and not being able to eat because everyone is disputing the best way to cook the turkey, even though it's right there in front of you.
   Now this may make me angry because I'm an Engineer, but I don't think so, I think that people don't appreciate the insulated, insular, inbred Academic world of peer review and fascinating novel hypothesis. They just want the plain and simple truth. From what I can tell Academia seems to be about what's novel, what's interesting, what Johnny come lately can I go to the dance with, because that's the way we press the boundary for knowledge, going out where nobody has before.
   Unfortunately that's not Christianity. I want truth, not dispute. I want the answer, not a pointless argument. I want food, not feud.
   
3. Faithlessness.
   This is what I love about John MacAurthur, for as much as I disagree with him about dispensationalism- his simply and honest faith. These academics have no faith. In this book they are talking about the meaning of "Come, let us make man in our image, in our likeness" and the writer lists 8 different guesses about what this could mean, including God talking to the Earth, then rules out the correct one (it's us getting an insight to the Trinity) because Moses wouldn't have understood God was trinity. That's nothing but faithlessness.

Maybe this thing is going to turn around soon, I'm on page 200, and there are 400 more to go, so there is some time, but this has been a great disappointment. I was enticed to read because I saw the reviews point to this book as the next big thing, the understanding of the whole of the Bible in terms of Christological, where Christ stands at it's center. So far, not good. Not only have I not seen Christ in it, I have not seen any signs that point anywhere near Him, and the road has been in the wrong direction.