|
Review Summary: What will you say to God when you stand before HIM? |
Date: 2008-12-16 |
|
| |
Details: John M's book is awesome!
I don't know about you, but when I meet my God and Savior face to face on judgment day, I don't want Him to have to ask me why I did not believe that He meant what He said in HIS WORD. I can see how non-Christians can mis-interpret scripture because they don't have the Holy Spirit to help them discern. But when we call ourselves Christians yet say we don't believe God can or did create the earth and Heavens in six 24-hour days...oh my word!...what kind of arrogance and pride is that?! To question and reword the Bible?...the words of our Creator, and final Judge?! Have we no fear of God? He says He cannot be mocked! He also said that it would be better to have a millstone tied around our neck and be cast into the sea than to mislead a child. Oh, how this argument between Christians misleads so many, young and old alike! Because when we question scripture, saying it could mean this or that (simply because we let science and our pressupositions, influence our thoughts) we are saying that we can just interpret scripture any way we want to. So, to those people who are searching, who have questioning minds, those who sincerely want to know the truth, this kind of 'interpretation' makes them question even the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the heart of the Gospel! And then we wonder why we as Christians can't seem to convince the world that they need Jesus?!
It's plain to see, the 'Christians' are doing such a good job of messing up people's thoughts, that Satan can just sit back and relax. If we truly ARE Christians, and we sincerely ask God to reveal to us the truth and give us wisdom, how can He lead us anywhere else but to have full confidence in His Words from the very beginning of Genesis?!! I also believe that if we lack that confidence, we have not truly asked Him for the truth or for His wisdom, we have let our pride get in the way because we don't want to look 'stupid' in the world's eyes. But oh...my...goodness...how much more I wish to look bad in the world's eyes and not God's!! Who is in charge of my entire life, my eternity?! He is the one I want to have confidence in! I don't want to give even a tad of credibility to a weak hypothesis (evolution - not a theory because it can't be tested!) which was devised to get rid of the need for God! Evolution is what leads us to believe in long ages, and therefore leads us not to believe God created in 6 days, which leads us to compromise the whole rest of Scripture! When we compromise the Word, we ourselves are at a disadvantage when we want to share our faith because we can't stand firmly on the authority of His Words. We have to say 'we're not sure', and they'll wonder how we can be so sure of the Gospel then. Can't we see that's what is happening these days? Long age believers are giving more credibility to 'science' than to the WORD OF GOD!! Because the Bible in itself does NOT in any part of it, lead us to come to a logical conclusion of long ages. Long ages only causes one to doubt that the Word of God is the ultimate authority!! Is this not leading some people away from the Bible and straight to Hell? We WILL be held accountable!! Please watch what you say and think about what you believe! John M's book upholds scripture, and that's why it is such a good book!
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Old-fashioned traditionalists will cheer, the rest of us will yawn... |
Date: 2008-09-13 |
|
| |
Details: While agreeing with a great deal of what Dr. MacArthur says, and having been an avid listener to his radio programs for over 20 years, I have to say this work is not really that inspiring. He begins with an all-out attack on Evolution, not strictly on scientific grounds, but rather on the dangers to our society that result from its teaching. From the start, he explains that he is a Bible scholar, not a scientist, so therefore won't be talking about the scientific basis for a literal 6-day creation, but would leave that to others. But he devotes a lot of space to quotes from the works of Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research explaining why the complexity of life forms rules out evolution. He does give Morris proper credit, so I wouldn't call it outright plagiarism, but it certainly was one of the most liberal uses of the "cut" and "paste" functions I've seen in a long time. I've read and enjoyed much of the late Dr. Morris' works, and found his books far more enlightening - at least he did original research. Dr. MacArthur would have done his readers a favor by using material newer than 15 years old, and maybe from more than one source, if he wanted to tout his book as new. Or stuck to his original basis and theological arguments rather than kill more trees with frankly pretty well-worn and well-known material about zoology/radiometric dating methods, etc.
To be sure, Dr. MacArthur delves into the Hebrew and does a fair exegesis of Gen 1, explaining on a linguistic basis why the "days" must and can only mean literal, 24-hour periods. However, he then attempts to give a rather detailed narrative of our plant's first 6 days, filling in the blanks left by the text itself. The effort is appreciated; the lack of a scientifically sound cosmological model has been a common criticism against young-earthers. Not surprisingly, then, the section comes out sounding a lot more scientific than exegetic, and one gets the strong impression that most of this section, too, is cut and pasted.
In contrast to MacArthur's theological works which can be excruciatingly rigorous, this book has the feel of a product that was thrown together under a tight deadline at the suggestion of a publisher who thought a MacArthur book on the young earth would sell well. While I don't doubt his personal conviction on this matter, I don't feel the book contributes much to the existing knowledge base nor the young-earth cause. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Theology review |
Date: 2008-07-30 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: This is an excellent defense of sola scriptura. The author reveals the negative theological implications of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. Our current culture is aggressively attacking the two greatest miracles of the Bible: the Creation and the Resurrection. This book stands firmly in defense of scripture. By the way, observational science also supports scripture. Observational science is perhaps better addressed in other texts however. Historical "science?" Well, that's a different religion. |
| |
|
Review Summary: The Long Look Back Into The Future |
Date: 2008-01-24 |
|
| |
Details:
John MacArthur's "The Battle For The Beginning," sees the future in peril because of a disconnect from the reality of the past.
"As humanity enters the twenty-first century, an even more frightening prospect looms. Now even the Church seems to be losing the will to defend what Scripture teaches about human origins."
MacArthur thus exposes his work's greatest asset while confirming the most obvious weakness of that same effort.
"Battle" is a masterful study of Scripture's opening foundational record of this world, even this universe's beginnings. MacArthur first outlines the enemies of God's Word, many joined in the camp of Naturalism, that the reader might better appreciate the author's refuting enumerations of God's fiat proclamations vis-a-vis the creation of Man and his surroundings.
For men of faith in the God of the Holy Bible, MacArthur's exposition is completely satisfying. To those outside this ken, only frustration explains their detailed responses.
Much amusement is generated by both combatants since God has proclaimed :
"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me.
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done..."
{Isaiah 46:10, The New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers."}
"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" {Jesus, John 3:12, ibid.}
MacArthur renders a near flawless delineation of the Creation account. The inclusion of our Blessed Hope would not only have duly crowned the work for all who yet love His appearing, but underlined the importance of MacArthur's toil.
After all, if there is no hope for the future, the beginning matters little. Conversely, for substantiation of our Blessed Hope one need only refer to the beginning.
TL Farley,
author,
When Now Becomes Too Late,
Distant Reaches
When Now Becomes Too Late { Hard copy }
When Now Becomes Too Late { Kindle copy }
{ Prophecy : The Rapture In Brief }
Distant Reaches
{ True Life Adventure In Ireland, Boston and On The North Atlantic }
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Great book--VERY misleading reviews |
Date: 2007-12-30 |
|
|
| |
Details: Read this book. It is very well written and systematic. You will not be disappointed.
I will comment on the illogical misstatements of one of the reviewers to show the absurdity of their highly negative review.
REVIEWER STATES:
Thirdly, MacArthur is fundamentally ignorant on matters of general history. On page 16 he says: "The moral catastrophe that has disfigured modern western society is directly traceable to Darwinism and rejection of the early chapters of Genesis." All the moral failings in modern society had their precursors well before Darwin published "The Origin of Species" in 1859 and many were flourishing. Moral catastrophes are not the exclusive domain of the last 140 years.
MY COMMENT:
The author did not state that all the moral catastrophes of history have occured in the last 140 years! He did not include the moral catastrphes of the entire world either.
The rejection of God as creator and Lord goes back to the earliest of human civilizations. Darwinism or today's Evolutionism is a new spin on the oldest myth known to man: that the universe, this world and life are not creations of God. All the moral catastrophes of history are traceable back to this simplistic, wishful thinking.
The author correctly states that Darwinism and modern Evolutionism was reintroduced to western culture which resulted in the great moral and intellectual slide we now see.
REVIEWER STATES:
Fourthly, MacArthur is ignorant of evangelical history. He writes "over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as "old-earth creationism..."" (pages 18-19). In fact, many of the founders of geology and established the fact that the earth was very old were not only devout Christians but often evangelicals. Men such as the Playfair, Fleming, Chambers, Buckland, Sedgwick, Miller, Silliman, and Dawson. The United States was introduced to organic evolution by the evangelical Asa Gray. Evangelical theologians such as Warfield (who defined the modern doctrine of Biblical inerrancy) and James Orr (who contributed to "The Fundamentals") were strong supporters of organic evolution.
MY COMMENTS:
The review does not understand what the definition of a Christian is. Millinons of people can claim to be Christians, attending Christian churches "religiously" who are not and have never been Christians. Jesus refers to these people as wolves or ravenous lions. There are many churches today who preach that Jesus is not the Son of God or that the Bible is not literally true. Do you really believe that these churches are Christian?
Cultural Christians(I am born in America or England therefore I am a Christian) at end of the 19th century who rushed to embrace Darwin and his philosophy were numerous--true! Many of these people could be characterized by their discomfort with Christianity but their need for the legitimacy of a Christian facade for acceptance. Remember, science and the Bible were never considered to be at odds by the greatest scientists of history. But Darwin gave hope and legitimacy to all those theologins and scientists who prefered to reject the clear teaching of Genesis.
The scientific community in general rejected Darwin's speculative notions. A systematic campaign by his supporters eventually changed that.
REVIEWER STATES:
Fifthly, MacArthur is inconsistent in his approach. He is convinced that Genesis 1-3 must be taken at face value and therefore the findings of cosmology, geology, and palaeontology must be rejected. But seems to accept the fact that the earth goes round the sun, the universe is very large, that the sky is not a solid dome, and modern genetics (see pages 69-135 in particular). These are all inconsistent with taking Scripture at face value. In these other areas MacArthur accepts scientific findings to interpret the Bible in a non-literal way. However he explicitly says on page 22: "Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of Scripture..." So what criteria does he use to accept one scientific conclusion but not another?
MY RESPONSE:
Oh how absurd this final statement is. The reviewer seems to wish you to believe that that Bible does teaches the opposite of the following: "earth goes round the sun, the universe is very large, that the sky is not a solid dome, and modern genetics."
When Ptolemy's (a non-Christian scientist) view that the sun revolved around the earth was accepted generally in much of the world, the Christian, Copernicus, was stating otherwise. The Bible states that the earth is an orb, round, etc. It doesn't state that the sky is a solid dome (maybe the reviewer does not know the definition of the word firmament). How could the Bible imply that the Universe is not large? It is stated that the number of stars cannot be counted! At the time the Bible was written, mankind was able to count the stars because without the aid of electronic telescopes, no one could know (when resting on man's knowledge) that the stars are number in the billions and billions.
FINAL WORD:
I have read many many books on evolution and creation and found this to be special. Another great read is, "Darwin's Leap of Faith."
Evolutionism is a religious belief system which has been falsified a thousand times over. The so-called science is in utter disarray. We are on the brink of the most embarrassing repudiation of a scientific "fact" since a Christian proved the earth revolved around the sun. The dirty little secret of Darwinism's demise is all but open now. I assume it will become public knowledge when those who have the most to loose (reputation, respect, position, career) have retire or passed away.
|
| |
|
out of 30 Reviews
