John MacArthur's "Battle for the Beginning"

[Mandi N.]

has anyone here read the book "battle for the beginning", particularly theistic evolutionists? i haven't yet, but apparently dr. macarthur really goes all out against theistic evolution, drawing some lines in the sand. just wanted some thoughts, impressions, criticisms, etc. from anyone who's read it. thanks

 

[Jet Black]

Bible-believing Christians "ought to expose such lies for what they are and oppose them vigorously."

hmm, a no true scotsman fallacy in the introduction. I bet it gets worse.

 

[Arikay]

I haven't read it, but if its anything like this b.s.,
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-220.htm
Then I doubt its any good and our friend needs to go back to school.

In the article he basically calls Gould a dishonest man, without anything to back up the claim, then goes on to talk about the "morality" of evolution and how it says that we are no better than monkeys, and that it could never happen to begin with, again providing no evidence except a plug to buy his series. He goes on to basically say that if you don't take genesis literal, then you aren't a good christian. Basically idolizing the bible and considering himself infalible when it comes to reading the bible.

and yes, it does sometimes tick me off to hear people like this talk about how are supporting higher morals, as they lie through their teeth.

 

[JohnR7]

I haven't read it, QUOTE]

In six normal, solar 24-hour days, God created the entire universe. And as we have noted in our study, he did it about six or 7,000 years ago. That's how old this entire universe is. That may be shocking to some of you who haven't been with us in the series. I would recommend you get the series. You'll never be able to read this kind of silliness again with any kind of conviction that it is remotely connected to reality.

I have said before that I believe the Bible teaches that a day to God is equal to 1000 years to us. But I am open to anyone that has a Bible explaination that a creation day is longer than that. In this sermon, he seems to be pretty closed minded to a day being any more than a literal 24 hour solar day.

If there were exactly 360 days in a year, I maybe more inclined to believe. But when there are 364 1/4 days in a year, then I wonder if there is not a reason why we have an extra 4 1/4 days. Of course, sense the spinrate of the earth is slowing down, then eventually there will be a time when there are 360 days in the year.

 

[Jet Black]

but then 1000 years consists of 365,250 days. so what do you do?

 

[JohnR7]

but then 1000 years consists of 365,250 days. so what do you do?

A year is still the same length, no many how many days are in it. The length of the day has not changed that much in the last 6000 years.

Ge 6:3 - Show Context Then the LORD said, " My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." No many how many days man has, it can still only add up to 120 years.

 

[AirPo]

In six normal, solar 24-hour days, God created the entire universe. And as we have noted in our study, he did it about six or 7,000 years ago. That's how old this entire universe is. That may be shocking to some of you who haven't been with us in the series. I would recommend you get the series. You'll never be able to read this kind of silliness again with any kind of conviction that it is remotely connected to reality.

How can there have been a solar day if there was no sun?

 

[Phred]

If there were exactly 360 days in a year, I maybe more inclined to believe. But when there are 364 1/4 days in a year, then I wonder if there is not a reason why we have an extra 4 1/4 days. Of course, sense the spinrate of the earth is slowing down, then eventually there will be a time when there are 360 days in the year.

There are 365 1/4 days. The spinrate of the Earth doesn't have anything to do with how long a year is, a year is determined by how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun.

 

[Data]

Of course, sense the spinrate of the earth is slowing down, then eventually there will be a time when there are 360 days in the year.

There was a time when there where 360 days in a year, but not in the future.

The earths spin is very slowly slowing, so days will become longer, not shorter, and the amount of days in a year will decrease.

 

[Chapter 2]

AWESOME book. John MacArthur really hit the nail on the head. It just goes to show that it doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.

 

[ForeRunner]

AWESOME book. John MacArthur really hit the nail on the head. It just goes to show that it doesn't take rocket science to figure this stuff out.

LOL

I swear I hear a banjo. Maybe it is just me.

 

[Svt4Him]

Always amazes me how people are able to tell what a book is about before they read it.

Back to the OP, it's a great book. I don't agree with everything he says, but there is a lot in there that I did agree with, and even some that made me change what I believed.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I have no doubt that Dr. MacArthur goes all out on theistic evolutionists. He and his ilk see us as double agents for Satan's service. Fundamentalists simply can't grasp that God could use believers to write the Bible who, unlike themselves, don't have every scientific answer to the universe.

 

[Arikay]

LOL, that has got to be one of the best lines ive heard on here (Chapter 2's).

I think before Macarthur talks about the morality of evolution he needs to talk about the morality of lying. But I guess sinning is ok when you are lying for christ, right?

 

[Svt4Him]

Wow, another fallicy, but I bet no one would call you on this. A true example of ad hominem.

 

[Arikay]

And who's fallacy is that?

 

[Svt4Him]

Do you really need to ask? Ok, say an atheist wrote a book about the truth of Christian Dogma, and a Christian said "Don't read it, the author lied on their taxes", could you figure out who was posting a fallacy? Or is it the definition of ad hominem?

Just in case:

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man";

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."​

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."​

 

[Arikay]

1) I dont think I ever said "don't read it because he lies about something unrelated." I believe I said something to the effect of, "it probably wont be very good because he appears to lie about something related, evolution."
To use your example, it is the christian saying "don't read it, the author lies about christianity."

2) From what I have read about the author, he has taken the moral high ground, saying that christianity is more moral than evolution and that evolution promotes immoral thinking.
I said that this is a hypocritical statement because the author lies about evolution, even while taking the moral high ground. That not only his science is bad, but his theology is bad as well because he is willing to sin to promote his view as being more moral, this hypocritical behavior is even spoken against in the bible.

Edit: When claiming the moral high ground about a certain issue, you have just put your morals relating to that issue into the argument, thus if your morals relating to that issue are lacking, your claim about being on a moral high ground is open for attack.

Do you really need to ask? Ok, say an atheist wrote a book about the truth of Christian Dogma, and a Christian said "Don't read it, the author lied on their taxes", could you figure out who was posting a fallacy? Or is it the definition of ad hominem?

Just in case:

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man";

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."​

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."​

 

[Chino]

I just finished reading that book, I agree a lot with what he says. Very easy to read and he turns Genesis into a very vivid story and explains how things could have happend back in the garden of Eden. I wish I still had it so I could write a deeper review.

 

[toff]

I haven't read it, but if its anything like this b.s.,
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-220.htm
Then I doubt its any good and our friend needs to go back to school.

In the article he basically calls Gould a dishonest man, without anything to back up the claim, then goes on to talk about the "morality" of evolution and how it says that we are no better than monkeys, and that it could never happen to begin with, again providing no evidence except a plug to buy his series. He goes on to basically say that if you don't take genesis literal, then you aren't a good christian. Basically idolizing the bible and considering himself infalible when it comes to reading the bible.

and yes, it does sometimes tick me off to hear people like this talk about how are supporting higher morals, as they lie through their teeth.

Yuck. I just read that article - this guy is a serious idiot. Either that, or a comprehensive liar. In the above lecture, he dredges up about every PRATT there is about evolution, indulges in character assassination of the worst kind on Gould (of whom I am no fan, but calling him dishonest is simply wrong), and tells a number of blatant lies.

If his book is more of the same - and I've no doubt it is - then anyone who thinks it is of worth is either ignorant or deluded. There's no third choice.