Rating: 
Summary: MOSES' ORIGINAL INTENT IS DETERMINATIVE
Review:
Only Moses' original intent settles how long the first of weekdays went.
A fine entry into the debate over whether to believe the Bible (Sola Scriptura) or to believe Scientistic Theovolutionary Cosmythology (Scientia et Scriptura)
Is a Genesis Day an Epoch as compromisers hold?
Or is a Genesis Day 1/7 of a week, 1/365 of a year as evangelical believers historically held?
See Genesis 1:14 for the definitive comparison of Moses' timeframes: seasons, days, years.
Bravo for a fine refutation of compromising theovolutionism.
See Refuting Compromise by Dr. Sarfati for a more thorough rebuttal of misguided scientistic approach of Dr. Ross, et al.
Rating: 
Summary: MacArthur declares war on the Evangelical Church
Review: Are the first few chapters of Genesis an ultra-literal account, with creation happening in a literal 6-day period, or a symbolic account? Evangelical leaders have weighed in on this issue: the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) said that Christians are free to decide for themselves on the issue, and must not divide over it. The Chicago Council on Biblical Inerrancy said that a symbolic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is consistent with a literal interpretation of the the Bible. The Evangelical Theological Society, in debating a heretical movement that denies the orthodox Christian belief in the nature of God based on a woodenly literal interpretation of the Old Testament, denounced an absolutist literal hermenuetic as being inconsistent with the Bible itself.John MacArthur would do well to heed the conclusions of his brothers and sisters in Christ. In this volume, he attacks anyone who doesn't believe in a literal 6-day creation and rehashes reams of discredited, unBiblical theological ideas (e.g., animals didn't die before the Fall) to support it. MacArthur, no doubt, thinks himself a modern-day Luther standing against an apostate church on the authority of the world of God; but his interpretation of God's word is found wanting, and those who he charges with "error" are some of the most evangelistic, Bible-based ministries in existence. This book reveals MacArthur to be an arrogant man who thinks his own success as a megachurch pastor qualifies him to "correct" the conclusions wrought by evangelicalism's finest evangelists, theologians, scientists, and the millions of devout laypeople who have wrestled with the dilemma of science and scripture and come away with their faith strengthened, knowing that true science doesn't contradict the Bible, despite what zealots like Henry Morris say. MacArthur has thrown his hat in with King James Onlyists, "gospel in the stars" heretics, and other aberrational Christians with this book. It is time to forget John MacArthur.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Good Presentation of Creationism
Review: As one reviewer said above, MacArthur is a man of God whose Biblical exegesis has brought the Christian world much wisdom and insight. Unfortunately his knowledge of this topic is not nearly as thorough, and this book is off base in its approach and its claims about science. For those who are not aware, in Christendom there are two main areas of thought about creationism and the topic of origins. One group is often referred to as old-earthers, and in general they believe that God created the earth millions to billions of years ago and that the creation days of Genesis are not necessarily to be taken literally. They believe that God created new forms of life throughout the ages and then stopped with the creation of humans, and that the appearance of age in the world (fossils, mountains, canyons, etc.) came about naturally over time (the theory of uniformitarianism). The other group (MacArthur's group) are known as the young-earthers, and in general they believe that the earth is rather young (on the order of 6,000 to 40,000 years) and that the creation days are to be taken literally (God created the earth and all living species in 6 days). And that all appearances of age in the world are caused either by God creating objects with the appearance of age, or by massive cataclysmic events (i.e. the Flood). The main problem with MacArthur's book (and many books from the young-earth perspective) is that they relentlessly pound the old-earth view as being unbiblical and try to paint anyone who believes that the earth is possibly billions of years old as only doing so only because they are accepting (or giving in to) Darwin's theory of common decent (that all species descended from a common ancestor). This unwarranted approach adds nothing new to the discussion and (intentionally or unintentionally) alienates many Christians who are trying to discover the truth of the matter. To make things worse, most of MacArthur's claims in this book are presented only after painting the "evidence" in the best possible light to support his views and then we are told that we are unfaithful to God if we do not hold the same views ourselves. MacArthur needs to remember that the Bible is flawless, our interpretations of it are not. I am a Christian and an old-earth creationist (as you might have guessed) and I think that there is another danger here. If you try and explain to the average person on the street that you think the earth is 10,000 years old, you will generally receive a very puzzled look (about the same look you would get if you said the earth was flat). If, by chance, MacArthur is wrong about his point of view, he is needlessly encouraging Christians to make fools out of themselves while trying to defend God and the Bible. In my opinion this simply is not necessary as the more I have read on this topic the more I have become convinced the young-earth point of view stretches faith, logic and truth beyond credulity (and from the vast majority of Christian books published on this topic over the last decade, my view is apparently in the majority). If you do decide to get this book, you should also highly consider reading a book from the old-earth perspective before you make any firm decisions about this topic. My recommendation is a book called "Creation and Evolution - Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible" by Professor Alan Hayward.
Rating:
Summary: MacArthur declares war on the Evangelical Church
Review: As would be expected from such an outstanding Bible teacher as MacArthur, he presents much fresh thought into a controversial topic. He correctly notes the futility of naturalism, with its pseudo-intellectual backing of Darwinism and in turn ITS pseudo-intellectual backing of the old-Earth dogmas of Lyell and Hutton. He also shows conclusively that EVERYWHERE else in the Bible the first chapters of Genesis are cited, they are treated as straightforward history. As always, MacArthur has a knack for getting to the heart of the issue. He points out that all those who want to add evolution/billions of years have adopted a hermeneutic that does violence to Scripture. He explains very clearly why the infallible and perspicuous Scriptures must always take presence over so-called science, which as often pointed out really means the naturalistic *interpretations* of data. It's very clear that he understands the old-earthers like Hugh Ross only too well. His account of the Fall is most instructive. He compares the knowledge of good and evil by God and the First Couple with the knowledge of cancer of the oncologist and the knowledge of experience of an unfortunate sufferer. One can often tell the merits of a book by seeing who's attacking it. For instance, a representative of an Australian theistic evolutionary organization clearly denies Biblical inerrancy. And the organization's head even thinks that Jesus made mistakes! Another critic recommends a book by the Christadelphian Alan Hayward, while yet another recommends the non-Christian Schroeder.
Rating:
Summary: MacArthur applies his exegetical expertise to Genesis
Review: As would be expected from such an outstanding Bible teacher as MacArthur, he presents much fresh thought into a controversial topic. He correctly notes the futility of naturalism, with its pseudo-intellectual backing of Darwinism and in turn ITS pseudo-intellectual backing of the old-Earth dogmas of Lyell and Hutton. He also shows conclusively that EVERYWHERE else in the Bible the first chapters of Genesis are cited, they are treated as straightforward history. As always, MacArthur has a knack for getting to the heart of the issue. He points out that all those who want to add evolution/billions of years have adopted a hermeneutic that does violence to Scripture. He explains very clearly why the infallible and perspicuous Scriptures must always take presence over so-called science, which as often pointed out really means the naturalistic *interpretations* of data. It's very clear that he understands the old-earthers like Hugh Ross only too well. His account of the Fall is most instructive. He compares the knowledge of good and evil by God and the First Couple with the knowledge of cancer of the oncologist and the knowledge of experience of an unfortunate sufferer. One can often tell the merits of a book by seeing who's attacking it. For instance, a representative of an Australian theistic evolutionary organization clearly denies Biblical inerrancy. And the organization's head even thinks that Jesus made mistakes! Another critic recommends a book by the Christadelphian Alan Hayward, while yet another recommends the non-Christian Schroeder.
Rating:
Summary: MacArthur attempts to revive Fundamentalism
Review: Despite John MacArthur's success at leading a megachurch and at evangelization, I've never entirely trusted him. He proclaims doctrines like the pre-trib Rapture and the premillennial view as if they're Biblical certainties. He's endorsed the NKJV, with its flawed New Testament Greek text, as the best version of the Bible. With this book, I've realized that John MacArthur is truly out of touch with the rest of the evangelical church and is on a tangent away from Biblical truth in favor of mere human tradition. MacArthur views old-earth creationism and Intelligent Design as a threat - these scientifically-valid theories show his own Young Earth Creationist views to be false or at least severely flawed. The theology he uses to defend Young Earthism (e.g., animals didn't die before the Fall, a universal flood, etc.) has been definitively debunked dozens of times. (I personally own a Fundamentalist Bible commentary written in 1888 that says "day" probably meant "eon" and the flood was likely local - I believe any enterprising Christian can still find it. It's called Halley's Bible Handbook. If you can find an unadulterated copy, you'll see that "Young Earth Creationism" was not a mandatory view for conservative Christians until THIS CENTURY, thanks in large part to the 7th Day Adventist Church - now those are some Bible believing folks, right?) More unforgiveably, MacArthur resorts to slander and personal attacks on a fellow man of God - Hugh Ross - who has been an even greater evangelist than John MacArthur! MacArthur refused to meet with Ross prior to the publication of this book. Whether you agree with Ross's ideas or not, it's high time that we "ordinary" Christians demand that YEC stop their personal attacks on this man, and hold them accountable for their unChristlike actions. I will never again buy another MacArthur book or use his resources in any Sunday school class I teach. I consider this book to be his resignation from Evangelicalism and open embrace of aberrational Christian groups like the KJV-Only Independent Fundamental Baptists. In fact, I think that it's time that we started giving people like MacArthur and Duane Gish a taste of their own medicine - picket their churches. Disrupt their meetings. Ridicule their statements. Refer to them as "compromisers" with the right-wing elements of our culture rather than faithful purveyors of God's word. I think that YEC ideas are in such trouble that a solid, unapologetic rebuke from mainstream Christians will finally drive this beast out of our churches and into the shadowy world of the cults where it belongs.
Rating: 
Summary: Where Life Begins
Review: Did you ever wonder where the missing links are? There are just too many specise of plants and animals on this planet to have evolved from the same lifeless matter. If evolution is how we came about, then there should be evolving species in our mist. Why isn't there? Science can not explain how lifeless matter puts forth life. They just say it happen. Theories are great, they don't have to be proven if one does not wish to prove it. MacArthur takes us on a leap of faith and makes sense out of Genesis. Why can't there be a God? It only takes a heart to realize that genius was at work to create all the wonderful things around us.
Rating:
Summary: Battle For The Beginning,by John F. MacArthur
Review: Dr. MacArthur let everyone down with this book. The book is not his normal logical statement of Biblical facts followed by reasonable and Biblical conclusions. A few problems with the book are: 1) Dr. MacArthur turned this topical study into a personal attack on Dr. Hugh Ross,specifically, and other old earth creationists in the process. To make things worse, Dr. MacArthur refused to have a face to face meeting with Dr. Hugh Ross (as announced on the 10-27-2001 Reasons To Believe radio show) prior to the release of the book. A face to face discussion would have cleared up many of the errors about Dr. Ross and the book. 2) Dr. MarArthur makes uninformed scientific statements while quoting engineers/scientists on Biblical and theological matters. That seems backwards.
3) Dr. MarArthur use of ISTIT (I speak therefore it's true)statements. The book is filled with statements and conclusions that are not defended by logical discussion or at least by a reference. The only bright stop is that Dr. MarArthur speaks out agains the "Gospel in the Stars" movement. I would recommend staying away from this book and must rethink ever recommending any of Dr. MacArthur's material again. BTW, an excellent book on the topic is "Bruce and Stan's Guide to How It All Began"
Rating:
Summary: Profoundly Disappointing
Review: I have read a number of John MacArthur's other books and found them both challenging and encouraging. I therefore looked forward to this book as one I could perhaps recommend to friends as a practical book on the subject for non-technical people. It was a sad disappointment. I am reminded of God's words to Job "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2 KJV). Firstly, in his very title, "The Battle for the Beginning", MacArthur has bought the whole conflict metaphor for the relationship between science and Christianity. Completely discredited by all historians and philosophers of science, this destructive metaphor first promulgated by Simpson, Draper, and White in the 19th century continues to muddy the waters of sensible discussion of science and Christianity in the 21st. Interaction, overlapping, and complementary paradigms are much more useful and accurate models than conflict. Secondly, MacArthur makes a number of elementary confusions, equating scientific evidence for an old earth and universe with that for organic evolution and confusing organic evolution with philosophical naturalism. A familiarity with some basic philosophy of science and an understanding of the interaction of science and theology would have prevented this. 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. 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. 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? Sixthly, MacArthur is not familiar with the literature. This may explain his mistakes, but it is tragic that such an influential Christian writer to pass judgement on an issue with so little knowledge of the field. The quotes only three theologians, Edward Young (three times, John Calvin (twice), and Augustine (once). MacArthur specifically discusses only one Christian in science who defends and old earth position, Hugh Ross, even though this represents the position of overwhelming majority of evangelical scientists in the relevant positions. He does not cite a single evangelical theologian (apart from disparaging passing reference to Meredith Kline) who takes a non-literal position on Genesis 1-3. Almost the only people he does quote with approval are young earth creationists, who theological, historical, philosophical, and scientific failings are too numerous to enumerate here. MacArthur quotes Michael Behe and C.S. Lewis with approval, apparently unaware that both accept an old earth, Behe one of the key tenets of organic evolution (descent with modification) and Lewis also cautiously accepted organic evolution. Apart from one Scientific American article, MacArthur does not cite a single scientific work. There is no reference to any study on the history and philosophy of science or the interaction science and Christianity, of which there are a great many excellent works readily available. This lack of familiarity with the basic literature explains, although does not excuse, the many fundamental errors in this book. Finally, is there anything good to be said about this book? Yes, there is. MacArthur correctly identifies naturalism as anti-Christian. He is also correct in attacking the way that some philosophical naturalists use science to bolster their philosophical position. Unfortunately he picks the wrong target. Rather than attacking the weak link between science and naturalism, he chooses to attack science and naturalism, and tries to defend Christianity with the anti-science of young earth creationism. The baby gets thrown out with the bath water. MacArthur's book is likely to have two sad consequences. Some will rightly reject his anti-science attitude and use this as an excuse to reject the Christian gospel. Others will correctly reject naturalism but also science, thereby missing out of something that, rightly understood, encourages faith, and is an essential tool in the understanding and care of God's world.
Rating:
Summary: Well written and argued -- A must read!
Review: I have to say it is one of the best I have read! MacArthur makes very good points against Rossism and his way of
exposing OEC errors is very well written! Great teaching about how Scripture should guide our
interpretation of nature not vice versa like OEC argue. OEC wouldn't have as much support if it weren't for
these undiscerning Christian leaders like J. Dobson, etc. If this book was written 20 years ago there would not be near
as many OEC'ists and I would not have been duped into going that rout myself in the early years. Get a copy today!
| 
