Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Jo's Boys, Science, and Pictures

I thought I would comment on the books I have just finished and ones I just started.

Louisa May Alcott wrote Little Women.  What less people know is that there are at least two sequels.  One is Little Men, and the other is Jo's Boys, the ending to the series.  I think these are all excellent stories of when Jo March Baehr and her husband started a home for boys.  Now they are grown up and going on to marriage and jobs.  I really think the last book was the best one of the series.  Now, for theology, Alcott is not the best.  Many of her morals are about doing good and being kind.  All of them are looking to themselves to be moral.  Otherwise, these stories are lovely.

Timothy Lane and Paul David Tripp wrote How People Change.  Excellent book on counseling with a Biblical paradigm.  The main point of the book is that people go to church and go through the right motions, but sometimes they don't look much different than their non-Christian neighbors.  This can only change when churches teach less morals and explain how people can live the gospel now.  They don't just bring people to the altar and get them to accept Jesus into their hearts.  They continue to show how Christ's death and resurrection need to not only get someone to salvation, but also must guide that person through the rest of his or her earthly life.

I love Anne of Green Gables and all its sequels.  I love that there are side stories written by the author so I can still read after the 8 books are over.

Now, a book written by Keith Mathison, forwarded by R.C. Sproul, and one that takes a different direction in approaching science than the Creation Museum.  I don't know if RC Sr.'s view has changed since last week, but as of this writing he is an old earth creationist who believes the Bible and rejects any "science" that contradicts it, but still will not concede that the earth is young.  He and Keith bring out the tired old argument about how Luther and Calvin rejected Copernicus when he was around, but how his sun-centered universe was true after all.  Sometimes theologians can write into their theology concepts that aren't actually there.  Often time, scientists interpret empirical evidence and draw wrong conclusions.  If there is a contradiction, it is still cool to automatically assume the theologians are wrong rather than the scientists.

The first chapter uses one phrase, "All truth is God's truth."  This phrase originated with either Augustine, Aquinas, or Francis Schaeffer.  It is true.  If something is true, than it is from God.  However, I feel like this is a very abused phrase in the reformed camp.  All truth is God's, but people take that and think that means everything is truth.  For example, nonbelievers like Plato, Gandhi and Richard Dawkins say many things that are true, and if it is true, then it is God's truth despite the mouth speaking it.  However, these guys do not know Jesus, rejected him, and they cannot lead us in truth that leads to salvation.  At the same time, Satan's best lies are ones that have much truth in them.  Are the truths picked apart from his lies God's truth, even if it's Satan speaking?  In Genesis 3, it is true that God told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but is that God's truth?  I don't think so.  Not if he used it to make Eve conclude that she wasn't even to touch the tree, that she would gain knowledge that God was depriving from her.

I think the world of Sproul, but I have to disagree with him on this.

I'll close with claims about the Answers in Genesis people.

There is not much science at their museum.  If I had not read their website for the past three years and seen all kinds of scientific articles on genetics, anatomy, astrology, and more, then I'd still not agree because I've been to their museum.  It may not be perfect, but it perfectly captures their scientific findings from a YEC worldview.  Maybe they should have more exhibits from Georgia Purdom, David Menton, or Jason Lisle.  They still have a long way to go.

Adam and Eve are Caucasian.

I took these pictures at the museum on my visit in 2011.  The first picture, they look white.  The second picture, Adam still looks white.

Here is a picture of Adam from google:

That's not a white guy.

Here is the picture of Adam and Eve also from google:

They look brown-skinned to me.  They could be middle-eastern, Mediterranean, Hispanic, Asian.  They are neither white nor black.

This group goes out of its way to present our first parents are middle brown, a kind that would beget all skin colors on earth.  And I've seen many people officially in the black race who have lighter skin than me.

Hebrew Bible is upside-down.

This is more unverified.  I'm waiting for a second opinion.  But here's a picture of it from the Museum:

You can click on it and blow it up.  If you are a Hebrew scholar and not the original person who told me it's upside-down, then let me know.  From other pictures of the Hebrew bible in other places, however, it at least looks like the right-to-left reading has the correct indentation and page justification.

No comments:

Post a Comment