This is a very nice hour-long lecture video by James Tour on the problems of the chemical abiogenesis scenarios. He talks about the fact that secular OOL chemical theory is basically no farther toward success than it was 60 years ago.
This is another example of the fact that science supports the Bible's account of the origin of life.
See also this followup - https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/professor-james-tour-a-liar-for-jesus/
Nifty! A computer programmer looks at DNA and finds it to be "amazing" code.
https://mindmatters.ai/2018/10/a-computer-programmer-looks-at-dna/
Here's a fascinating quote from a prominent evolutionist:
"...a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence."
- Dr. Gerd Müller
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/evolutionary-theorist-concedes-evolution-largely-avoids-biggest-questions-of-biological-origins/
This fun new 20-minute video from the Discovery Institute illustrates the question of "where did the information inside living cells come from?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
If even ONE single stable protein of practical biological length could not have formed by chance processes during the history of life on earth, much less a biologically functional protein, much less the hundreds of proteins necessary for new functional types of cells and new body plans, why do evolutionists keep insisting that all biological information was formed this way?
(Not even to mention the improbability of getting the first living cell from nonliving chemicals, and problems like Haldane’s dilemma of how to spread genes throughout the population within the short time of the Cambrian Explosion and Sanford’s dilemma of how to prevent genetic entropy from overwhelming beneficial mutations with harmful ones)...
(Not to mention, in a naturalistic scenario, why would one hold to the unscientific view that matter/energy appeared out of nothing, thus breaking all the laws of thermodynamics and scientific method causality?)
The failure of naturalistic theories like neodarwinian evolution to explain the origin of the information built into living cells has long pointed instead to a Designer (and in my understanding, the best candidate is the God of the Bible, because there is actual evidence for His existence... such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead...).
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2013/the-minimal-facts-of-the-resurrection/
http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/the-resurrection/
http://worldviewofjesus.com/2013/02/03/minimal-facts-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-Christ/
Here are some more book reviews from recently-read (or not-so-recently-read) books. For my previous reviews, look at here or here or the "book reviews" category on this blog.
---------
Evolution's Achilles Heels - edited by Robert Carter - Nine creationist PhD's discuss the latest (2014) scientific and philosophical case against evolution. It is technical, but also well-written and clear. It has chapters about the fossil record, the origin of life, natural selection, the geologic record, cosmology, genetics, radiometric dating, and morality. I would compare this book as a rough equivalent to Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt", with the following differences: (1) EAH is written by 9 people rather than 1, so it is slightly less coherently written (but still good), (2) EAH is much shorter (260 pages rather than 1100 pages for Meyers' books combined) so it's easier to read quickly, but it's also a little more concise/dense than Meyer's books (he's a bit more verbose), (3) EAH is written from a young-earth creationist perspective, which is farther outside the mainstream than Meyer's age-agnostic or old-earth Intelligent Design perspective (but of course I fully agree with EAH's perspective), and (4) EAH is even more up-to-date scientifically than Stephen Meyers' books. For the best up-to-date perspective on the paucity of evolution and the strength of the ID (and/or creationist) view, one should read BOTH EAH and Meyers' books.
The Insanity of God, by Nik Ripken - Great book... he begins by telling about his own humanitarian/mission work in Somalia several years ago immediately after the war finished, and how things got more and more difficult for Christian work there. Then their son died. At that point, stricken with grief and somewhat disillusioned with missions work (where was the fruit, the conversions, that they were hoping/laboring for?), they went home. But then Nik decided to travel around the world and interview Christians in other nations who had faced persecution, to learn how they had come through it. His secondhand recorded stories from these interviews (Russia, Ukraine, China, Middle-eastern countries, etc) are very powerful and encouraging. Many persecuted Christians around the world consider persecution a matter of course, not anything unusual. This encouraged Nik, and he published this book. He next started writing The Insanity of Obedience, which is also good (I just started reading it). By "insanity", Nik means that God's ways are not our ways... and God uses our weakness to display His strength, and grow His church despite/through suffering.
Footprints in the Ash, by John Morris and Steven Austin - this is a book about the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption, and all the geological lessons learned from it, and the implications of those lessons for dating other features (such as the Grand Canyon). It is a great book, with clear illustrations and many amazing photos. It points out that many rocks from historic volcanic eruptions are dated by radiometric techniques to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years old, illustrating that the radiometric techniques are quite inaccurate. It has a brief application / sermon-type section at the end where it applies the lessons to our spiritual lives. Highly recommended.
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi - Powerful, gentle, authentic, sincere, well-written, well-paced autobiographical account of a devout young Muslim (from the Ahmadiyya sect) who eventually came to believe in Jesus Christ (of the Bible, not the Quran) in his 20's. Along the way he has a lot of explanation of Muslim culture and terminology to help other culture understand Islam better. Nabeel chronicles the very painful and arduous journey he traveled, most of the time thinking he was 'refuting' and 'disproving' Christianity, but eventually he could no longer deny the truth. He described the heartbreak that came between him and his family when he left Islam and followed Jesus. But the way he writes about them, you can sense how much he loves them. Nabeel is now a speaker with Ravi Zacharias' organization. Highly recommended.
In Six Days, by John Ashton
On the Seventh Day, by John Ashton - both of these books are great reads. Each book has short articles from 40 or 50 scientists about why they believe in God and/or God's creation of the world (not evolution). Even though not every article is as 'powerful' as the others, it is a very 'genuine' book that gives a snapshot of the thought patterns of many different people - some more scientific, others more intuitive. Many of them were previously evolutionists and sometimes atheists. It is an encouraging book, and demonstrates that it is easily possible to be a scientist who believes in God and in the Biblical young-earth creation.
Dear Muslim Friend - by Jerry Mattix - Short, 120-page booklet, "explaining Christianity to a Muslim". Very excellent. It is gentle, yet firm, answering objections Muslims have to the Bible ("was it 'corrupted'?") and "Christianity"/Crusades/politics/etc, and showing clearly the Jesus of the Bible.
Money, Greed, and God by Jay Richards - He writes about how capitalism has roots in the Biblical worldview (but of course it is not the perfect solution)... and he writes as a former socialist! So he deeply empathizes with socialism, but shows how capitalism is a 'less bad' solution out of all imperfect approaches. Well written.
Follow Me, by David Platt - This is an intentionally "challenge"-oriented book, like Francis Chan's books. It's an exhortation to follow Jesus into the uncomfortable obedience, wherever/whatever that is.
The Practice of the Presence of God, Brother Lawrence - This is a collection of letters by a monk from the middle ages. He went into a monastery when a young man, anxious about his soul. After many years, he came to know God well, and became an example to other people of the peace of God. As the title implies, Lawrence continued to live in close fellowship with God, in constant prayer, etc. His main duties were in dishwashing and gardening, and he gradually came to understand that he could be just as close to God while dishwashing and cooking as in a prayer service. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it does sound like Lawrence was a true believer in God, and we can learn some things from him.
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume 3, Michael Brown - More excellent work.. this volume focuses on the messianic prophecies, and deftly demonstrates that Jesus fulfills them marvelously. It is a great read, because it cuts through the simplistic 'foretelling' approach which skeptics like to skewer. For example, "the virgin shall be with child" in Isaiah 7:14- some people simplistically claim that this was a prophecy of a virgin birth, which Matthew then quotes. The skeptics point out that the Hebrew word 'almah' does not necessarily mean virgin, so Matthew was (according to them) misquoting. However, serious scholars have always known that there are deeper aspects to Matthew's usage, and in fact he was not just focusing on the virgin-birth aspect, but using the prophecy in typological ways which are more in-line with the Jewish mindset regarding prophecies. If you like the articles at www.christianthinktank.com , you will like Brown's book too.
Mission Drift, Peter Greer - A great short book examining certain ministries that stayed true to their original Christian mission, and many others that gradually drifted away, and summarizing principles that help to stay "mission-true".
Divided by Faith, by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith - The authors summarize some history of evangelical attitudes toward race (and slavery) in America, and then try to make the point that white evangelicals in America tend to focus only on restoring personal relationships between races but ignore the "larger, systemic issues of injustice" like police profiling and enforced neighborhood segregation. They base much of their book on interviews conducted with evangelicals. Some points they make are correct, like the fact that many cities today are still quite segregated, and many churches are too. Other points they make are suspect. I took a lot of notes on this book, and I may publish a longer review later if I have time. One big critique of this book is that they spend 170 pages describing the problems as they see it, and then less than 1/2 page describing the solutions, and their solutions are extremely vague. I do not necessarily recommend this book.
Walking with God through Pain and Suffering - Tim Keller - TOP QUALITY, He does a good job explaining how to handle suffering, and why God allows it. He shares many stories from people in his church who have been through extreme suffering. Well worth reading multiple times.
Don't Let the Goats Eat the Loquat Trees, by Thomas Hale - EXCELLENT fun-to-read account of his time working as a missionary surgeon in Nepal with his family. He mixes in informative and funny stories with info about Nepal and insights about walking with God in missions work. The only problem is that this book is a little old (~30 years ago), so the info about Nepal/etc is dated. Well worth reading.
The Pineapple Story, by Otto Konig - Actually, it's better to listen to the audio sermons by Konig rather than to read the abridged book. He has an amazing ability as a humorist, and also a lot of good insights about walking with God (basically - surrender everything to God, don't hold anything back - it's the best way to live). The one caveat is that he sometimes falls into an oversimplified theology, in which if I have a problem in my life it is because I'm withholding something from God... simply surrender it (or start praising God) and *presto*, God will remove the problem. But overall his insights and experiences are worth listening to.
The Great Divorce, by C.S.Lewis - I finally got around to reading the whole of this wonderful book. It tells of a man who (in a dream) visits Hell and Heaven, and came to understand that those in Hell really WANT to be in Hell... they do not want to admit that they are sinners and that God is good and right and loving. It has a lot of good thoughts. A drawback is that C.S.Lewis leaves the door open to universalism, but at least he doesn't push it. Highly recommended story. One of several famous quotes from the book:
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."
Here's a great post linking to other posts about a physics conference last week in which secular physicists were dismayed about the fact that they still can't figure out how the universe could have popped into existence from nothing. Physicists are now admitting that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." And they don't know what started this beginning.
http://crev.info/2012/01/cosmologists-forced-to-in-the-beginning/
For those of us who have read the Bible and know the God of the Bible, the answer is quite simple. God started it.
This is not a "God of the gaps" argument; rather, it is a testimonial inference (and/or "inference-to-the-best-explanation") which fits perfectly with all known scientific evidence.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
Three topics for tonight: (1) Buddhism vs Christianity, (2) Ruth/Boaz, and (3) "Human zoos" exhibit.
1. Buddhism vs Christianity: (if I am mischaracterizing anything, please let me know!)
- Buddhism is a philosophical system, so its success is unaffected by the historical genesis of the movement. Christianity is just the opposite: it is based in the historical life, teachings, claims, death, and resurrection of its central figure, Jesus Christ. If the alleged historical facts surrounding Jesus are false, then Christianity crumbles. But if the facts are true, then Christianity completely destroys the Buddhist philosophical worldview... not because Buddhism/Buddhists are stupid (in fact they are often very intelligent), but because they are misinformed... they do not have the crucial historical information which, if only they knew it, demonstrates their beliefs to be false.
- Buddhism teaches that everything is linked in a cause-and-effect/karmic relationship, meaning that there is no separate "God" "out there" who created the Universe, rather, everything proceeds like clockwork. Further, Buddhism says that DESIRE is the source of all unrest and striving... and that if only people could REALIZE (get 'enlightened') this 'truth' (that the fully-causally-connected universe is all that there is), they would begin to relax and stop craving and acquire inner peace. Meditation/etc (and the other various 'steps'), says Buddhism, are the path toward that peace. Eventually, after several reincarnations, one can achieve total 'oneness' with the universe and dissolution of (the illusion of) self, achieving complete peace/harmony.
- Buddhism is PARTIALLY RIGHT according to the Bible, in that "lust" (literally "over-desire", craving) is the source of much discord. Notice these Bible texts:
James 4:1-2 "What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask."
Up to that last sentence, a Buddhist could agree. But that last sentence??? "Ask" WHO?
A Buddhist would say, faced with need or sorrow, "I just need to understand that there is no ultimate good or evil; it's all merely an illusion; it's all merely a cause-and-effect mechanistic universe",... not, as the Bible recommends, "I just need to ask God for His help".
2 Peter 1:2-4
"Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust."
A Buddhist could agree on that last phrase, that lust causes corruption, but would immediately disagree on the best way to remedy the situation. The Bible clearly states that it is the "TRUE" "knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" which sets one free from lust and corruption. Ultimate reality is not a cold impersonal clockwork cause-and-effect universe, but a living, loving, wise, omnipotent, (tri-)personal, God, who has created the universe and us, and who offers us eternal happiness with him.
1 Peter 1:13b
"...fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Psalm 37:4
"Delight yourself in the LORD; And He will give you the desires of your heart."
Unlike Buddhism, which recommends ceasing from all desire, Christianity recommends DESIRING GOD with all one's heart. Christianity / the Bible says that DESIRING GOD is the best way to become truly happy... because only God can truly satisfy the human heart.
So it is established that Buddhism and Christianity are "different" and cannot possibly both be true. But is it possible to know whether one or the other is "correct"?
A Buddhist or Hindu might say (and I have heard them say), "there are so many religions and philosophies out there... how do you know what's right?" or "..there is no way to know which one of them is correct." From their perspective, that makes sense, because it's all philosophy-based, and although one can say "I like this philosophy better than that philosophy", there's no objectively 'true', cross-personal, philosophy which is demonstrably better than all others.
But Christianity is true, and Buddhism and Hinduism are false... and demonstrably so! ...not because the philosophies of Christianity are better than the philosophies of Buddhism or Hinduism... not because Christians are nicer or smarter people than Buddhists or Hindus... simply because of the historical revelation of God (the one, true, Creator God) (the God of the Bible), primarily in Jesus Christ. God came down to earth (celebrated at Christmas), walked around, taught, lived, died, and rose again... and it is because of that historical fact that we can know that the pantheistic/atheistic philosophies such as Buddhism are false...
2. I recently re-read the book of Ruth, and as always it was delightful. Here are some thoughts about Boaz (etc), one of the main characters.
Notice, as you read the excerpt below, Boaz's generosity to those who do not seem to have any claim upon it...
Ruth 1:22 So Naomi returned, and with her Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the land of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest.
2:1 Now Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a man of great wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. 2 And Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, "Please let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after one in whose sight I may find favor." And she said to her, "Go, my daughter." 3 So she departed and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. 4 Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, "May the LORD be with you." And they said to him, "May the LORD bless you." 5 Then Boaz said to his servant who was in charge of the reapers, "Whose young woman is this?" 6 The servant in charge of the reapers replied, "She is the young Moabite woman who returned with Naomi from the land of Moab. 7 And she said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves.’ Thus she came and has remained from the morning until now; she has been sitting in the house for a little while."
8 Then Boaz said to Ruth, "Listen carefully, my daughter. Do not go to glean in another field; furthermore, do not go on from this one, but stay here with my maids. 9 Let your eyes be on the field which they reap, and go after them. Indeed, I have commanded the servants not to touch you. When you are thirsty, go to the water jars and drink from what the servants draw." 10 Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground and said to him, "Why have I found favor in your sight that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?" 11 Boaz replied to her, "All that you have done for your mother-in-law after the death of your husband has been fully reported to me, and how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth, and came to a people that you did not previously know. 12 May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." 13 Then she said, "I have found favor in your sight, my lord, for you have comforted me and indeed have spoken kindly to your maidservant, though I am not like one of your maidservants."
Some thoughts / discussion questions -
- Do you think Boaz's generosity was to all "outsiders", or only to Ruth? (more on this soon)
- Notice that "she HAPPENED to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz"... Cf. Romans 8:28, nothing happens by chance... especially to those who are seeking God...
- Notice Ruth's apparent very high reputation ("has been fully reported to me...") (cf. 3:11 "all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence"), even as a Moabitess (an 'outsider', a 'heathen' by birth/culture, one who would normally be disdained within Israel's culture)...
- Notice in v. 12, that coming to live within Israel was roughly equivalent to believing in the LORD (the God of the Israelites) as the true God / the most powerful God. In Ruth's case this was especially true because she specifically stated her belief in God in chapter 1, and left behind all her family and opportunity for remarriage/financial security in order to learn more about God. Ruth's choice was the exact opposite of the choice described in Tim Keller's book "Counterfeit Gods"... her choice was the one recommended by Otto Konig's messages about surrender... she left "everything" behind (except Naomi, but Naomi was more of a burden on Ruth than vice versa) in order to seek God. Hence, one of the points of Ruth is that the "wages"/"refuge"/reward of the LORD is huge and well worth leaving everything behind for.
- Ruth 1:1, 2:9, 2:22, etc - it was a dangerous time to be without a male protector in Israel. Like today's Congo and other places. Ruth chose this life voluntarily to follow God and help Naomi, instead of moving back in with her father like her sister did.
- Regarding gleaning - there was no "welfare" system back then... instead, there was something better: God's law instructed that landowner farmers were to leave the corners of their sown fields for the poor to harvest. In this way the problem of poverty was addressed, and also the problem of indigence (the poor had to work for their food too... it was not simply given to them). In this case Ruth worked all day.
- But the landowners obviously had quite a bit of leeway in how they implemented God's command. In this case Boaz went out of his way... see verse 16 below...
Ruth 2:14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, "Come here, that you may eat of the bread and dip your piece of bread in the vinegar." So she sat beside the reapers; and he served her roasted grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left. 15 When she rose to glean, Boaz commanded his servants, saying, "Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not insult her. 16 Also you shall purposely pull out for her some grain from the bundles and leave it that she may glean, and do not rebuke her."
17 So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley. 18 She took it up and went into the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also took it out and gave Naomi what she had left after she was satisfied. 19 Her mother-in-law then said to her, "Where did you glean today and where did you work? May he who took notice of you be blessed."
- 22 liters of barley grain in one day...
- Boaz apparently had a similar heart as Job, as follows:
29:11 For when the ear heard, it called me blessed,
And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me,
12 Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
And the orphan who had no helper.
13 The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
And I made the widows heart sing for joy.
14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
My justice was like a robe and a turban.
15 I was eyes to the blind
And feet to the lame.
16 I was a father to the needy,
And I investigated the case which I did not know.
17 I broke the jaws of the wicked
And snatched the prey from his teeth.
30:25 Have I not wept for the one whose life is hard?
Was not my soul grieved for the needy?
31: 16 If I have kept the poor from their desire,
Or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail,
17 Or have eaten my morsel alone,
And the orphan has not shared it
18 (But from my youth he grew up with me as with a father,
And from infancy I guided her),
19 If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing,
Or that the needy had no covering,
20 If his loins have not thanked me,
And if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep,
21 If I have lifted up my hand against the orphan,
Because I saw I had support in the gate,
22 Let my shoulder fall from the socket,
And my arm be broken off at the elbow.
23 For calamity from God is a terror to me,
And because of His majesty I can do nothing.
31:32 The alien has not lodged outside,
For I have opened my doors to the traveler.
Back to Ruth: 2:19: So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, "The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz." 20 Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "May he be blessed of the LORD who has not withdrawn his kindness to the living and to the dead." Again Naomi said to her, "The man is our relative, he is one of our closest relatives." 21 Then Ruth the Moabitess said, "Furthermore, he said to me, ‘You should stay close to my servants until they have finished all my harvest.’" 22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, "It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maids, so that others do not fall upon you in another field." 23 So she stayed close by the maids of Boaz in order to glean until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest. And she lived with her mother-in-law.
Ruth 3:1 Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, "My daughter, shall I not seek security for you, that it may be well with you? 2 Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maids you were? Behold, he winnows barley at the threshing floor tonight. 3 Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 It shall be when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies, and you shall go and uncover his feet and lie down; then he will tell you what you shall do." 5 She said to her, "All that you say I will do."
6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did according to all that her mother-in-law had commanded her. 7 When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came secretly, and uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 It happened in the middle of the night that the man was startled and bent forward; and behold, a woman was lying at his feet. 9 He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative." 10 Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence. 12 Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning."
- Ruth was apparently very submissive or obedient (to Naomi)
- The custom described in 3:4-13, of levirate marriage, is another good invention (sanctioned by God in the Mosaic Law) for how that particular theocratic agrarian society could cope with the death of a husband (primary breadwinner in the agrarian culture)
- Yet, Boaz could have said 'No'... as did the un-named "closer-relative"... Why did Boaz not worry about "jeopardizing his sons' inheritance"? (4:6 below) Was Boaz unmarried? The text neither confirms nor denies this...?
- Boaz, in saying yes, is promising far more than grain or financial assistance to Ruth... He is promising himself... everything he owns...
- Yet it was Naomi who initiated this! Not Ruth, and not even Boaz...
- What in the world does Boaz mean by "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first"??? What was the first "kindness"-- Ruth's decision to glean in Boaz's field??? Apparently so. This reveals the almost rediculously generous and humble heart of Boaz... (The beggar decides to accept aid from him --> "Wow, you (beggar) are so kind to have done so!")... or perhaps, revealing a shy love for Ruth? A secret hope that she (probably between 15-20 years old) might ask Boaz to redeem her instead of the closer relative or instead of getting married to some young guy? "You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich."
3:14 So she lay at his feet until morning and rose before one could recognize another; and he said, "Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor." 15 Again he said, "Give me the cloak that is on you and hold it." So she held it, and he measured six measures of barley and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. 16 When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, "How did it go, my daughter?" And she told her all that the man had done for her. 17 She said, "These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said, ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’" 18 Then she said, "Wait, my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out; for the man will not rest until he has settled it today."
- Boaz apparently never let an opportunity pass, to give generously to someone in need! "Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed" --> "six measures of barley"...!! Was this how he treated every needy person? Or was there already a special dose of generosity in his heart toward Ruth?
Ruth 4:9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses today that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. 10 Moreover, I have acquired Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, to be my wife in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance, so that the name of the deceased will not be cut off from his brothers or from the court of his birth place; you are witnesses today." 11 All the people who were in the court, and the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the house of Israel; and may you achieve wealth in Ephrathah and become famous in Bethlehem. 12 Moreover, may your house be like the house of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah, through the offspring which the LORD will give you by this young woman."
13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the LORD enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him."
16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi!" So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: to Perez was born Hezron, 19 and to Hezron was born Ram, and to Ram, Amminadab, 20 and to Amminadab was born Nahshon, and to Nahshon, Salmon, 21 and to Salmon was born Boaz, and to Boaz, Obed, 22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.
- Many scholars think that the book of Ruth was edited into its final form during the reign of King David, putting down in writing the family history of the great king. Matthew brings out the fact in his genealogy (Matthew 1) that at least 4 of the women in King Jesus' genealogy came from "dubious" backgrounds, and Ruth as a foreigner fits the pattern. But she was a godly foreigner, who sought the God of Israel.
- Matthew also makes known that Boaz's mother was Rahab, the prostitute from Jericho! Perhaps this was an unusual family heritage for Boaz? Did he have a normal childhood, or was he disdained by his peers? More speculation: was Salmon one of the two spies who entered Jericho and first met Rahab? What would it be like to have a top-ranked soldier/intelligence officer as a father? Did Boaz know Joshua? Did Boaz serve in the army during the actual Canaanite conquest? Interesting, that Boaz's mother AND wife were both non-Israelites who 'converted' / sought out the God of Israel (while many of Boaz' peers were converting in the other direction, seeking out the Caananite gods).
- Finally, consider how Boaz's character is a 'type' or 'picture' or 'foreshadowing' of Christ... in extreme generosity, in reaching out to those 'outside' the flock of God, in becoming a 'redeemer' and supporter and husband of a 'foreigner', who had no claim or rights to God's love or the family of God (the Israelite nation, at that time). An honorable, esteemed, man of integrity, whose name means "Strength", a "man of great wealth", willing to 'go all-in' and 'jeopardize his own inheritance'... why? out of pity? out of romantic love? out of 'agape' love? A mixture of all of those motives?
The analogy breaks down because Ruth was by all accounts a high quality, godly, woman. In our case, by contrast, Jesus Christ loved us and sought us out and died for us and prepared an inheritance for us "while we were still sinners", totally undeserving of love or favor. Christ's love is far higher, greater, better, than Boaz's.
(I'm running out of time so this entry will be much shorter for now.)
3. Regarding this article about "Human Zoos" of 150 years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16295827 ), the article tries to tie it to "Christian evangelism and cultural superiority". Ha! What a quote.. what a misleading linkage of words. The museum tries to tie these Zoos to "othering", a concept from literary studies in which one culture emphasizes the difference between itself and another culture.
However, many questions arise, like: "Does the museum consider its own perspective (and culturally-conditioned postmodern beliefs) superior to the culture of 150 years ago? If so, on what basis?"
If one examines the literature more closely, these zoos and the milieu of that time were based NOT on "Christian evangelism", but on Darwinism and its precursors! On the theory of evolution. For more details, see http://creation.com/evolutionary-racism and http://creation.com/racism-questions-and-answers .
John Horgan recently said on his blog at Scientific American magazine that secular scientists still have no good theory for how life could arise from non-living chemicals. "Don't tell the creationists," he says! (as if we aren't fully aware...) The main contenders for abiogenesis theories these days are self-catalyzing RNA molecules (whose problems Horgan lists, and Stephen Meyer enumerates in his book "Signature in the Cell"), and "Panspermia", the idea that life on earth must have come from somewhere else in the universe. Panspermia merely pushes the problem somewhere else, of course.
Horgan tries to claim that his naturalistic approach is more "honest", however. Here's a quote:
"Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse..., but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God."
If the divine Creator God had a beginning, then yes, He would need a cause. But since He is eternal and never had a beginning, He needed no cause.
A naturalist might say, "You believe in an eternal God, I believe in an eternal universe. We both believe in something eternal, but at least I can see the universe, whereas I can't see God. My position is more rational because I'm building my beliefs on the available observable evidence."
There are three problems with this. First, according to observable scientific principles such as the laws of thermodynamics, all the matter/energy in closed systems is constantly moving into a less-usable state (higher entropy). So if the universe was really eternal, it would have already come to a "heat death", a cold, homogenized "stew" of molecules evenly distributed everywhere. The fact that there's still lots of usable energy around (e.g. the stars) indicates that it had a beginning, some finite time ago. (Someone might postulate a constantly exploding-and-contracting universe that has been 'reborn' an infinite number of times every few billion years with no loss of energy... but how "observable" would that theory be?!? That's about as observable and rational as postulating that an invisible 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' created the universe! 
Second, which Cause better explains the world we see around us? If all life arose from nonliving chemicals, then morality is merely an illusion, as are also consciousness, choice, love, and rational thought itself. Furthermore, are all design inferences inherently "dishonest", as Horgan seems to imply? Suppose I found a scrap of paper stuck under my front door one day, with the following text: "Dear Tim, I think you're cute. Signed, a secret admirer." I could attribute this object to three types of causes (or a mixture) - necessity, chance, or design.
If I inferred design, would that be a "dishonest" inference? Would it be irrational? Would it be "unscientific"? Would Horgan say, "No no no, you must keep trying to think up a way that it could have happened by chance! You must keep making an honest effort to solve the mystery of the note's origin by postulating non-intelligent causes, rather than blaming it all on some unknown intelligent agent!"
Third, there is indeed real-world evidence for the existence of the Biblical God. Jesus of Nazareth was born at the prophesied time and place, performed miracles and taught about (and in accordance with) the God of the Old Testament, was killed, and then raised to life again and was seen by hundreds of people. While God is currently invisible, He has provided ample historical evidence of His existence and character to those who take the time to investigate...
Here are some recently read books with a short blurb/synopsis, in case you might be interested in reading them too. My previous set of reviews was September 12, 2009 if you want to read more (use the "Posting Calendar" link at the lower left side of this page).
- Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 1, by Michael Brown - great book... addresses a lot of "I couldn't possibly consider Jesus my Messiah, because I'm Jewish, my whole family is Jewish, etc" and "Didn't Christians persecute the Jews for thousands of years?" type questions. There are an amazing amount of carefully cited references... great resource! There are three more volumes... I look forward to reading them...
- Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford - Excellent book. Thanks to Rich for giving it to me! The gist is that random mutations are slowly destroying the human genome, little by little, inexorably, and neodarwinian evolution (natural selection + random mutation) is not only unable to create new genetic information, but unable even to maintain our current genome. This implies that our genome was originally created essentially perfect by an Intelligent Designer, some thousands of years ago. The book needs some editing to make it a little less redundant, and the pictures are a little corny (sometimes he seems to be aiming for a lay audience, and sometimes for a scientific audience), but overall the points he makes are excellent.
- The Future of Justification, a response to N.T.Wright - by John Piper - great book... closely written theological rebuttal to NT Wright's New Perspective on Paul. Piper does a good job of showing why justification is God's "forensic"/legal "writing us down NOW as if we're innocent", and how this individual forgiveness-of-sins is the heart of the gospel. (as opposed to the NPP heresy, which teaches (similar to the RCC) that justification is God's eschatological pronouncement at the end of time that we are "in the covenant community", based on the good works that we've done during our lives through His enabling(/"infusing") power).
- Overcoming Sin and Temptation - by John Owen (new edition by Kelly Kapic/Justin Taylor) - Excellent book! Deep reading, difficult old english, but great thoughts on putting to death sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Overall summary: (1) It is extremely important to be putting sin to death in our lives... "be killing sin or it will be killing you". (2) the ONLY way to kill it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by accountability partners, or more Bible reading, or setting rules for oneself, or telling oneself "I'm better than that", or self denial or self-flagellation, or any other type of human-power-based approach to attempting to make oneself more righteous.
- Evolution: greatest hoax on earth - by Jonathan Safarti - All of Safarti's books are worth reading. This one dissects Richard Dawkins' latest book "Evolution: the greatest show on earth" which claims to present the most powerful and up-to-date evidence in favor of evolution. Safarti's book carefully goes through Dawkins' claims and dispassionately blows each one out of the water. It is a "polemical" book, but a rational, evenhanded polemic overall.
- Head, Heart, and Hands - by Dennis Hollinger - Thanks to Tom for lending me this book. Hollinger makes the point that some Christians are wired to be more "head" (intellectual)-oriented, others "heart" (emotional)-oriented, and others "hands" (practical, gift of helps, social-justice/soup-kitchens/etc)-oriented. He makes the point that all aspects are necessary, and we need to understand our own selves and be willing to grow in the other two areas.
- The Edge of Evolution - by Michael Behe (a RCC biology prof who believes in common-descent of man and apes, and in an old earth, but not that darwinian evolution can explain all of it) - fascinating in-depth look at what (darwinian) evolution can and can't do, using the specific examples of malaria and sickle-cell anemia resistance to malaria. Pro: Behe is an expert on this subject, and also tries to make it accessible... he well demonstrates his point that evolution can make small destructive changes to genetic information that sometimes confer "resistance" to a particular disease, but it cannot cross the multiple-improbable-step gap to create new biological features and innovations and genetic information. It's a little difficult to get through all the biology - I made it about halfway and then stopped for a while.
- Signature in the Cell, by Stephen Meyer - great book! It's basically about how evolution has no plausible way to create novel genetic information (in our DNA). Meyer reviews all the theories and shows how they don't work (and contradict each other). The only reasonable explanation is intelligent design... The only downside to this book is that it's so long! If it could be shortened, it would be better.
What interesting books have you been reading lately?
Recent Comments