Customer Review

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book if your faith in the Bible needs a boost., May 12, 2007
This review is from: Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics (Holman Quicksource Guides) (Paperback)
This book covers philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then gives evidence for the God of the Bible. The quality that sets this book apart from other apologetic books is the full color pictures used liberally throughout the book. This is a good book for you if you feel threatened by the secular attacks against the truth of the Bible, or if you want a good book to lend to a "seeking" non-Christian. The book covers philosophical arguments for the existence of God and physical evidences (such as archaeology) for the truth of the Bible, and discusses how we know the Bible today is essentially the same Bible as what was originally written. The one weakness I saw in this book was that the author claims "The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state fo the universe (p. 44)." He goes on to show this model still requires a creator, but it is unfortunate that he refutes atheistic causes for the creation of the universe, and then apparently tries to merge the atheistic philosophy he just refuted with the Biblical description of creation. The rest of the book is great, especially effective with the use of many pictures.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 7, 2009 2:45:55 PM PST
Actually that's a trap that classical apologetics can fall into. By allowing the unbeliever to frame debate, you run the risk of conceding the worldview to him.

Posted on May 16, 2010 5:28:33 PM PDT
Um...the Big Bang theory is not a sole Atheistic product. If you are a Young Earth Creationist, then yes the Big Bang Theory is not viable due to the time span. I've yet to decide which camp I belong to, but at the moment I'm leading to the Old Earth side (note: I am not a theistic evolutionist) simply because of the evidence that has for the Big Bang and the fact the only way you could interpret 7 24-hour periods of creation (Young Earth Creationism) is to read the Greek-Roman definition of "day" into the language of Genesis 1, which did not exist when Moses wrote wrote those words. I seriously believe we have done a hyperliteral reading into Genesis 1, and we have also allowed the evolution debate and evolution's requirement for an Old Earth to blur the lines of the sciences involved. Evolution, at least classical Darwin evolution (not this new stuff the New Atheist camp puts out), was never meant to explain how the world got into existance - it was meant to explain how species got to be the way they are, hence "The Origin of the Species".

Atheists still have the burden of proof to demonstrate how the Big Bang refutes God's existance by having to explain how the materials present at the Big Bang got where they were without infinite regress (which is the only way of explaining it if you are a naturalist). In my opinion the Big Bang is strong evidence for God's existance because you cannot have infinite regress of material existence. If there is a God, who is transcendant over the natural world, then He alone would have been able to put the needed materials for the Big Bang without infinite regress being involved.

Just my two cents...

Posted on Feb 17, 2014 2:36:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 17, 2014 2:56:20 PM PST
John Buhman says:
I agree with Austin Gravley. The Big Bang theory is NOT "atheistic philosophy." Georges Lemaitre, a CATHOLIC PRIEST, was the first person to propose the Big Bang theory. (If you don't believe me, look him and 'Big Bang theory' up in Wikipedia.) The atheists HATED the theory as it (1) came from a priest (of the Jesuit, or education, order) and (2) it proved that the universe was not eternal, which many atheists believed before the Big Bang theory was proven true in 1964 by the accidental discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation -- the 'smoking gun' of the Big Bang creation event. Before that, MANY atheists referred to the Big Bang theory as 'religion disguised as science.'

In 1951, Pope Pius XII used the Big theory as proof for the existence of God. (Look it up!) Unfortunately, with the publication of the piece of crap work titled The Genesis Flood, which claimed a 6,000 year-old Earth, the church rejected the Big Bang model in favor of the the untenable Young Earth Creationist ("YEC") model. The church has been struggling to remain credible and to retain its youth ever since this tragic mistake.

So, the Big Bang theory is anything BUT atheistic. However, YEC has re-written history and claims that the Big Bang theory is anti-biblical. Atheists have also re-written history. I just watched a debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye (the science guy). Bill credited Fred Hoyle with proposing the Big Bang theory. Fred Hoyle was an atheist who HATED the Big Bang theory. He said of it: "The Big Bang is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms ... [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation." He never did accept the Big Bang theory despite all of the overwhelming evidence in its favor. Atheists wanted an eternal universe, not one that was created out of nothing (like Genesis 1:1 says).

Also, the following 11 verses talk about God stretching out the heavens, which agree with modern cosmology and the Big Bang theory that says the universe has been continually expanding: Job 9:8, Ps. 104:2, Is. 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jer. 10:12, 51:15, and Zech. 12:1. So, the Big Bang theory is supported in the Bible and supports a biblical creation account. It just doesn't agree with the YEC interpretation, which is a HORRIBLE interpretation.

Before you post a rebuttal, do us ALL a favor and actually look up the verses and the people / references I have mentioned. If you do that, you will see that I'm right.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer

K. Royce
(REAL NAME)   

Location: Mystic, CT USA

Top Reviewer Ranking: 7,698,483