What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle for the Beginning: The Bible on Creation and the Fall of Adam
The battle lines have been drawn. Is the enemy winning? "Thanks to the theory of evolution," writes best-selling author John MacArthur, "naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion. Naturalism has now replaced Christianity as the main religion of the Western world, and evolution has become its principal dogma." Many Christians who claim to believe that the Bible is God's revealed truth seem willing to allow modern scientific theories to replace the Genesis account of creation. Such compromises present a conspicuous danger. Bible teacher and pastor, John MacArthur, believes that in Genesis 1-3 we find the foundation of every doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith?the vital underpinnings for everything we believe. The Battle for the Beginning draws a clear line on today's theological landscape. "Everything in Scripture that teaches about sin and redemption assumes the literal truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we wobble to any degree on the truth of this passage," John MacArthur insists, "we undermind the very foundations of our faith."
240 pages, Paperback
First published June 4, 2001
153 people are currently reading
509 people want to read
About the author
John F. MacArthur Jr.
1,344 books1,925 followersJohn F. MacArthur, Jr. was a United States Calvinistic evangelical writer and minister, noted for his radio program entitled Grace to You and as the editor of the Gold Medallion Book Award-winning MacArthur Study Bible. MacArthur was a fifth-generation pastor, a popular author and conference speaker, and served as pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California beginning in 1969, as well as President of The Master’s College (and the related Master’s Seminary) in Santa Clarita, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
August 15, 2014
There are a lot of things I like about John MacArthur when he's talking about subjects he knows about, but his approach to dealing with science and scientists is pretty appalling. Full of logical errors and over-simplifications. Evolution does not = being an Atheist or Materialist, and modern Biblical scholarship offers far more reasonable interpretations of Genesis than a plain reading in English.
September 3, 2017
An excellent commentary dealing with the first three chapters of Genesis. MacArthur not only attacks evolution but also attacks many false teachings in the church today. This book is sound on doctrine, when you consider much Bible doctrine is introduced in the first part of Genesis. There are also good attacks on Buddhism and Mormonism doctrines by using this part of Genesis. This is a must read for all Christians to make sure we understand the doctrines taught here.
May 22, 2020
John MacArthur is a pastor and Bible teacher that I greatly admire. I have personally benefited so much from his ministry. It is thus with a heavy heart that I offer this review of The Battle for the Beginning.
The Battle for the Beginning is in many ways a typical John MacArthur book. It is filled with clarity, conviction and certainty. The arguments are passionately presented. As with other books by MacArthur, if you stand in substantial agreement with him you will likely find this book excellent, precisely because of its clarity, conviction and certainty. On the other hand, if you find yourself disagreeing with him substantially - even if you are not his true opposition - you will find this book frustrating. The latter category describes my evaluation of this book.
My frustration with this book stems largely from its lack of charity and caution. Charity demands that we represent our opponents fairly and that we do not mistake our own interpretation for the infallibility of the text of Scripture. Caution, in turn, demands that we do not elevate disputed matters to the level of essential matters. For these reasons this book is divisive. Now, it can be argued that truth divides. This is a point with a proven track record. But it is not only truth that divides. Division is also caused when we do not take care to represent our opponents properly. Division is furthermore caused by the elevation of disputed matters to essential importance. Despite the scare tactics associated with Young-Earth Creationism the reality remains that the length of the creation days in Genesis 1 is a disputed matter and not a test for orthodoxy.
MacArthur’s case for 24-hour creation days rests on the following arguments:
• The pattern established on Day 1 of day/night and evening/morning demands a 24-hour day.
• There exists a functional equivalence between the Hebrew words for created and made – this in turn establishes that the creative acts were mostly instantaneous and therefore it offers support to the short timeframe of 24-hour days.
• The creation days are modified by ordinal numbers which always describe normal solar days in the Bible.
• The plants created on Day 3 could not have survived until the insects were created on Day 6 if the days represent long periods.
• Even though the customary evening/morning phrase is absent from the seventh day, its use in the Ten Commandments demands a 24-hour day.
• A denial of 24-hour creation days undermines God’s creative genius and miraculous power and it dishonours the blessings associated with the Sabbath rest.
Since the book generally does not interact with proposals that counter these arguments, it is imprudent to conclude that these arguments are decisive, unless you have a serious confirmation bias or have settled to do theology in an echo chamber.
Despite its frustrating nature there is much to commend in this book. There are some truly brilliant sections worth mentioning. MacArthur does an excellent job of dismantling naturalism and the dogma of chance associated with it in the early chapters. Even though he does not set out to write a polemical book (a purpose he achieves with inconsistency), the early chapters are especially of apologetic value – evolution and the philosophy that undergirds it should have no place in theology. This value is seen in how he refutes the Framework Hypothesis narrowly considered, Progressive Creationism as proposed by Hugh Ross which rests far too much on a scientific concordist reading of the creation account and the Gap Theory. MacArthur’s description of the intricacies in the creation of light serves to lift our eyes to behold the glory of God. Similar conclusions can be made from his descriptions of the complexities of the ways animals and insects have been made to function. Surely, these things extol the creative work of God not just as the Intelligent Designer, but also as the Great Artist. MacArthur’s insistence that “God did it” is more than sufficient for this is exactly what Genesis 1 demonstrates. In the closing chapters MacArthur beautifully displays a theology of Sabbath and the image of God and accurately uncovers the literal Fall associated with a literal Adam and Eve and shows how this has adversely affected all of creation. He closes the book with a heartfelt gospel appeal grounded in the hope offered amidst the curses pronounced in Genesis 3.
These highlights unfortunately cannot excuse some of the poorer aspects of the book. For starters, not all non-Young Earthers embrace evolution. The neglect to draw this distinction leads to a persistent judgement by association. MacArthur’s claim that scholars and theologians reject the Young Earth interpretation to protect their academic credibility is unwarranted. In one fell swoop he has attacked the integrity of a whole host of evangelicals such as Norman Geisler, Jack Collins, Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, James Montgomery Boice, Gleason Archer and an increasing number of evangelical commentators. Additionally, MacArthur is very selective in his use of scientific evidence and occasionally confuses various scientific disciplines, conflating cosmological theories with biological theories. The lack of exploration of how Genesis 1:1 fits with the rest of the passage was disappointing – it just won’t do to assume your own view when so many options are on the table. Also, the Bible’s creation account as a polemic (though this is not its only purpose) against other ancient worldviews was only mentioned in passing. That the God of Israel is sovereign over all things in creation must surely play a more prominent role. MacArthur regularly overstates his case, chiefly in assuming that abandoning 24-hour days is abandoning the literal interpretation. The literal interpretation cannot be reduced to what a normal reading will establish. No, the literal interpretation is to be pursued in interpreting a text in accordance with its literature. For Genesis 1, this includes incorporating all the delightful literary devices and poetic features as part of the process of discovering the authorial intent. A Young-Earth interpretation that seeks to do justice to these features (by not downplaying them) is still a viable option, but it does not have sole rights to be called biblical.
The Battle for the Beginning is in many ways a typical John MacArthur book. It is filled with clarity, conviction and certainty. The arguments are passionately presented. As with other books by MacArthur, if you stand in substantial agreement with him you will likely find this book excellent, precisely because of its clarity, conviction and certainty. On the other hand, if you find yourself disagreeing with him substantially - even if you are not his true opposition - you will find this book frustrating. The latter category describes my evaluation of this book.
My frustration with this book stems largely from its lack of charity and caution. Charity demands that we represent our opponents fairly and that we do not mistake our own interpretation for the infallibility of the text of Scripture. Caution, in turn, demands that we do not elevate disputed matters to the level of essential matters. For these reasons this book is divisive. Now, it can be argued that truth divides. This is a point with a proven track record. But it is not only truth that divides. Division is also caused when we do not take care to represent our opponents properly. Division is furthermore caused by the elevation of disputed matters to essential importance. Despite the scare tactics associated with Young-Earth Creationism the reality remains that the length of the creation days in Genesis 1 is a disputed matter and not a test for orthodoxy.
MacArthur’s case for 24-hour creation days rests on the following arguments:
• The pattern established on Day 1 of day/night and evening/morning demands a 24-hour day.
• There exists a functional equivalence between the Hebrew words for created and made – this in turn establishes that the creative acts were mostly instantaneous and therefore it offers support to the short timeframe of 24-hour days.
• The creation days are modified by ordinal numbers which always describe normal solar days in the Bible.
• The plants created on Day 3 could not have survived until the insects were created on Day 6 if the days represent long periods.
• Even though the customary evening/morning phrase is absent from the seventh day, its use in the Ten Commandments demands a 24-hour day.
• A denial of 24-hour creation days undermines God’s creative genius and miraculous power and it dishonours the blessings associated with the Sabbath rest.
Since the book generally does not interact with proposals that counter these arguments, it is imprudent to conclude that these arguments are decisive, unless you have a serious confirmation bias or have settled to do theology in an echo chamber.
Despite its frustrating nature there is much to commend in this book. There are some truly brilliant sections worth mentioning. MacArthur does an excellent job of dismantling naturalism and the dogma of chance associated with it in the early chapters. Even though he does not set out to write a polemical book (a purpose he achieves with inconsistency), the early chapters are especially of apologetic value – evolution and the philosophy that undergirds it should have no place in theology. This value is seen in how he refutes the Framework Hypothesis narrowly considered, Progressive Creationism as proposed by Hugh Ross which rests far too much on a scientific concordist reading of the creation account and the Gap Theory. MacArthur’s description of the intricacies in the creation of light serves to lift our eyes to behold the glory of God. Similar conclusions can be made from his descriptions of the complexities of the ways animals and insects have been made to function. Surely, these things extol the creative work of God not just as the Intelligent Designer, but also as the Great Artist. MacArthur’s insistence that “God did it” is more than sufficient for this is exactly what Genesis 1 demonstrates. In the closing chapters MacArthur beautifully displays a theology of Sabbath and the image of God and accurately uncovers the literal Fall associated with a literal Adam and Eve and shows how this has adversely affected all of creation. He closes the book with a heartfelt gospel appeal grounded in the hope offered amidst the curses pronounced in Genesis 3.
These highlights unfortunately cannot excuse some of the poorer aspects of the book. For starters, not all non-Young Earthers embrace evolution. The neglect to draw this distinction leads to a persistent judgement by association. MacArthur’s claim that scholars and theologians reject the Young Earth interpretation to protect their academic credibility is unwarranted. In one fell swoop he has attacked the integrity of a whole host of evangelicals such as Norman Geisler, Jack Collins, Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, James Montgomery Boice, Gleason Archer and an increasing number of evangelical commentators. Additionally, MacArthur is very selective in his use of scientific evidence and occasionally confuses various scientific disciplines, conflating cosmological theories with biological theories. The lack of exploration of how Genesis 1:1 fits with the rest of the passage was disappointing – it just won’t do to assume your own view when so many options are on the table. Also, the Bible’s creation account as a polemic (though this is not its only purpose) against other ancient worldviews was only mentioned in passing. That the God of Israel is sovereign over all things in creation must surely play a more prominent role. MacArthur regularly overstates his case, chiefly in assuming that abandoning 24-hour days is abandoning the literal interpretation. The literal interpretation cannot be reduced to what a normal reading will establish. No, the literal interpretation is to be pursued in interpreting a text in accordance with its literature. For Genesis 1, this includes incorporating all the delightful literary devices and poetic features as part of the process of discovering the authorial intent. A Young-Earth interpretation that seeks to do justice to these features (by not downplaying them) is still a viable option, but it does not have sole rights to be called biblical.
April 1, 2022
What does the first three chapters of Genesis have to say about the world we live in? In this book by Pastor and Teacher John MacArthur we have an exposition of Genesis 1-3 covering largely the topic of God’s creation of the world and also how sin entered the world. This was adapted from MacArthur’s sermon series of these passages. The topic of creation and creation views are no doubt controversial among Christians today and MacArthur’s main focus in the book is to expound from the text of Scripture and he lands on a young earth creationist view.
The book consists of ten chapters. After an introduction on why this subject is important of how one interpret Genesis 1-2 we see chapter one through ten is an exposition of Genesis 1 through 3. For instance chapter one looks at Genesis 1:1, chapter two pauses to ask the question of how creation happen and then chapter three takes on Genesis 1-2:5 on light on day one, etc.
I thought overall the book went well. Today’s discussion about God’s creation is controversial with the debate about evolution and while MacArthur talks about the challenges of Darwinism thinking creeping into the church MacArthur makes it clear in the outset of the book that he’s not going to focus on the scientific discussions. I’ve read some reviews that didn’t enjoy this book saying what they wish MacArthur book would have addressed but I think the nature of the discussion can be multifaceted (I myself often wish people saw the philosophical dimension to the evolution and creation debate for instance) and there is a place for specific works on Genesis 1-3 itself. Nevertheless I know interpreting Genesis 1-3 is not done in a vacuum and some might legitimately wish he has more discussion with the Hebrew text of the passages he is looking at, consideration of Ancient Near East background materials, etc. I still think this is a good one volume work for a general audience for a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis. I for one appreciate MacArthur’s desire and intention to be biblical. There are of course other books that tackle other dimension of the creation-evolution debate but sometimes I wish for those who are Christians we should also give room for Genesis to speak. Let this not be your final book on the subject.
The book consists of ten chapters. After an introduction on why this subject is important of how one interpret Genesis 1-2 we see chapter one through ten is an exposition of Genesis 1 through 3. For instance chapter one looks at Genesis 1:1, chapter two pauses to ask the question of how creation happen and then chapter three takes on Genesis 1-2:5 on light on day one, etc.
I thought overall the book went well. Today’s discussion about God’s creation is controversial with the debate about evolution and while MacArthur talks about the challenges of Darwinism thinking creeping into the church MacArthur makes it clear in the outset of the book that he’s not going to focus on the scientific discussions. I’ve read some reviews that didn’t enjoy this book saying what they wish MacArthur book would have addressed but I think the nature of the discussion can be multifaceted (I myself often wish people saw the philosophical dimension to the evolution and creation debate for instance) and there is a place for specific works on Genesis 1-3 itself. Nevertheless I know interpreting Genesis 1-3 is not done in a vacuum and some might legitimately wish he has more discussion with the Hebrew text of the passages he is looking at, consideration of Ancient Near East background materials, etc. I still think this is a good one volume work for a general audience for a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of Genesis. I for one appreciate MacArthur’s desire and intention to be biblical. There are of course other books that tackle other dimension of the creation-evolution debate but sometimes I wish for those who are Christians we should also give room for Genesis to speak. Let this not be your final book on the subject.
November 15, 2011
I'm having a hard time getting through this book. This book is filled with obvious and dangerously simple errors of logic and philosophy. And being a lover of good literature, I find him incredibly insulting to poetry, or "mere poetry," as he calls it. As if all the greatest writings in history have not been poetry. And yet he is fond of quoting Psalms. As far as I'm concerned, some denominations have lowered their standards of theology too much, and we need the atheists to humble them. In the history of the church, only recently has the literal school appeared. Everybody else knew better.
June 5, 2012
I'm not done yet, but I'm storing so much in my head to write about this book that I'm afraid I'm going to start spilling it all over the floor and I'll never get it all collected back together again. So this might be a little jumpy.
(1) The first part of the book really made me angry; the way he was creating words and thoughts for the scientists. I really have trouble believing that the scientists are trying to imagine a godless world so that they can be happy in their sins. I don't think that most scientists even believe there is a battle here. It seems to me that the main thing the scientists are doing is trying to understand the way the world works... to examine what they see and explain it. I don't think they are trying to explain some of the things he goes into detail saying they can't explain.
(2) If you are going to speak about science, you have to keep up with it. The neutrino issue (only finding 1/3 of the expected number of neutrinos coming from the sun) was resolved when the scientists realized that their detector was specific to one type (flavor?) of neutrino and there are three that the neutrinos can fluctuate between freely. Issue solved. A few other places, so far, I've been thinking "but that's not quite right..."
(3) "Everchanging scientific theories" is true, but misleading. It's more like a tightening down of ropes than a continual restringing. Theories are built to explain the observed data and then the theories point to new experiments at the edges of the theory. Continual improvement rather than continual wholehearted change.
(4) There is no way to tell if the universe was created with, for instance, light that would take millions of years to reach us placed just 6000 light years away so that it's reaching us now. The believability of that argument is undermined by insisting that there are ways the grand canyon could be carved in a short time. And if everything was created "in progress," then why should scientists not study it? I believe that the main purpose of science is predictive: if I do this, then I expect this will be the result. From that comes nearly all our technology and understanding of the world.
(5) I really expected a discussion of the flaws with evolutionary theory. That's what I wanted to know about: which points are the weakest. I wasn't looking for a verse-by-verse explanation of the first chapters of Genesis. Maybe I'm just not there yet.
(6) I recall there being a whole lot of flap about the heliocentric view of our solar system being against God's teachings back when Galileo had his issues. Was that based on tradition, or was it biblical? I wish I knew how every jot and tittle of that argument went.
I'm up to the part where the plants have just been created. I'll finish review this after I finish the book. (Whew, I'm glad I don't have to hold all that in my mind anymore!)
Done, now. It seems to me that describing all the intricacies of an animal -- listing all the details that make it unique and suited to its environment -- and then stating "that can only be done by the hand of an intelligent designer" doesn't actually constitute logical proof, no matter how many times you repeat that same pattern.
I wonder how a version of the Bible that goes "Okay, look, once you guys discover these neutrinos -- I know, I know you can't see them with any detector you'll be able to create for the next couple thousand years, but they really are there -- Anyway, once you discover them, you'll see that..." or else "So, yes, then the spinning material will come together into a central location composed mostly of hydrogen and helium but with lots of heavier elements toward the central core, while at certain distances some of the material will accumulate into different types of spheriods -- following the rules of mass that the more it accumulates, the more it will accumulate later -- and those spheriods will continue to spin around the... you're not even paying attention. Look, I'll make it easy: I made that bright thing up there. It'll give you lots of light and heat. End of story." would have gone over thousands of years ago.
I did notice that he pointed out the "start of life from nothing" and the "we've never duplicated evolution in the lab" and the "plants versus animals split" ideas. These seemed, to me, the places that could be attacked. Instead, he moved on after just a brief mention.
There has to be a better defense of intelligent design then this. This felt like preaching to those constantly nodding agreement. I guess I just need to work harder to find a better book.
(1) The first part of the book really made me angry; the way he was creating words and thoughts for the scientists. I really have trouble believing that the scientists are trying to imagine a godless world so that they can be happy in their sins. I don't think that most scientists even believe there is a battle here. It seems to me that the main thing the scientists are doing is trying to understand the way the world works... to examine what they see and explain it. I don't think they are trying to explain some of the things he goes into detail saying they can't explain.
(2) If you are going to speak about science, you have to keep up with it. The neutrino issue (only finding 1/3 of the expected number of neutrinos coming from the sun) was resolved when the scientists realized that their detector was specific to one type (flavor?) of neutrino and there are three that the neutrinos can fluctuate between freely. Issue solved. A few other places, so far, I've been thinking "but that's not quite right..."
(3) "Everchanging scientific theories" is true, but misleading. It's more like a tightening down of ropes than a continual restringing. Theories are built to explain the observed data and then the theories point to new experiments at the edges of the theory. Continual improvement rather than continual wholehearted change.
(4) There is no way to tell if the universe was created with, for instance, light that would take millions of years to reach us placed just 6000 light years away so that it's reaching us now. The believability of that argument is undermined by insisting that there are ways the grand canyon could be carved in a short time. And if everything was created "in progress," then why should scientists not study it? I believe that the main purpose of science is predictive: if I do this, then I expect this will be the result. From that comes nearly all our technology and understanding of the world.
(5) I really expected a discussion of the flaws with evolutionary theory. That's what I wanted to know about: which points are the weakest. I wasn't looking for a verse-by-verse explanation of the first chapters of Genesis. Maybe I'm just not there yet.
(6) I recall there being a whole lot of flap about the heliocentric view of our solar system being against God's teachings back when Galileo had his issues. Was that based on tradition, or was it biblical? I wish I knew how every jot and tittle of that argument went.
I'm up to the part where the plants have just been created. I'll finish review this after I finish the book. (Whew, I'm glad I don't have to hold all that in my mind anymore!)
Done, now. It seems to me that describing all the intricacies of an animal -- listing all the details that make it unique and suited to its environment -- and then stating "that can only be done by the hand of an intelligent designer" doesn't actually constitute logical proof, no matter how many times you repeat that same pattern.
I wonder how a version of the Bible that goes "Okay, look, once you guys discover these neutrinos -- I know, I know you can't see them with any detector you'll be able to create for the next couple thousand years, but they really are there -- Anyway, once you discover them, you'll see that..." or else "So, yes, then the spinning material will come together into a central location composed mostly of hydrogen and helium but with lots of heavier elements toward the central core, while at certain distances some of the material will accumulate into different types of spheriods -- following the rules of mass that the more it accumulates, the more it will accumulate later -- and those spheriods will continue to spin around the... you're not even paying attention. Look, I'll make it easy: I made that bright thing up there. It'll give you lots of light and heat. End of story." would have gone over thousands of years ago.
I did notice that he pointed out the "start of life from nothing" and the "we've never duplicated evolution in the lab" and the "plants versus animals split" ideas. These seemed, to me, the places that could be attacked. Instead, he moved on after just a brief mention.
There has to be a better defense of intelligent design then this. This felt like preaching to those constantly nodding agreement. I guess I just need to work harder to find a better book.
December 5, 2011
A tremendous defense of Biblical creationism and expose' of the fallacy of evolutionary theory. Starting laying your intellectual foundation on these important topics with this book!
January 26, 2025
John MacArthur takes the reader through the seven days of creation and God's plan for the redemption of mankind. Though primarily reinforcing the idea of a literal creation by God as told in Genesis 1-3, he brings in some science. He makes clear his uncompromising position on what scripture says. I enjoyed his readable style and learned several things from the book. For instance, when dealing with the temptation of Adam and Eve, he points out that Satan lured them into sin by holding out to them the possibility of knowing good and evil like God. Wanting to be like God had caused Satan's own downfall. I'm looking forward to reading more by MacArthur.
August 10, 2019
A great defense of the Scriptural account of Creation.
2019 - A book by John MacArthur
2019 - A book by John MacArthur
May 26, 2008
I like MacArthur. But I don't think his book makes a convincing case against the possibility of the creation days being longer than 24 hours. I don't think it's a compromise to take into account scientific data when interpreting Scripture. For example, it was once believed that the Bible taught geocentricism; scientific data suggested heliocentrism. Eventually godly Bible interpreters came to realize that their hermeneutic needed to change in light of the new evidence. The church has not collapsed because of this shift in understanding, and nobody but a few eccentric cranks think twice about the "new" interpretation of passages once understood to teach that the sun revolved around the earth.
I think it's much the same today with the "length of Creation days" controversy. Godly men understand the weight of the evidence supporting the antiquity of the earth and universe, and seek to understand how Genesis can be interpreted to make sense of the new data. Yes, of course most interpreters until the past century or so understood the days to be 24 hours in length. But they were not faced with all the facts that we now have.
I think it's much the same today with the "length of Creation days" controversy. Godly men understand the weight of the evidence supporting the antiquity of the earth and universe, and seek to understand how Genesis can be interpreted to make sense of the new data. Yes, of course most interpreters until the past century or so understood the days to be 24 hours in length. But they were not faced with all the facts that we now have.
August 17, 2019
MacArthur attempts to approach this as an exegesis of Genesis 1-3, but he often repeats himself and comes off as trying to be a scientific expert, which he is not. It's not bad, per se, but there are too many other much better sources on the subject.
March 23, 2024
This book was such an interesting deep dive into the book of Genesis and how Christianity and the Biblical story intersects with today’s science, specifically evolution.
I was absolutely shocked to discover how much my beliefs have been subconsciously shaped by secular science without my even realizing it. The idea that the Earth has been around for millions, possibly even billions, of years has been so baked into today‘s societal views and feelings towards humanity that I just assumed that could work hand-in-hand with the Bible’s story of our origins. It does not.
John MacArthur does a fantastic job of pointing to where scripture specifically counteracts points and beliefs that evolutionists have posited over the last hundred or so years when the whole idea of evolution became today’s widely held belief. He explains the idea of ‘old earth creationists,’ basically people that try to adapt the Bible to work with evolution and says that those ideas cannot be co-opted together with a faithful adaptation of the scripture.
Possibly most importantly, to me, the idea that humans have only been walking the Earth for around 10,000 years, rather than millions and billions, makes every moment here feel so much more special and intentional, which is why MacArthur says the idea of evolution and an old Earth caught on so well. Christians should believe that God placed them on this Earth for a reason and to use their time wisely; secular science would lead you to believe that the Earth has existed and will continue to exist for so long that nothing really matters and moral conviction is pointless.
Definitely a book I’d recommend to anyone looking to get curious about their faith.
I was absolutely shocked to discover how much my beliefs have been subconsciously shaped by secular science without my even realizing it. The idea that the Earth has been around for millions, possibly even billions, of years has been so baked into today‘s societal views and feelings towards humanity that I just assumed that could work hand-in-hand with the Bible’s story of our origins. It does not.
John MacArthur does a fantastic job of pointing to where scripture specifically counteracts points and beliefs that evolutionists have posited over the last hundred or so years when the whole idea of evolution became today’s widely held belief. He explains the idea of ‘old earth creationists,’ basically people that try to adapt the Bible to work with evolution and says that those ideas cannot be co-opted together with a faithful adaptation of the scripture.
Possibly most importantly, to me, the idea that humans have only been walking the Earth for around 10,000 years, rather than millions and billions, makes every moment here feel so much more special and intentional, which is why MacArthur says the idea of evolution and an old Earth caught on so well. Christians should believe that God placed them on this Earth for a reason and to use their time wisely; secular science would lead you to believe that the Earth has existed and will continue to exist for so long that nothing really matters and moral conviction is pointless.
Definitely a book I’d recommend to anyone looking to get curious about their faith.
January 13, 2020
More and more Christians are making vain attempts to reconcile "scientific" evolutionary theories with the Biblical account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis 1-3. Just how significant of an issue is this? How does it affect the Gospel and the authority of Scripture as a whole? Why is man -- even the Christian -- so reluctant to believe in a literal six-day Creation? John MacArthur, using the only reliable source of truth, the Word of God, exhorts us to hold fast to a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. He takes his readers through this passage at a pace that is easy to follow, empowering them to resist compromise and to combat naturalistic thinking.
December 6, 2021
Mmm... no tengo una posición definida respecto al tema de la creación pero este libro no me gustó mucho. Creo que tiene algunos buenos argumentos a favor de la creación en 7 días literales pero el tono en el que está escrito me molestó un poco. Casi que da a entender que si no crees esto también no crees en la autoridad de la Biblia pero, en mi opinión, este tema es uno en los que podemos diferir siendo cristianos.
La lectura se me hizo un poco densa pero los últimos dos capítulos y el epílogo remontó bastante
La lectura se me hizo un poco densa pero los últimos dos capítulos y el epílogo remontó bastante
November 12, 2022
I just love John MacArthur, and this book did not disappoint. It makes the clear and (in my opinion) inescapable case for the Biblical account of creation in six literal days, and the young age of the earth. Highly recommend!
January 1, 2024
One of the best books on why Christians should accept the Biblical record
of creation as fact.
of creation as fact.
April 4, 2022
Poorly argued. MacArthur does what he claims he won't in the introduction. If he had made his case as he promised he would, then the book would have carried more punch and credibility.
October 1, 2020
Grace to You page for The Battle for the Beginning
(https://www.gty.org/library/topical-s...)
An excellent overview of the 6 days of creation from a primarily biblical perspective. It is a clear, concise and easy read (or listen) that focuses on a verse by verse exposition of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and argues for a literal 6 day, young earth creation.
This book will not satisfy those looking for either a strictly “scientific” explanation for the origins of the universe or an in-depth treatment of all the minutia of the various theories and debates. Pastor MacArthur is not a scientist but he demonstrates a good knowledge of the major arguments and a familiarity of those in both the scientific and theological camps.
The study of origins does not fall within the realm of pure, experimental science and relies heavily on assumptions and authority. That is, the student brings certain preconceived notions and beliefs with him/her. Hence, all view points have a degree of faith about the truth of those assumptions and the reliability of their sources. Christians generally hold the Bible (in its original autographs) to be the ultimate authority which is completely true and trustworthy. Any perceived deficiency or contradiction is in the interpretation and understanding of the text. Likewise, naturalists will prefer certain extra-biblical evidence and sources as authoritative.
Pastor MacArthur does an excellent job in summarizing the major points of contention. I do not agree with every detail of his, and many other highly respected YECs (e.g., Ussher’s chronology), but as a whole, the two major premises of a relatively young earth and a literal 6 day creation are firmly established.
I highly recommend this book as a starting point for anyone seeking a solid understanding of the arguments.
Grace to You also has a series of blog posts and discussion of the topic to which I have linked below.
(https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B100322)
(https://www.gty.org/library/topical-s...)
An excellent overview of the 6 days of creation from a primarily biblical perspective. It is a clear, concise and easy read (or listen) that focuses on a verse by verse exposition of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and argues for a literal 6 day, young earth creation.
This book will not satisfy those looking for either a strictly “scientific” explanation for the origins of the universe or an in-depth treatment of all the minutia of the various theories and debates. Pastor MacArthur is not a scientist but he demonstrates a good knowledge of the major arguments and a familiarity of those in both the scientific and theological camps.
The study of origins does not fall within the realm of pure, experimental science and relies heavily on assumptions and authority. That is, the student brings certain preconceived notions and beliefs with him/her. Hence, all view points have a degree of faith about the truth of those assumptions and the reliability of their sources. Christians generally hold the Bible (in its original autographs) to be the ultimate authority which is completely true and trustworthy. Any perceived deficiency or contradiction is in the interpretation and understanding of the text. Likewise, naturalists will prefer certain extra-biblical evidence and sources as authoritative.
Pastor MacArthur does an excellent job in summarizing the major points of contention. I do not agree with every detail of his, and many other highly respected YECs (e.g., Ussher’s chronology), but as a whole, the two major premises of a relatively young earth and a literal 6 day creation are firmly established.
I highly recommend this book as a starting point for anyone seeking a solid understanding of the arguments.
Grace to You also has a series of blog posts and discussion of the topic to which I have linked below.
(https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B100322)
September 27, 2018
An excellent, exegetical walk through Genesis 1. MacArthur's primary concern is to remain true to the biblical text, and secondarily to address related issues (evolution, age of the earth, etc.). In addition to the exegesis, the book is interlaced with interesting information about different aspects of creation, such as fascinating animals. Highly recommended to anyone interested in learning more about the text of Genesis 1.
September 4, 2021
I absolutely love this book. It is a great supplement to Bible study tools. MacArthur clearly and thoroughly reviews the various worldviews on how we got here and breaks them down for the reader. After studying the book of Genesis for over a year, I felt like this was a great companion piece to my study.
November 24, 2023
inspiring
This book lays out an insightful look into the amazing power of God. It is absolutely true that evolution seeks to make God irrelevant however try as evolutionist will, nothing makes better sense than God is the answer to creation. In the beginning God !!!! Enough said. Great book, very inspiring and uplifting. Straight forward.
This book lays out an insightful look into the amazing power of God. It is absolutely true that evolution seeks to make God irrelevant however try as evolutionist will, nothing makes better sense than God is the answer to creation. In the beginning God !!!! Enough said. Great book, very inspiring and uplifting. Straight forward.
April 24, 2025
Decent. Lots to chew on from this read. The bit I enjoyed the most were the examples of profoundly designed living organisms John gave. at bare minimum this book stabs at the heart of atheistic evolution. Creation is a wonder, and this book helps to show it and give the creationist some strong arguments to defend their positions.
July 21, 2017
The author strongly upholds the Biblical account of creation and shows that it is the foundation for all that follows in the Bible. He demolishes evolution and supports a young earth viewpoint. Many interesting things are mentioned as to the creatures that God created.
October 4, 2020
Great young earth argument. Theistic evolution, when brought to its extent, is incompatible with the Bible. This book helps show the basics of that and why it’s important to hold to a straight 6-day creation theology for Christians.
December 1, 2021
A stunning and magnificent treatise.
This brilliant and completely comprehensive study into the creation of the world and the fall of man slays once and for all any questions about our origins and initial fall that plunged all of creation into the darkness of sin.
This brilliant and completely comprehensive study into the creation of the world and the fall of man slays once and for all any questions about our origins and initial fall that plunged all of creation into the darkness of sin.
October 7, 2022
McArthur is one of my go-to theologians. This book had a lot of interesting facts about creation displayed through a Biblical lens. My favorite part was the end where he explains how Satan tempted Adam and Eve and how they were tricked into eating from the forbidden tree. Very enlightening.
December 20, 2023
Excelente libro que batalla en contra de la falsa teoría evolucionista. Me gustó bastante y siento que aprendí muchas cosas, sobre todo, el hecho de que la evolución es una teoría creada directamente en contra de Dios, y que es completamente incongruente con la Biblia.
December 31, 2024
read this book for a class on Creation and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I learned so very much, but the only thing is that the same point is made soooooo many times. There were times I thought, okay, you said that. Move on. But I learned a lot and enjoyed it
August 26, 2018
Creation
This was insightful and enlightening. Good look at creation from a scriptural stand point. I learned quite a bit from Paster MacArthur.
This was insightful and enlightening. Good look at creation from a scriptural stand point. I learned quite a bit from Paster MacArthur.
February 10, 2020
Good read from the start to the end, employing strong arguments against evolution from both exposition as well as science.
A must read for everyone and not just curious students of creationism!
A must read for everyone and not just curious students of creationism!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews