Dear Customers,
A few shipments arrived this week. If you log into your account at www.toywonders.com, before clicking on any of the links below, approved wholesale accounts will see wholesale pricing.
Forgot your password?
Missed a previous week's newsletter?
DIECAST Collectible Model Cars And More
|
Image |
Item# |
Description |
Stock Status |
|
X5494/9964 |
Mattel Hot Wheels Elite - Batmobile (1989, 1:43, Black) X5494/9964 |
New |
|
5358D |
Kinsmart - Chevy Corvette Stingray Hard Top (1963, 1:36, Asstd.) 5358D |
New |
|
PJR822924 |
Nascar Winners Circle - Dale Earnhardt Jr. #88 Race Car (1:24, Green & White) PJR822924 |
New |
|
57113 |
Gearbox Texaco - Chevy 3100 Stake Pickup Truck (1950, 1:43, Red) 57113 |
New |
|
57157 |
Gearbox Pepsi-Cola - Chevy Pickup Truck w/ Crates (1941, 1:43, Blue & White) 57157 |
New |
|
56962 |
Gearbox Pepsi-Cola - Ford Pickup Truck w/ Barrels (1942, 1:43, White & Red) 56962 |
New |
|
56952 |
Gearbox Remington - Ford Pickup Truck w/ Crates (1942, 1:43, Green) 56952 |
New |
|
00273 |
Gearbox Pepsi-Cola - Trains (3.5", Asstd.) 00273 |
New |
Metal Signs & License Plates
Please do not reply to this email address.
Any questions or comments, please email us at [email protected].
To unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an email to [email protected] and put the word 'unsubscribe' on the subject line.
Thank you
Lu Su
Toy Wonders, Inc.
www.toywonders.com
201-229-1700
God and the Art of Toy and Diecast Marketing
A Mystery with Names (the issue)
By L. S. Su
The Bible and science on occasion butt heads from time to time. With man's large appetite for understanding truth, I think that's normal and even healthy. Though the Bible doesn't teach this, past religious authorities taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. Then this scientist named Nicolaus Copernicus made a bold claim that the Earth was not the center, but taught that our Sun was the center of the universe. So when you have mutually exclusive truth claims ("Earth is the center" versus "Sun is the center" of the universe), the way logic works is that either one truth claim is correct and the other is incorrect; or both truth claims are incorrect. So after a couple of centuries after Copernicus and improvements in the telescope, man was able to conclude that both truth claims were incorrect -neither the Earth nor Sun were the center of the universe.
One topic the Bible and science seem to lock horns on relates to 1) Origin of life and 2) Age of man. From my point of view, the Bible and science are different tools that we have at our disposal to discover truth. Just like a hammer and screwdriver, they are different tools to tackle different kinds of jobs.
The Bible provides answers to the big four questions in life: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Answers to these four questions shape what is called your worldview. We should thank people of Germanic background, because the word, "worldview" was derived from the German word Weltanschauung. And a worldview is simply, the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. So your worldview, and everyone has one, acts as your lens to help you interpret what you see and observe.
One thing you need to realize is that science by itself is unable to provide a complete worldview. Science is a poor tool when it comes to understanding questions to the meaning of life, morality (right and wrong) and destiny (unless you like science fiction). But what I find interesting is that though science cannot provide a worldview, it still wants to put a filter on how people interpret what they see and observe.
 |
 |
For example, science allows me to conclude that the object on the left was marvelously designed, engineered, and constructed. Notice the symmetry, common chemical composition, minimal waste of material, and its ability to withstand large amounts weight when applied vertically. But the scientific community, which has a very strong influence in schools and universities, does not permit me to make this same assumption with the object on the right. I am allowed to marvel at the engineering, construction, and what this strand is capable of building; However, I am not allowed to start with the assumption that the dna strand came about from someone's design, but must assume it came into existence by chance.
Isn't the object on the right considerably more complicated than the object on the left? My math isn't that good, but I would think it would be far more probable that the Mars Rover Curiosity unearth several cinder blocks on Mars than a single dna molecule. But I do understand what is going on here, the issue is about the origin. And science gives an excellent run for the money on the question of life's origin and the age of man.
One thing I probably need to make clear is that science and faith (i.e. faith in the scriptures) are not diametrically opposed to each other -any more than a hammer and screw driver. Both are good tools in understanding truth. In fact people of faith should expect that good science to back up their truth claims. And vice-versa -if the faith claims are indeed true. Moreover, all scientists need faith (in something) too, or they couldn't get anything accomplished.
Both biblical scholars and scientists (not mutually exclusive occupations by the way) pursue truth in order to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. Realize that the Bible never claimed that the Earth was the center of the universe, so Copernicus showed the religious authorities that their teaching was incorrect; but that doesn't equate to the Bible being wrong. But there is one particular matter where the Bible and science directly butt heads on.
Currently, the majority of scientist in observing things on Earth and in outer space make the conclusion that the Earth is exceedingly old and the things that crept on the Earth is very old (scale is in millions of years). Here is a chart of how many scientist have classified the age of creatures that could move on their own. This time period of millions of years (and for your visual pleasure, it's been color coded and broken down into three groupings: Era, Period, and Epoch.)
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/lowbandwidth/INT_geomap.html
Note in the chart above, it took roughly 540 million years before mankind made his and her entrance (under the classification of Hominids). So science is currently teaching that man is roughly 5.3 million years old (give or take a few million years).
However the Bible, with the use of names, who their son was, and how long they lived, shows that man is not millions of years old (but roughly only 6000 years old). So according to the Bible, the age of man has a scale of thousands of years.
http://weareisrael.org/2012/05/08/abram-noah-and-shem/
Through these passages in the Bible: Genesis 4:25-5:29, Genesis 11:10-26, and Luke 3: 21-28, you would be able to construct the above chart.
Wow! That's a pretty big difference. One tool (science) is teaching us that man is millions of years old and another tool (the Bible) leads us to believe that man is only thousands of years old. Both truth claims cannot be true. Either one chart is correct and the other incorrect, or both are incorrect.
So a few things before we delve deeper into this matter. There are two camps here. One camp believe that man is millions of years old; the main tool this camp uses to come up with such a conclusion is something called radiometric dating. Probably the most famous type of radiometric dating tools is called carbon 14 dating.
Another camp believes that man is only thousands of years old; the main tool this camp use is written Judeo-Christian text called the holy scriptures. Note that the Muslims have their holy scriptures too, called the Quran. What is interesting is that all three religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam trace their lineage to Abraham (as their fore-father).
What I also find interesting is Islam (at this time) does not permit people, whether you are a Muslim or not a Muslim, to question the accuracy and validity of their text. People who in the past that have challenge their truth claims made in the Quran often met an early demise. I find this interesting, because scientific journals, the Jewish Torah, the Christian Bible, and the Muslim Quran all make truth claims, but debating the truth claims of the Quran is strictly off limits. So I do find it odd for any group to claim they have the truth about some matter, want to share it, but insists that nobody is allowed to refute or question their derivation of something they consider true.
At this time, the camp that believes that man is millions of years old is probably way larger than the other camp that doesn't believe this. But the camps are NOT divided based on those who believe the Judeo-Christian scriptures versus those who do not. The camps are also not divided based on scientists in one camp and people who believe in the scriptures in the other. Both classifications of people (and I think scientists are also considered people) are found in both camps. There are people who believe in the Bible/Torah who believe that man is millions of years old. There are people who believe in the Bible/Torah who believe that man is only thousands of years old.
What happens when scientific evidence contradicts claims made in the Bible? Since we are in the season for Presidential debates, let's look at one. Mike Huckabee, a Bible believing candidate in the 2008 Republican presidential primaries was asked a question that directly relates to the age of man. He was asked whether he believe God created everything in six 24 hour days or not. He quickly presented the two interpretations (i.e. day represented 24 hours vs day representing millions of years), but then said he wasn't sure and didn't know. I thought that was a very fair answer and I believe the vast majority of the people who believe that the Bible would answer the question in the same way.
I had asked my sister-in-law, whom I feel is a devoted Catholic and has taken many science courses, the same question posed to Mr. Huckabee. She stated that it was her personal belief (and she made it clear that she was Not speaking on behalf of all Catholics) that the creation story in Genesis 1, should not be taken literally -but as a figurative story. I understand. In doing so, she can still believe that man is millions of years old and at the same time believe the Bible is true.
I believe a lot of people do this. Whenever Biblical truth claims butt heads with scientific truth claims, to resolve they simply claim that the Biblical truth claim should be taken figuratively and not literally. I personally am not comfortable in implementing such a strategy, because it can lead to ramifications I find unacceptable. So as I look at the above lineage chart, probably Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real people, but probably some time before them, it went from a real person to a fictional person?
If Adam, Noah, or Abraham were figurative people, then maybe Jesus and Mary (the mother of Jesus) really didn't exist either? After all, there isn't much scientific evidence out there that supports virgin births. And scientific evidence certainly doesn't support a dead man who has been in a tomb for a few days, coming back to life either (unless you happen to be playing Call of Duty in zombie mode). So then maybe Lazarus and Jesus Christ were not literal people, but also a figurative people too? I'm not comfortable with that, because if Christ did not physically rise from the dead, then my faith is a sham and lie.
Though I know I'm from the smaller of the two camps, next time I want to present to you why I think man is not as old as what our educational system has taught us to believe.
Back to the top
