My last post asked the question “Why read Old Books?“

I think we should. I was convinced of this by a far better word-smith than I: C. S. Lewis.
More than 30 years ago he explained why we ought to read Old Books in an introduction to a Very Old Book:
“There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. … This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology”.

(I have extracted my favourite bits. The rest is definitely worth reading (at the link above).)
“Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.”

Why?
“Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook – even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it.”

“The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. “

So what do I do?
 ”It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.” 

I wonder how old an Old Book needs to be, to be an Old Book… (Say that 5 times fast)
The irony is that, when I first read (actually, heard) this, I congratulated myself on having just finished a book written 60 years ago – yet that was actually contempory at the time Lewis wrote this.

I want to dig into some stuff from other centuries, but I have no idea where to start. Does anyone have any suggestions? (actual books are more helpful than authors)

I’ve moved!

The new and improved blog is found at www.thecrazyaustralian.com.

Update links, feeds, fansites ect and head over there

Yet recently I have been thinking a lot about Old Books.

Last term I read a lot of C. S. Lewis, whose books, at more than 50 years old, might qualify. They were marvellous! The writing was clear, clever, and challenging; but the best part was that he wrote about things we don’t hear about today.

Then, a few weeks ago, I found a bookshelf in our house with my parents’ Old Books on it, and I’ve been working my way through some of them.

I will discuss this in the next post, but feel free to share your thoughts.

There are plenty of reasons to think the Old Testament is historical. Another one was added yesterday when The British Museum deciphered a 2600-year-old tablet. (worth a read)

The find is small in many ways: the tablet is just 5.5cm wide, it is just some kind of a receipt, and it names a person of small importance. That last reason is, for me, an interesting one. Quoting the article,
“The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim who, according to Jeremiah 39 was present in 587BC when Nebuchadnezzar “marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it”….
“Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary.” “

If the tablet provided support for an ‘important detail’, like a king or a battle, it would not rule out an author who, inventing a story, used well known facts to beef it up.
But to find a minor official and the date… thats different isn’t it?

“Dr Jursa… yesterday said the British Museum tablet was so well preserved that it took him just a couple of minutes to decipher.”

It’s not the only time archaeology has agreed with the Bible. Does it surprise you?

Technorati Tags: Dawkins, God, funny, spoof, skit, youtube, video

So, already breaking one of the rules that haven’t even been laid, I am shamelessly ripping off his groundrules (with my own spin):
~ Concise – I tend to ramble. I won’t.
~ Colourful – pictures. pictures. pictures.
~ Original – I’ll try not to rip off other people. Like this
~ Insightful – read: thoughtful. I want to think and encourage my readers to think.

And my own:
~ Interactive – I’m not sure how this will work, but I want to interact with you. Send me comments, emails, pictures. I’ll ask questions. Beyond that: improvise.

What do you think? Have I missed anything?

Ideas often pop into my head and I think “I should blog that!”… but not actually having a blog, the idea would die. Generally, if I thought it was worth it, I would comment it on someone elses blog (Sorry Dave!).

So at the moment, this blog is basically going to be a collection of random, (hopefully) interesting stuff I come across or think about. Stay tuned!