- Russell makes an estremely valiant attempt to refer the vision of the Apocalypse to historical foundations which is a refreshing change from those views which attempt to assign to it later events as the fulfillment of prophecy. He is, however, like a man with a hammer who sees everything as a nail. Everything is more or less assigned to Jerusalem. While Jerusalem does enter into the picture in a couple of points, it is amazing to think that the seven churches to whom the Apocalypse was written would be so concerned with events in Jerusalem as to be almost consumed by it. Nevertheless, despite these limitations he does bring forth some worthwhile observations at certain points. For much of the discussion St Augustine's view of the two cities (the City of this World and the City of God is preferable. Sample it wisely.
- What ! No Anchor Bible Commentaries ? I would definitely think they should be included.
- DeKoster was the head of the Hekman Library at Calvin when I was a student there. I have no way of knowing at the moment on which side of the divide he comes down since Calvin has always been somewhat open to the question and I never had a course with DeKoster (and he's a joint author).. I'm giving this a medium rating since I haven't yet read the work. Since the book details the biblical positions pertinent to the debate, I suspect that it might come down on the side of creationism, but that is simply a guess. The problem with detailing the biblical evidences is that they are dependent on the PRE-scientific positions of the authors of the scriptures who were not able to interact with scientific thought since it hadn't yet developed. I look forward to reading it. Personally, I come down on the side of more evolutionary views.
- I get a kick out of Christians falling prey to liberal propaganda on the evolution. I'm about to be tarred and feathered for throwing doubt into origin of life and macroevolution topics at the community college. What I find when Christians start to leave a more literal genesis they often have some absurd gymnastics that they create. I asked some professors at a Christian school that were very open to evolutionary views...1. Was there a real Adam and Eve? And if no...was Paul wrong when he wrote Romans 2. If they were real...were they created as described in genesis or are they the descendants of bonobos or chimps or some clan of ape? If so..when was the image of God imparted along the way? I'm disappointed that so many Christians feel like they need to agree with science that they compromise the word severely and perhaps their own faith. Evolutionary biology is not held to the same scrutiny as any other field of science. Read the Science article on origin of the cell. I counted 27 times where words like "we believe" we posited, it must have been, we assume...are used. These are not science words and are clearly a faith position being passed off as mainstream science. I appreciate the overview, but I'd be disappointed if someone who is a scholar of the word didn't come down far from the theistic evolution side
- Unfortunately, I already have this in print. :-(
- It also says: "See how it works." It should say hear how it works because I didn't see anything. I am really interested but I am not sure exactly what I am getting?
- Hi John, EBNE articles will integrate into your Logos library and connect to your current content. This resource will make your Timeline more comprehensive with added dates and information, will enhance your media search results with more than 25,000 images, and will connect with every other resource in your library, so you can jump from an encyclopedia article to the primary source in seconds. For more information, I'd encourage you to check out the Logos blog: https://blog.logos.com/2015/02/3-day-sale-get-80-off-the-encyclopedia-britannica-noet-edition/ Let me know if you have any more questions! Thanks, Sherri
- Not a review, but OH BOY have I ever done that a few times!
- While Ward deals with a subject which is of importance for any Christian in a modern world (and while in some respects I would agree with him), his big failing is that he subjects everything to what seems right to his moral sensibility. Was this not the same attitude for which the king of Tyre was satirized ("I will be like God"); is it not the same attitude which is revealed in the Beast of Revelation; is it not that which is recounted in the story of the Garden ("You shall be like God"—"He has become like us"). While I certainly think that we need to reconsider our understanding of scripture, it is a new understanding of scripture which is needed, not a replacement of scripture with our own preferences.