DOCSLIB.ORG

How Scholars' Perceptions of the Semantic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Scholars' Perceptions of the Semantic Answers Research Journal 12 (2019):103–178. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v12/semantic_range_yom_3.pdf Have יֹום How Scholars’ Perceptions of the Semantic Range of Affected Their Discussions of the Age of the Universe: Part 3 John C. P. Smith, Independent Scholar, Grayslake, Illinois. Abstract Before the Enlightenment, most theologians believed the earth was created in the space of a literal week, a notable exception (among others) being Augustine, who interpreted the days of creation figuratively. Most believed that the universe began sometime between approximately 3600 BC and 7000 BC. However, between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries—with the growing acceptance of geological uniformitarianism and, later, Darwinian evolution—an increasing number of eminent scholars advocated a multi-billion-year-old universe and questioned the validity of the biblical account. In order to accommodate billions of years into the Genesis account of origins, theologians proposed a range of new interpretations. Some, such as the Gap Theory, sought to retain a literal understanding of Others, particularly the Day-Age Theory, maintained that the term had a broad semantic range that .יֹום could include a sense of vast periods of time. Over the past two centuries, the issue of the meaning of in relation to the age of the universe has been vigorously debated by many scholars, though ignored יֹום as irrelevant by others. Following an introductory survey of the biblical, historical and theological, and linguistic contexts of in Scripture, and in lexical and other יֹום this issue, the study looks at delineations and definitions of has been discussed in the context יֹום sources. The central analysis examines how the semantic range of of the creation account and in relation to the age of the universe, both historically, and, more particularly, by 40 scholars (or teams of scholars) over the past 50 years. It is evident that a great variety of opinion It is also clear that there is a considerable disconnection .יֹום exists regarding the semantic range of and the formation of creation theology. Most respected lexical יֹום between lexicography regarding yet many theologians believe it to be rather ,יֹום sources do not allow for a broad semantic range for flexible. ;Analogical Days Position ;(היה( בְּ עֵינַיִם כְּ ;in Creation account; age of the universe יֹום ;יֹום :Keywords Augustine; Church Fathers’ view of Genesis 1–2:4; Cosmic Temple Inauguration Theory; Creation days; ;יֹום Day-Age Theory; Day of the Lord; Dual Perspective Theory; Exodus 20:8–11; extended definitions of Fiat Theory; Framework Interpretation; Gap Theory; Genesis 1–2:4; Historical Creationism; historical survey Multiple Gap Theory; 2 Peter ;יֹום from 1967–2017; Intermittent-Day View; modern interpretations of יֹום of .יֹום 3:8b; Psalm 90:4; Reformers’ view of Genesis 1–2:4; Revelatory Day Theory; semantic range of Prologue I have indicated wherever I have added my own I am very thankful for having had the opportunity emphases, except in the case of Scripture quotations. to do this study, which was facilitated through the My preferred means of emphasis is italics. If the guidance of Drs. Richard E. Averbeck and Eric J. quotation already contains italics, then I resort to Tully at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. underlining (and specify so). Additionally, even where I acknowledge with gratitude the kind granting of the quotation does not contain italics, I sometimes permission by Robert I. Bradshaw for inclusion of his still use underlining for the sake of consistency with data regarding early Jewish and Christian views on underlining in other nearby quotations. the length of the days of creation (see page 105). Hebrew Bible quotations are taken from the Introduction text of the 1997 second edition of Biblia Hebraica This work examines how scholars’ perceptions of have affected their יֹום Stuttgartensia (based on the Leningrad Codex B19A), the semantic range of as found in Accordance and BibleWorks, “which has discussions of the age of the universe. While each of been edited over the years to bring it into greater the key elements in this relationship—the semantic and the age of the universe—have indeed יֹום conformity with the Leningrad Codex” (BibleWorks, range of WTT Version Info). Both the Accordance and been studied before, I am not aware of any other BibleWorks versions of BHS include the 2010 WTM study that specifically focuses on the interaction Release 4.14. between the two, across a range of scholarly works. Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture The subject of creation and origins is popular and translations into English are my own rendering. is often vigorously debated. A key element of enquiry Unless stated otherwise, all instances of emphasis and discussion within this topic is the age of the within a quotation are those of the cited author. universe. Some scholars feel that the Bible does not ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2019 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 104 John C. P. Smith speak to the question of the age of the universe. with the prevailing view of origins. This work may Certainly, the Bible does not make any outright help people understand the various ways that some statement like, “The universe was created by God x biblical scholars, by engaging with the semantic range have explained the Genesis account of ,יֹום thousand or million or billion years ago.” However, of the word other scholars believe that the biblical text does creation as being relevant to the issue of the age of the indeed give indications concerning the age of the universe. universe. In their interactions with the text, many This third part of the larger work presents the core of the study, the analysis of the works of forty scholars (or ,יֹום such scholars make reference to the Hebrew word usually translated “day,” which occurs fifteen times teams of scholars) published in (or translated into) in the thirty-five verses of the Genesis creation English over the past fifty years, which mention the with reference to the age of the יֹום account (Genesis 1:1–2:4). This work examines (1) semantic range of how scholars have understood the semantic range of universe. The sources include monographs, creation whether as always having a narrow, restricted theologies, Genesis commentaries, contributions to—יֹום sense, or as having a broad range of meanings across creation debates, and other scholarly works. Key data different contexts, or as somewhere in between these extracted from these works are tabulated in two extremes—and (2) how these perceptions have Appendix 1. Preceding the central analysis is a brief affected their discussions of the age of the universe. historical survey of interpretation, to show how the always indicate a normal day, or יֹום Must the word has been understood since biblical יֹום semantic range of can it refer to a longer period of time? Does its times, particularly in relation to the age of the universe. flexibility or inflexibility of meaning have anything Then, reflection is made upon the findings of the relevant to say regarding the age of the universe central analysis, highlighting some of the main links, according to the Genesis account of creation? patterns, and trends in the relationships between There are several reasons why this subject might and ,יֹום be viewed as important. Within the Christian church scholars’ perceptions of the semantic range of there has been much discussion, sometimes heated their discussions of the age of the universe. Finally, I and confused, on the issues of creation and, in draw salient conclusions from throughout the study. particular, the age of the universe. It is often asked in Discussions of the Age of the Universe יֹום .could potentially mean in Genesis יֹום what the word It would be helpful to gain a degree of clarity on the The temporal focus of this study is 1967–2017. But has been handled in discussions יֹום breadth of views regarding the semantic range of before analyzing how including those of lexicographers, theologians, pertaining to the age of the universe over the past fifty—יֹום and other scholars—and the kind of reasoning years, we will briefly survey the history of interpretation of .with respect to the days in the creation account prior to 1967 יֹום employed in their discussions of the age of the universe. All of this could potentially aid people in making better-informed decisions about Brief Historical Survey of Interpretation Prior to 1967 within the creation Old Testament Period יֹום how they see the place of debate, and in better understanding those with According to mainline conservative tradition, Genesis different opinions from their own. was written by Moses in the latter half of the fifteenth Outside the Christian Church, many people view century BC (or a couple of centuries later, according to the Bible as irrelevant or unreliable, especially when advocates of a late date for the exodus).1 Elsewhere in it comes to science.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, Rev 4/19)
    CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, rev 4/19) Note: This bibliography contains mainly the books that refute the evolution worldview and support the creationist young-universe view. There are only a few books from the old-universe view as noted at the end. A few other resources have been added from Robby Dean after a 4/12/19 meeting as noted with an asterisk. CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, Master Books, 1974. Over 22 scientists with PhDs contribute a variety of scientific evidence supporting the creation view. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, 2000. The main evidence supporting the theory of evolution, “icons,” are explained and effectively refuted. The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham, Master Books, 1987. The theory of evolution is refuted more philosophically than evidentially for a general audience. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1993. The entire Bible is surveyed for passages referring to creation or God as Creator. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1975. A professor with PhDs in organic chemistry and medical science supports the creationist position from both science and Scripture. This is an older but still a useful work. * The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution. A. E. Wilder Smith. Older but very valuable work by a British scholar who has a Ph,D in organic chemistry, a Doctor of Science in Pharmaceuticals from the University of Geneva, and a third doctorate from the E.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenie Scott
    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle For
    University of Mississippi eGrove Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College) 2016 In Six Days: The rC eation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle for Consensus on Anti- Darwinism Michael Calhoun Wilkerson University of Mississippi. Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Wilkerson, Michael Calhoun, "In Six Days: The rC eation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle for Consensus on Anti-Darwinism" (2016). Honors Theses. 709. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/709 This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In Six Days: The Creation Study Committee and the PCA’s Struggle for Consensus on Anti-Darwinism Michael C. Wilkerson A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillments of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford May 2016 Approved by ___________________________ Advisor: Dr. Theresa Levitt ___________________________ Reader: Dr. Darren Grem ___________________________ Reader: Dr. Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Like the creation account itself, this thesis began without form, and void. Without the help of several individuals, this thesis would not have been possible, and they deserve recognition for their selfless contributions to this work. First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Theresa Levitt for her tireless work of editing countless drafts of the thesis, challenging my assumptions, and encouraging me over the course of three semesters.
    [Show full text]
  • Darline Kantola Royer Ralph V. Reynolds
    Darline Kantola Royer Ralph V. Reynolds An OVERSEAS MINISTRIES TRAINING COURSE Publication in association with Global Association of Theological Studies Genesis | 2 GATS Edition © 2012 United Pentecostal Church International Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Royer, Darline Kantola, 1936- Genesis / Darline Kantola Royer, Ralph V. Reynolds. -- GATS ed. p. cm. "An overseas ministries training course publication in association with Global Association of Theological Studies." ISBN 978-0-7577-4225-5 1. Bible. O.T. Genesis--Commentaries. I. Reynolds, Ralph Vincent, 1913- II. Title. BS1235.53.R69 2012 222'.1107--dc23 2012027154 Genesis | 3 Sponsor’s Page Atlanta West Pentecostal Church Lithia Springs, Georgia Darrell Johns, Pastor Global Missions acknowledges Atlanta West Pentecostal Church Lithia Springs, Georgia Darrell Johns, pastor and its contribution of $5000 to sponsor the production and translation of Genesis by Darline Kantola Royer and Ralph V. Reynolds Genesis | 4 Genesis | 5 CONTENTS Part I INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 7 Part II FROM ADAM TO ABRAHAM 49 Part III THE PATRIARCHS 93 Part IV THE DISPENSATIONAL DIVISIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES 123 Genesis | 6 Genesis | 7 Part I Introduction to Genesis Darline Kantola Royer Genesis | 8 Genesis | 9 OUTLINE I. Genesis: The Book of Beginnings A. Title B. Writer C. Date of Writing D. Importance of Genesis E. A Look at Beginnings F. Purpose of Genesis G. God Revealed H. Important Prophecies in Genesis II. The Design of Genesis A. Principle of Selection B. Outline of Genesis 1. Early History of the Human Race 2. Patriarchal History C. Redemption Traced D. Genesis at a Glance III. Creation Studies A.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Issue XXIV CONTENTS Fall 1988 ARTICLES 1 Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism by Tbm Mclver 25 Scientific Creationism: Adding Imagination to Scripture by Stanley Rice 37 Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment: Tennessee as a Case Study, 1925-1975 by George E. Webb FEATURES 43 Book Review 45 Letters to the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... In this issue, Tom Mclver again brings his historical scholarship to bear on an issue relevant to creationism. This time, he explores the history of and the major players in the development and promotion of the "gap theory." Rarely do we treat in detail alternative creationist theories, preferring instead to focus upon the young- Earth special creationists who are so politically militant regarding public educa- tion. However, coverage of different creationist views is necessary from time to time in order to provide perspective and balance for those involved in the controversy. The second article compares scripture to the doctrines of young-Earth special crea- tionists and finds important disparities. Author Stanley Rice convincingly shows that "scientific" creationists add their own imaginative ideas in an effort to pseudoscientifically "flesh out" scripture. But why do so many people accept creationist notions? Some have maintained that the answer may be found through the study of demographics. George E. Webb explores that possibility in "Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment" and comes to some interesting conclusions. CREATION/EVOLUTION XXIV (Volume 8, Number 3} ISSN 0738-6001 Creation/Evolution, a publication dedicated to promoting evolutionary science, is published by the American Humanist Association.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Creationism
    The evolution of creationism David R. Montgomery, Quaternary Research Center and Dept. of (354–413), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), and John Calvin (1509– Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310, University of Washington, 1564) all endorsed reason as the way to learn about the world. Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA, [email protected] Augustine was among the first to caution against advocating for biblical interpretations that conflicted with what one could I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed observe for oneself. Centuries later, Aquinas praised the pursuit of us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their knowledge and insight gained from experience reading God’s use. —Galileo Galilei other book—nature. Writing at the time of the Reformation, Calvin, too, considered ABSTRACT the revelations of both nature and the Bible as fundamental truths. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin For centuries, natural philosophers, their scientific successors, explicitly embraced the idea of respecting natural truths revealed and theologians alike sought to explain the physical and natural through the study of nature: “If we regard the Spirit of God as the world. The now common cultural narrative of perpetual conflict sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor between science and religion simplifies the arguments and despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the struggles of the past and overlooks cross-pollination between Spirit of God” (McNeill, ed., 1960, p. 273–274). those who embraced faith and reason as the keys to understanding Calvin believed in keeping an open mind when it came to earth history.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Grace Evolution Final EC
    Fort Bend Christian Academy- Department of Worldviews and Apologetics Chris Henderson The Theology of Origins: An Analysis of the Theological Implications of Popular Christian Beliefs on Creation and a Proposal for a Better Solution. A Thesis Submitted To the Teacher and Students of Advanced Apologetics By Grace Beecroft December 2017 Beecroft !2 Table of Contents Note to the Reader……………………………………….……………………………….….3 Introduction………………………………………….………………………………...……4 Fiat Creationism………………………………………………………………………….….6 Hermeneutics of Genesis 1-2……………………………………………………..…. 6 The Historical Adam ………………………………………………………….…..…13 Theological Survey………………………………………………………………..…15 Progressive Creationism……………………………………………………………..……...22 Hermeneutics of Genesis 1-2…………………………………………………....……22 Human Origins…………………………………………………………………....…..32 Theological Survey…………………………………………………………….…..…33 Intelligent Design………………………………………………………………………….....35 Theistic Evolutionism…………………….……………………………………………….....37 Failures of Popular Origins Theories…………………………………………………….....38 Fiat Creation……………………………………………………………..………..…..38 Progressive Creationism …………………………………………………..……....….30 Intelligent Design…………………………………………………………..…....…....41 Theistic Evolution……………………………………………………………………..42 Evolutionary Creationism1…………………………………………………………..……….43 Hermeneutics of Genesis 1-2……………………………………………..….……….43 The Historical Adam……………………………………………………….….……..50 Sin of Origins………….…………………………………………..………..………..54 Death before the Fall……………………………………………….……….………..56 The Evolving Kingdom of God…………………………………………………..….58
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design
    6 Scientifi c creationism and intelligent design Ronald L. Numbers For the past century and a half no issue has dominated discussions of science and religion more than evolution. Indeed, many people see the creation–evolution debates as the central issue in the continuing con- troversy. And for good reason. More than a century after the scientifi c community had embraced organic evolution, many laypersons con- tinued to scorn the notion of common descent. In the United States, where polls since the early 1980s have shown a steady 44–47 per cent of Americans subscribing to the statement that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so’, nearly two-thirds (65.5 per cent), including 63 per cent of college graduates, according to a 2005 Gallup poll, regarded cre- ationism as defi nitely or probably true. 1 As we shall see, such ideas have been spreading around the world. CREATION AND CREATIONISM In 1929 an obscure biology teacher at a small church college in north- ern California self-published a book entitled Back to Creationism . This brief work, appearing just as the American anti-evolution movement of the 1920s was winding down, attracted little attention. And it would deserve scant mention today except for the fact that it was one of the fi rst books to use the term ‘creationism’ in its title. Until well into the twentieth century critics of evolution tended to identify themselves as anti-evolutionists rather than creationists. 2 Three factors help to explain this practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bible and Creationism
    University of Dayton eCommons English Faculty Publications Department of English 2017 The iB ble and Creationism Susan L. Trollinger University of Dayton, [email protected] William Vance Trollinger University of Dayton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eng_fac_pub Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons eCommons Citation Trollinger, Susan L. and Trollinger, William Vance, "The iB ble and Creationism" (2017). English Faculty Publications. 105. http://ecommons.udayton.edu/eng_fac_pub/105 This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of English at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 The Bible and Creationism Susan Trollinger and William Vance Trollinger, Jr. To understate the case, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) marked a significant challenge to traditional understandings of the Bible and Christian theology. Darwin’s theory of organic evolution stood in sharp contrast with the Genesis account of creation, with its six days, separate creations of life forms, and special creation of human beings. More than this, Darwin’s ideas raised enormous theological questions about God’s role in creation (e.g., is there a role for God in organic evolution?) and about the nature of human beings (e.g., what does it mean to talk about original sin without a historic Adam and Eve?) Of course, what really made Darwin so challenging was that by the late nineteenth century his theory of organic evolution was the scientific consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of the Modern World: Evolution As Revolution
    Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ • Dickens is the quintessential Victorian author and wrote epic stories with memorable characters and haunting depictions of contemporary life. • A personal rags to riches story. • After father’s economic collapse, young Dickens was sent to work in a blacking family. • Began his literary career as a journalist with The Mirror of Parliament and The True Sun. • By 1858, the most famous author in the world writing in English. Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ • Fiction: • A Christmas Carol • A Message from the Sea • A Tale of Two Cities • All The Year Round • American Notes • Barnaby Rudge • Bleak House • David Copperfield • Dombey and Son • Great Expectations • Hard Times • Holiday Romance • Hunted Down • Little Dorrit • Martin Chuzzlewit Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ Master Humphrey's Clock • Mudfog and Other Sketches • Nicholas Nickleby • Oliver Twist • Our Mutual Friend • Reprinted Pieces • Sketches by Boz • The Battle of Life • The Chimes • The Cricket on the Hearth • The Haunted Man and the Ghost's Bargain • The Lazy Tour of Two Idle Apprentices • The Mystery of Edwin Drood • The Old Curiosity Shop • The Pickwick Papers • The Uncommercial Traveller Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ • Social factors that influenced Dickens’ work: – Industrial Revolution – Child labor – Distressed working classes • A writer for "the people;" yet his chief public were the middle and lower-middle classes, rather than the proletarian mass. • “A man of very liberal sentiments — and an assailer of constituted wrongs and authorities — one of the advocates in the plea of Poor versus Rich” Modern Britain: A Tale of Two Charles’ • Long reproached for having written for money.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Humanity, II; the Image of God, I It Is Evident to Me That Views One and Three Are Incompatible with Biblical Religion
    Humanity, Christ & Redemption Lecture 2, page 1 Humanity: The Origin of Humanity, II; The Image of God, I It is evident to me that views one and three are incompatible with biblical religion. They are the first two evolutionist views—naturalistic evolution and deistic evolution—which I do not believe fit with the teaching of the Bible. Sincere Bible-believing Christians have held fiat creationism, theistic evolution, and progressive creationism. Some regard fiat creationism untenable on scientific and theological grounds. It seems not to take science seriously and, some would claim, it impugns the veracity of God by implying God says one thing to His world and another thing through His Word—on their understanding of it. Some would call that criticism unfair. I have serious problems with view four, theistic evolution, on biblical grounds. I do not see how we can take the Bible seriously and say we came from apes. That is just impossible in my estimation. I would cautiously favor the last view, but I emphasize most my plea for toleration, that we do not shoot each other. Fellow believers are not the enemy. In fact, we should even view unsaved people as those who are in need of the Gospel and not as enemies in that way. It is fair for those who have been exposed only to fiat creationism to say, “I understand that scientists bring criticisms of that position, but I want to see a good treatment of the Bible with a good exposition of Genesis 1 and the creation from an older earth perspective.” Bruce Waltke wrote such an article, which was published in Crux , which is the journal of Regent College in Canada.
    [Show full text]