 |
| |
| |
|
In God's Time: The Bible and the Future
|
|
|
Average Rating:  out of 8 Reviews
|
Price: $18.00
|
|
Sale: $4.94
|
| |
|
Manufacturer: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
|
|
EAN (European Article Number): 9780802860903
|
|
Number of Items: 1
|
| |
|
|
|
Binding: Paperback
|
|
Author: Craig C. Hill
|
|
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
|
|
Dewey Decimal Number: 236
|
|
Publication Date: 2002-09
|
|
Reading Level: 192
|
|
|
| |
|
Description: Enormous confusion exists today concerning the Bible's teaching about the future. Millions of contemporary christians are caught up in "rapture" fever, evidenced by the phenomenal success of the Left Behind novels. At the opposite end of the spectrum are those, such as the leaders of the Jesus Seminar, who believe that Jesus did not teach about the approaching Kingdom of God. In God's Time offers an alternative to these two poles in the debate, an alternative that is at once faithful and sane, readable and scholarly. Author Craig C. Hill encourages Christians both to take seriously and to think sensibly about the hope of God's ultimate victory. His new book includes chapters on the nature of the Bible, the history of prophecy, the meaning of apocalyptic writings, the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, the expectations of Jesus, and the hopes of the early Christians. It also includes an appendix ("Not Left Behind") on the subject of the rapture. Endorsed by a wide array of top scholars and church leaders, In God's Time is a reliable guide to this often bewildering but always fascinating subject.
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
Customer Reviews
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Eschatology; a careful, scholarly analysis. |
Date: 2008-09-23 |
|
| |
Details: The author points out that there are two conspicuous, large camps of Christians on the eschatological landscape. These camps are ill at ease with each other. One group, which is almost exclusively American and so-called fundamentalist, is epitomized by, though not limited to, the LaHaye-Jenkins and related school of secret Rapture and an imminent Holy Land Armageddon, while the other group is so embarrassed by such dubious doctrines that they wish to avoid nearly all things eschatological in hopes disassociating themselves with these elaborately furnished fundamentalist scenarios. Hill's book will not find too many friends in either of these encampments, especially, perhaps, the former.
A scholarly book such as this will never have the sort of large readership that the Left Behind phenomenon has garnered. This book will not be made into a movie. Fundamentalists will immediately dismiss it as employing what they view as a "low" view of Biblical inerrancy. What is called `Biblical inerrancy' by those most concerned to defend it, usually turns out to be a claim to the inerrancy of the particular understandings of those same individuals. (An example of the fundamentalist/literalist version of Biblical authority, versus what the fundamentalist would call a "low" view [or worse]: In Mark10:35ff, James and John [sons of Zebedee] make a particularly self-seeking and ignorant request of Jesus, Jesus uses the occasion of the request to teach a lesson. In Matthew 20:20ff, the [same] request is made not by James and John, but by their mother [by the way, Jesus' answer is essentially the same in both accounts]. The writer of Matthew 20 was familiar with the account in Mark 10 but provides a different speaker. Neither account is ambiguous as to the source of the question. The fundamentalist will be quick to instruct that the accounts are the same because all three came to Jesus, and while this much may indeed be true, this `explanation' commutes, at best, to `fundamentalist inerrancy', because both accounts can be literally true _in all detail_ only if all three of Zebedee's family members are verbalizing the same question simultaneously, and this explanation departs from both of the New Testament accounts. The so-call `low' view of these texts is less in need of inventing its own inerrant judgments, as the texts may be understood as simply being `inerrant in their theological affirmations' [in this case what Jesus taught in the following verses] without trying unsuccessfully to explain-away or ignore details of the texts themselves. I apologize for the long digression, but it is relevant.)
The anti-eschatological views of the so-called `Historical Jesus' school (I dislike labels like `fundamentalist,' `Historical Jesus' and `liberal,' as these are mostly misappropriated; but they do dial-in the groups that have assumed these labels) are also surgically dissected in this well documented and well-argued study. Recognizing again that this book has undoubtedly had a small audience, it is a very worthwhile study for those who can examine this fascinating topic without bringing a priori requirements due to ideas centered on either the convenient reinvention of Jesus and New Testament writers, or conversely, the unquestionable `inerrancy' of certain `fundamentalist' understandings. In other words, both the `fundamentalist' and the `liberal New Testament scholar' encounter painful visits to the woodshed in this volume. That may be an overly colorful way of stating things, Hill's discourse is carefully measured and thoughtful, it is not condescending. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Liberal Assumptions |
Date: 2008-06-24 |
|
| |
Details: I understand this book is intended to be a summary for a general audience, but it assumes a number of conclusions that will be jarring to the ordinary Christian in the pews without much explication. Some questions in my mind:
- If Revelation was written over 30 years before 2 Esdras, what would that mean for the theory that Babylon is Rome? Perhaps the usage of Babylon for Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls might be relevant?
- If the 70 weeks of years in Daniel is purely symbolic with no objective meaning, why did so many people in 1st Century Judea believe the Messiah was about to arrive? Why do the 490 years line up so well with Jesus' birth?
- If Paul didn't really write Ephesians, why does "Paul" promise to send Tychicus to the Ephesians on his behalf? If it was written late in the 1st Century, wouldn't the Ephesians know Paul was already dead and he couldn't send anybody?
Finally, can Professor Hill address these questions without calling anyone a "fundamentalist"? |
| |
|
Review Summary: A helpfull review for the laity |
Date: 2007-02-12 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: This would be a bit of a hard read for the average person, but as a thoughtful Christian I am tired of having my faith ridiculed and belittled by the pulp fiction end times literature. It is unbelievable to the thoughtful person and obviously not true to the thinking person. What does the bible say is sometimes difficult for the lay person to determine. A scholar, Dr. Hill has explained the biblical view on the subject in a way that I could understand. I can continue thinking like I have always thought and not feel that I am wrong as so many try to convince me that the popular press is representing a biblical view. If it were, then my entire faith would be shatteered because my God is much bigger then the God portrayed in the pulkp fiction to which I refer. Thank you to Dr. Hill for his helpful review of Biblical End-times comments! |
| |
|
Review Summary: In God's Time: The Bible and the Future |
Date: 2007-01-04 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Heavily focused on Christian/Jewish relationship. Although an important issue, other subjects could have been equally weighted. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Will Dr. Hill miss the rapture? |
Date: 2003-02-19 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Up until now, nearly all the reading I have done on the End Times has come from one of two camps: the dispensational camp (mostly in the early years of my Christian walk before I wised up) and the reformed (more specifically, reconstructionist) camp. Despite their obvious and radical differences, both camps shared, at least theoretically, the view that the Bible is inerrant. "In God's Time" attempts to take a moderate, scholarly approach to eschatology and make it comprehensible to the layperson. In this regard, the book is a success. Author Craig C. Hill begins his work by establishing for the reader his approach to biblical interpretation, which is, again, a moderate, scholarly approach, using the tools of historical biblical criticism. Hardline inerrantists will probably opt out at this point (thus my tongue-in-cheek review title), but they will be missing a great deal. Rather than trying to make all the eschatalogical pieces from divergent sources fit together, Hill acknowledges the differences while at the same time accentuating the overarching theme of God's ultimate victory. Without succumbing either to the skepticism of the Jesus Seminar or the hysteria of the "Left Behind" devotees, the author gives a balanced, even-handed view of eschatology. This book can become a template for reading any prophetic literature contained in the Bible. Although the audience that could most benefit from a book like this will surely be the least receptive (if they even know about the book in the first place), this is a worthy antidote to much of the end-times silliness (including the "rapture" theory) that is rampant in today's world. Before you buy the next installment of the "Left Behind" series, pick this up instead. |
| |
|
| |
Similar Products
|
|
|
| |
This Product is similar to and may be found in the Following Categories:
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
