66 of 77 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Ross: Scientist who is a Christianbut not a Theologian!, November 16, 2000
I appreciate Dr. Hugh Ross for writing this book, first because there are not many books out addressing this issue of creation and time. Second, it helps us to rethink and strengthen our position on the creation and evolution debate. I believe, this book was primarily written to address the debate between young-earth and old-earth (or universe) creationists. However, this book does more than just address the issues. It is more of a plea for Christian to be more peaceful and Christ-like on the matter. Here, Ross is hardly a compromiser-he is an old-earth advocate, and attempts to justify his beliefs all throughout this book.
There are several "good" things Hugh Ross says. First, he reminds us that one is NOT weak in his or her faith just because he or she might believe in the evolutionary process of Creation. Belief in "how" or the mechanism God took to create the universe is silent enough to take a hard dogmatic stance. Therefore, Christians should not condemn each other, rather carefully study the issues and share their convictions to be more in line with the truth.
Second, he teaches us that taking a stance on scientific age of the universe does not imply evolution by natural means. Even if one negates God, evolutionism is still ludicrous. Sound scientific evidence points to an age (although not in line with young-earth view) that make it virtually impossible for all life as we know it to evolve out of random events. In fact, the age of the universe and many beautiful scientific discoveries points to a God. For this reason, Chapter 7 of this book, I believe, is one of his stronger chapters.
There are many things that also troubled me. Primarily, I did not appreciate Dr. Ross' caustic dismissal of Presuppositionalism. Gary North and Cornelius Van Til's position is not as simplistic as Ross put it to be. This is where I disagree with Dr. Ross. His underlining message is that truth of science and truth of Scripture should NEVER contradict. Reasoning is that "Truth" is the authority over science and scripture. If science says one thing is true, then there should be an analogous claim in the Bible. So science should shape Christianity and Christianity should shape science. It is not my purpose here to explain why I disagree with the first half this claim (please read Van Til's Apolgoetics by Greg L. Bahnsen); rather, I question Dr. Ross' priority in standards of truth. Even on the most fundamental standards as reasoning and logic, R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley "would say `gallows with reason,' that we not miss the kingdom." (see Classical Apologetics) What more should we say about scientific claims?
Also Ross has some problems in his exegesis. Many biblical scholars have problems with his interpretation of Genesis. However, I forgive Dr. Ross, because I see him more as a Scientist and a Christian brother who is struggling to love our Lord with all his mind.
I admire Dr. Ross' efforts. For more than one reasons, I have respected and admired Dr. Ross since I first read this book in high school. This book is informative and very helpful for a well-balanced view on the issue. I only encourage Dr. Ross and his followers (the "Rossists") to re-examine their pressuppositions.
I also recommend: Three Views on Creation and Evolution by J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
29 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
What do the Hebrew language experts have to say?, June 22, 2001
By A Customer
The Bible uses allegory, figures of speech and other literary devices on occasion. Often this is obvious, but occasionally scholars disagree on whether a passage is literal or symbolic. But is this the case in Genesis 1-11? The answer is a resounding "no". There is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what the fresh-faced child, picking it up for the first time without preconceptions, has always seen as obvious.
What do the Hebrew grammarians, lexicographers and linguists have to say about the various attempts to reinterpret the clear meaning of scripture to fit in with the popular philosophies of the day?
The following is an extract from a letter written to David C.C. Watson on April 23, 1984, by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,
"Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know."
There are many theologians (as opposed to Hebrew language experts) who insist on long days, for example.
But the above makes it clear that it is hardly likely to be the text itself that leads them to this conclusion. Rather, it is almost certainly the desire to accommodate and harmonize opinions and world views (in this case, the idea of long geological ages) which arise from outside Scripture.
Of course, arising from outside Scripture does not necessarily make anything wrong; but in this case, the clear, unmistakable teaching of the scriptural text is completely incompatible with, even opposed to, the extra-biblical viewpoint we are considering. It is, therefore, completely unacceptable to claim that Scripture may actually be teaching this view!
Faced with such a unanimous consensus of scholarly linguistic opinion (backed by the common sense understanding of countless millions of Christians through the ages), it is no longer intellectually honest to say that the issue of the time and mode of creation (or the related issue of global versus local flood) is in the same category as disagreements over mode of baptism, church government, or prophecy. Disagreements over these latter issues arise from different understandings of Scripture itself, not from seeking to accommodate (or to defuse debate over) a world view that directly opposes a teaching of Scripture which is unanimously declared by experts to be the plain meaning of the text!
I suggest that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.
To disbelieve it brings the following problems:
1. How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well--that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity?
2. What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us 'true truth' about historical characters and events?
3. What happens to the very basis of the Gospel - that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Saviour shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)? Those who insist that the days could be millions of years often forget that these "millions of years", in the popular view, are represented by layers of fossils which are interpreted not as the results of the biblical Flood, but as creatures having lived (with struggle/pain/bloodshed) and died before anyone called Adam could have appeared.
To put it simply, there were Genesis "days" before man appeared and if you read the days as "ages" (remember that these "ages" are said to be shown by layers containing dead things called fossils) you've just put death and bloodshed before Adam!
If the reader is by now feeling despair, the answer to the dilemma is to look again at the modern world view you may have been trying to harmonize with Scripture. It is not--it cannot by definition be--based on the scientific method (repeatable testing and observation). It is based on faith in the opinions of men who were not there at the beginning, and who are part of a humanity in rebellion against its Maker.
Finally, there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood. To accept, by faith, the biblical statement "Thy Word is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including large numbers of highly qualified scientists, have accepted.
For additional information, I recommend visiting the "Answers in Genesis", "Institute for Creation Research" and "True Origin" websites.
Also, I'd recommend picking up a copy of books like, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" by Steve Austin, "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by John Woodmorappe and "The Revised Quote Book" (available from the Answers in Genesis online book store).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
