The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Hardcover)

by Hugh Ross (Author)
Key Phrases: creation events, spiritual perspective, second creation day, The Hebrew, Genesis Flood, Old Testament (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Ross, a "creationist," directs the efforts of Reasons to Believe, an institute dedicated to proclaiming and proving the factual character of events recorded in the Bible. In his latest work, he demonstrates that Genesis 1-11, a series of chapters that many biblical critics contend are stories that can't be verified historically or scientifically, contains some of the strongest evidence of the Bible's supernatural accuracy. He asserts that if the miracles of creation and the flood in Genesis can be validated, this will indicate the reality of scientifically non-testable miracles like the Virgin Birth and the resurrection of Lazarus. Ross argues that a literal reading of these early chapters in Genesis accords perfectly with the established scientific record. For example, he contends that God creates material and spiritual substance out of nothing. This nothingness, he notes, corresponds to the definition of physicists who claim that "nothing" is the lack of matter, energy and all 10 theoretical space-time dimensions of the universe, as proposed by mathematics. Thus, he says, God's creative activity can be substantiated by physical science. Ross has a faithful following who will welcome this book. Others may wonder why he is trying so hard to turn faith into science.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Ross (astronomy, Univ. of Toronto) provides a blueprint for those within the community of faith to understand how "the Bible anticipates scientific discovery." This book follows previous writings (Beyond the Cosmos, LJ 8/96) to demonstrate that "a literal reading of the Genesis Creation chapter integrates perfectly with the established scientific record." Ross reads the Creation account in the light of its purpose and the original Hebrew. For example, the Hebrew in the genealogies indicates ancestry, not necessarily a physical father and son, and cannot be used to compile chronologies. While Ross accepts Adam and Eve as individuals, he dates them to the time when religious relics or altars appeared, around 24,000 years ago. He insists that all tool-using, relatively large-brained hominids were preadamic and did not give rise to Adam. This book will not please those who reject divine intervention, but those looking for a way to reconcile the contradictions of science and the Bible should find an intriguing alternative to "creation science." Recommended.?Eugene O. Bowser, Univ. of Northern Colorado, Greeley
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 235 pages
• Publisher: Navpress (November 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1576831116
• ISBN-13: 978-1576831113
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.3 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (71 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #677,607 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Superb book, September 20, 2005

By	Robert Long "another_statistician" (Richmond, VA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Paperback)

Dr. Ross' explanation of the Genesis creation account is the most reasonable around. Add to this the fact that the science matches the account and ones has a compelling argument for the divine inspiration of Genesis. As a former atheist and well educated person, I recommend this book more than any other to those looking to understand the intersection of science and the Bible. Dr. Ross explains how to correctly exegete Genesis chapter 1 by noting the frame of reference of the author. Using this he explains why light was created before the sun. He points out differences in the different hebrew words used in the Genesis account that mean 'create'. This understanding is crucial to figuring out the creation account. As a person who for years studied science in the search for truth, I found this book to be most helpful- and it leads to a belief in Christianity.

35 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Important Book, February 22, 2006

By	B. Breen "Canuckster1127" (Sterling, VA USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Paperback)

First, If you're a Young Earth Creationist and don't really care what someone thinks or has to say about this book, please go ahead, mark it as unhelpful and save yourself the time and trouble of reading the book or this review.

After all, why risk possibly interacting positively in a mature and adult fashion with someone who is a fellow believer and has a different understanding of some Biblical Passages but who still affirms Inspiration, Inerrancy and the Diety of Christ? You can't experience anything positively by reading a book you already know you disagree with. We can't have that now? Can we?

As evidenced by the rapid 19 unhelpfuls put up, there is probably 1 person with multiple accounts who has made it their mission in life to attack others rather than defend their own position. It's sad, but that's the type of mentality unfortunately that characterizes some of those with a YEC position. Glad they have a hobby anyway ... keeps them off the streets .... ;)

Assuming you're still reading this review you're either genuinely interested in what this book has to say or you're a YEC'er (gasp) actually fair-minded enough to listen to what someone else has to say. In either event I applaud and welcome your interaction.

Hugh Ross is a astronomer from Canada who has worked through what has been a difficult process for many when it comes to the age of the universe and the earth in particular. As a scientist he is faced with overwhelming data that seems to point very strongly to the universe being very old; billions of years old. (Believe it or not, this is not a Satanic conspiracy from the pit of hell ... Scientists actually believe this based on evidence and not due to their secret membership in the Anti-Christ club.) Further, as a Christian, he is faced with the Bible which in the Genesis account(s), appear to favor a very rapid creation period (24 hour days according to some) and some strong proponents who claim that their interpretation and understanding of that Biblical account indicates that the earth can be no more than 10,000 years old.

So the choice seems to be accept one or the other. Of course, as a Christian you would expect Ross to accept "The Bible."

But wait a minute. "The Bible" is the final authority of Christians right? But the God of the Bible also is the God of creation right? How can "The Bible" and Nature be so out of line with each other (apparently?) Is God trying to deceive us? Is science really that wrong?

Young Earth Creationists have asked the same question and their answer has been to accept their interpretation (very important word there .... interpretation) and understanding of Genesis and the related passages and reasoned that Science must be wrong. So they've invested a great deal of time and effort in the laudable effort in seeking to reconcile the two. Frankly I think what they've come up with is pretty silly, but I have to commend them for making the effort as it comes from conviction and a recognition that they probably should make some sort of effort at reconciliation.

But wait. What about the other possibility? What if it is not science that is wrong. What if the Young Earth Position is wrong? Note, I didn't say what if "The Bible" is wrong. I don't believe it is or can be. Christians can be wrong however in their understanding. It's happened before, hasn't it? Remember a fellow named Galileo? The Church of his day renounced his science of the Sun at the center of the solar system and the proof he provided. Why? Because they believed the Bible taught otherwise. Was the Bible wrong? NO!!! Some Christians were!!!

Maybe we could learn something from that. Do you think?

So, what if something similar is going on here? "The Bible" can't be wrong, but what if we're not interpreting it right in this area?

To his credit, Ross doesn't take the easy way out and simply claim that Genesis is a myth or an unscientific representation and therefore it really can't be taken in a literal sense. Many have done that. The results are devestating. Start playing fast and loose with the Bible in one area and you can do so in the others and you effectively strip it of all meaning, power and authority. Apparently YEC'rs in their zeal can't appreciate that and so they heap scorn on a man trying to hold to the same standards they claim to follow.

That is what this book is all about. Hugh Ross approaches Genesis and works to reconcile it with what he believes to be true in terms of an old earth. It turns out, it's not too difficult to do. Certainly no more difficult than answering some of the tough questions that Young Earth Creationists have to answer as well.

Here's one just for starters. If there are 24 hour days from day 1 to day 6, how do you explain the Sun Moon and the Stars being created on the 4th day? How can there be a 24 hour day without the components that measure that day as such? Young Earth Creationists do have explanations for that, as do Old Earth Creationists. Young Earther's can do a pretty nice exegetical two-step and accept some pretty fancy explaining in that situation. I wonder why they aren't so open minded when it comes to other issues?

Maybe the Hebrew Word "Yom" can mean more than just a 24 hour day. What do you know! Turns out it can!! In fact, if a long period of time is what God and Moses meant to signify in Genesis, do you know what the best word to use in Ancient Hebrew is? Son of a Gun! Turns out it is the word "Yom"! Just the word used!

I don't believe Hugh Ross is perfect. I don't believe all his explanations are necessarily right. But I respect that he is willing to face the hard questions and attempt to give an answer. I believe Hugh Ross is enough of a Christian and a man that he could face new information, interact with it and change his mind if the truth from the Bible and the facts from Science required it. I even believe if he had to turn off his knowledge of Science and accept a Young Earth position on faith if he were convinced that orthodoxy and faith required it, he could do that. (I wonder if the YEC'ers mocking and slandering him could do the same, if they were brave enough to actually interact with what Hugh is saying, and not just throw their little hand-grenades of love, and if not, what they are so afraid of?)

I respect the man who is in the cross hairs wrestling with the issue and demonstrating Christian Qualities more than I respect immature and judgmental Christians who take pot shots and aren't in the battle themselves trying to do something.

Some of the people making reviews on this book and those voting to affirm these immature and decidely un-Christ-like displays could stand to learn a lesson from Hugh's silence in the face of their rudeness and attacking of his character and faith. Apparently their upbringing lacked manners and their education lacked the ability to disagree, agreeably. Great testimony on a web-site viewed by many outside the Church. I'm sure they're impressed.

It's a shame that so many from the YEC camp cannot have the same said of them as can be said of Hugh Ross. They are so sure they are right that they have equated their interpretation of the Bible in this one area to be a litmus test for all Christian faith and have used it to drive other believers away from them. Even sadder, they're driving unbelievers further from Christ because they equate Christianity with intellectual suicide.

I know this, because I used to be a Young Earth Creationist. Hugh Ross's book is not what changed my mind. I read it after that. But I know a good man when I read him and, agree or disagree with him, Hugh Ross is a good man.

I don't agree with all he says but I think he's on the right track. Further he is kind, humble and gentle in his presentation and I sense a genuine desire, far more than I ever evidenced when I was a YEC'er and far more than I see from most who take that position today, although thankfully there are a few exceptions.

I recommend this book regardless of your position when you start, and whether you agree with him or not when you're finished. You should walk away from it better understanding the issues and able to learn something. Unless of course, you really are afraid of that possibility. Thankfully those marked this review and moved on after the first sentence.

Thanks for reading and I truly hope you find this helpful.

Enjoy! ;)

22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Scientists and creationists, put away the buggy whips!, June 5, 2005

By	ChainO (Minneapolis MN USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Paperback)

Dr. Ross's book shows that Moses anticipated the findings of modern science. Scientists are only now realizing that the universe was created a finite time ago. It is not infinitely old.

So you don't have to check your brains at the door to be a devout Christian, Jew or Muslim. On the contrary, you have a head start!