Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A good Start for discussion...

Expand Messages
  • Kourtos H. Archomai
    The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross Abstract: The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross. by Danny Faulkner. First published in:. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 20, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross
      Abstract: The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross. by Danny Faulkner.
      First published in:. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 13(2)52-
      60, 1999 Introduction The astronomer Hugh Ross has had a great impact
      on many churches and individuals in recent years. His organization,
      Reasons to Believe, coordinates his many speaking engagements and
      publishes a newsletter called Facts and Faith. He has written six
      popular level books on the Bible, science, and apologetics.The secret
      of Ross's appe...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp

      Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!

      Abstract: Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet! Either AiG or Hugh Ross
      is seriously misleading the public on some testable claimsJonathan
      Sarfati, Ph.D.. 21 Nov 2000 Introductory explanation from Answers in
      Genesis: We make these public comments with a heavy heart, and with
      the overriding emphasis that our intention is not personal attack.
      Our mandate is to defend the faith, and the authority of Scripture.
      We have long believed that (and explained why) one of the most
      danger...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp

      Answering some Hugh Ross supporters
      Abstract: Answering some Hugh Ross supporters The recent article.
      Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet. by. Dr Jonathan Sarfati. has
      generated a few responses. The. main letter. is from a 'progressive
      creationist' called Eric Lane Coffee, USA, who gave permission for
      his full name to be used. It comprises 'four simple questions'
      (indented black text) which are equally simply answered by Dr Sarfati
      (in dark red) interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses ( at
      the end...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12-11-
      2000.asp

      Ten major differences and similarities between Calendar-Day and Day-
      Age Creationists?According to Dr Hugh Ross
      Abstract: Ten major differences and similarities between Calendar-Day
      and Day-Age Creationists?According to Dr Hugh RossTen major
      differences and similarities between Calendar-Day and Day-Age
      Creationists ? According to Dr Hugh Ross Comments byDr Jonathan
      Sarfati. right) 9 February 2001. A point-by-point rebuttal to the
      erroneous long age, local flood, soul-less pre-human hominid
      compromises of Hugh Ross!Creation and Time: A Report on the
      Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ros...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0209ross_ye_v_oe.asp



      What's wrong with "progressive creation?
      Abstract: What's wrong with "progressive creation? By AiG Executive
      Director, Ken Ham The "progressive creation" view of Dr. Hugh Ross on
      how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and
      endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches,
      seminaries, and Christian colleges. This brief summary of only some
      of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects of
      the "Rossist" position, including some that are not so well-known. We
      need to ...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp

      Some Questions for Theistic Evolutionists
      Abstract: 30-Oct-2000. Some questions for theistic evolutionists
      (and 'progressive creationists'. by Don Batten. The following
      questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic
      evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive
      creation (God intervened at various points in the process of
      evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts
      revealed in the Bible- indeed much that is foundational to the very
      Gospel itself.
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp

      You should know...
      Abstract: December Newsletter. You should know.. AIG stands by its
      October commentary exposing the extra-Biblical teachings of Hugh Ross
      and his "progressive creationism" views. All quotes attributed to Dr.
      Ross - and the endorsements by prominent Christian leaders of Dr.
      Ross's books that we cited - were accurate. AIG has the documentation
      on file. The response to the commentary, by the way, was
      overwhelmingly positive. - Editor...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1765.asp

      Warning to families!
      Abstract: February Newsletter. Warning to families!. We have come
      across a comic book, Destination: Creation (A Scientist Looks Back at
      How the Universe Began) aimed at Christian young people, written by
      Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Unfortunately, millions of
      Christian families are potentially exposed to these dangerous
      teachings (the booklet is promoted by Dr. Ross's newsletter and web
      site, both of which have been endorsed by Focus on the Family and
      other equally ...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1874.asp



      Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question
      Abstract: Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis
      Question Serious biblical and scientific errors deceive evangelicals
      into thinking that billions of years are 'OK' Published by NavPress
      Publishing Group P.O. Box 35001, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80935
      byJonathan Sarfati. From. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 13(2)
      22-30, 1999. Introduction The astronomer Hugh N. Ross now seems to be
      the world's most prominent 'progressive creationist' (PC) While he is
      insis...
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp
    • Jonathan
      The one thing, as I see it, is that his whole issue of death before sin. How does he honestly deal with the Bible on this one? ... impact ... secret ... in
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 20, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        The one thing, as I see it, is that his whole issue of death before
        sin. How does he honestly deal with the Bible on this one?

        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Kourtos H. Archomai"
        <archomai@r...> wrote:
        > The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross
        > Abstract: The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross. by Danny Faulkner.
        > First published in:. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 13(2)52-
        > 60, 1999 Introduction The astronomer Hugh Ross has had a great
        impact
        > on many churches and individuals in recent years. His organization,
        > Reasons to Believe, coordinates his many speaking engagements and
        > publishes a newsletter called Facts and Faith. He has written six
        > popular level books on the Bible, science, and apologetics.The
        secret
        > of Ross's appe...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp
        >
        > Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!
        >
        > Abstract: Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet! Either AiG or Hugh Ross
        > is seriously misleading the public on some testable claimsJonathan
        > Sarfati, Ph.D.. 21 Nov 2000 Introductory explanation from Answers
        in
        > Genesis: We make these public comments with a heavy heart, and with
        > the overriding emphasis that our intention is not personal attack.
        > Our mandate is to defend the faith, and the authority of Scripture.
        > We have long believed that (and explained why) one of the most
        > danger...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp
        >
        > Answering some Hugh Ross supporters
        > Abstract: Answering some Hugh Ross supporters The recent article.
        > Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet. by. Dr Jonathan Sarfati. has
        > generated a few responses. The. main letter. is from a 'progressive
        > creationist' called Eric Lane Coffee, USA, who gave permission for
        > his full name to be used. It comprises 'four simple questions'
        > (indented black text) which are equally simply answered by Dr
        Sarfati
        > (in dark red) interspersed as per normal email fashion. Ellipses (
        at
        > the end...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12-11-
        > 2000.asp
        >
        > Ten major differences and similarities between Calendar-Day and Day-
        > Age Creationists?According to Dr Hugh Ross
        > Abstract: Ten major differences and similarities between Calendar-
        Day
        > and Day-Age Creationists?According to Dr Hugh RossTen major
        > differences and similarities between Calendar-Day and Day-Age
        > Creationists ? According to Dr Hugh Ross Comments byDr Jonathan
        > Sarfati. right) 9 February 2001. A point-by-point rebuttal to the
        > erroneous long age, local flood, soul-less pre-human hominid
        > compromises of Hugh Ross!Creation and Time: A Report on the
        > Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ros...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0209ross_ye_v_oe.asp
        >
        >
        >
        > What's wrong with "progressive creation?
        > Abstract: What's wrong with "progressive creation? By AiG Executive
        > Director, Ken Ham The "progressive creation" view of Dr. Hugh Ross
        on
        > how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity
        and
        > endorsement from many well-known Christian leaders, churches,
        > seminaries, and Christian colleges. This brief summary of only some
        > of these teachings is meant to familiarize Christians with aspects
        of
        > the "Rossist" position, including some that are not so well-known.
        We
        > need to ...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp
        >
        > Some Questions for Theistic Evolutionists
        > Abstract: 30-Oct-2000. Some questions for theistic evolutionists
        > (and 'progressive creationists'. by Don Batten. The following
        > questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic
        > evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive
        > creation (God intervened at various points in the process of
        > evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts
        > revealed in the Bible- indeed much that is foundational to the very
        > Gospel itself.
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp
        >
        > You should know...
        > Abstract: December Newsletter. You should know.. AIG stands by its
        > October commentary exposing the extra-Biblical teachings of Hugh
        Ross
        > and his "progressive creationism" views. All quotes attributed to
        Dr.
        > Ross - and the endorsements by prominent Christian leaders of Dr.
        > Ross's books that we cited - were accurate. AIG has the
        documentation
        > on file. The response to the commentary, by the way, was
        > overwhelmingly positive. - Editor...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1765.asp
        >
        > Warning to families!
        > Abstract: February Newsletter. Warning to families!. We have come
        > across a comic book, Destination: Creation (A Scientist Looks Back
        at
        > How the Universe Began) aimed at Christian young people, written by
        > Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Unfortunately, millions of
        > Christian families are potentially exposed to these dangerous
        > teachings (the booklet is promoted by Dr. Ross's newsletter and web
        > site, both of which have been endorsed by Focus on the Family and
        > other equally ...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1874.asp
        >
        >
        >
        > Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question
        > Abstract: Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis
        > Question Serious biblical and scientific errors deceive
        evangelicals
        > into thinking that billions of years are 'OK' Published by NavPress
        > Publishing Group P.O. Box 35001, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80935
        > byJonathan Sarfati. From. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 13
        (2)
        > 22-30, 1999. Introduction The astronomer Hugh N. Ross now seems to
        be
        > the world's most prominent 'progressive creationist' (PC) While he
        is
        > insis...
        > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp
      • Kurt
        Check this out with the reference. This article is an outrage if it is true. _____________________________________________ Exposé of NavPress s new Hugh Ross
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 29, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Check this out with the reference.
          This article is an outrage if it is true.
          _____________________________________________

          Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question

          Serious biblical and scientific errors deceive evangelicals into
          thinking that billions of years are `OK'.

          by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

          Introduction

          The astronomer Hugh N. Ross now seems to be the world's most
          prominent `progressive creationist' (PC). While he is insistent about
          distinguishing himself from `theistic evolutionists' (TEs), Ross
          adopts the same basic philosophical approach. That is, he makes
          uniformitarian (i.e. essentially materialistic, billions of years,
          etc.) `science' his authority over Scripture.

          This means that he must try to fit billions of years into Scripture,
          with corollaries of a local flood and pre-Adamite soulless man-like
          creatures, and death of nephesh animals before sin. The only real
          difference between the two positions is that PCs deny transformism,
          the changing of one kind into another. Amazingly, Ross claims that
          his approach is `a literal reading of the Genesis creation chapters'
          (p. 86). This is surely a very non-literal usage of the
          word `literal'!

          Ross's popularity in evangelical Christendom is based on several
          factors:

          His books are published by the once-biblical NavPress, the publishing
          arm of the Navigators.

          Ross name-drops a number of Christian leaders who appear not to
          realise that Ross's departure from Scripture involves far more than
          the age of the earth.

          Ross gives the impression that his books will help Christians defend
          their faith in a scientific age.

          It's clear that for the last few years, NavPress has opposed
          straightforward biblical creation. In this latest Ross book, NavPress
          appear to have even resorted to somewhat misleading marketing
          tactics, i.e., the dust-jacket has some `praise' from allegedly
          prominent authors, one of whom is:

          SAMUEL CONNER, PH.D.
          candidate in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

          Formatted as above (starting a new line and changing the font style
          from small capitals to italics after `Ph.D.'), this gives the first
          impression to a skimming reader that Conner has a Ph.D., because only
          after careful inspection is it clear that he is a Ph.D. candidate,
          i.e. not actually qualified.

          The canonisation of `Nature'

          The worst part of Ross's teaching is the gross liberties he takes
          with the scriptural text. He does this to fit the canonical 66 books
          into what he calls the `67th book', nature.1 What he means
          by `nature' is the uniformitarian interpretation of nature. However,
          the creation is cursed (Genesis 3:17–19, Romans 8:20–22) and man's
          heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and the thinking of a godless man
          is `futile' (Romans 1:21), while Scripture itself is `God-breathed'
          (2 Timothy 3:15–17). So a biblical Christian should not re-interpret
          the perfect, unfallen Word of God according to fallible theories of
          sinful humans about a world we know to be cursed (Genesis 3:17–19,
          Romans 8:20–22).

          Ross's heterodox canonisation of nature has been thoroughly rebutted
          by Van Bebber and Taylor.2 this book is essential reading for
          defenders of the biblical world-view, as it answers point-by-point
          Ross's earlier theological and historical errors.1 However, The
          Genesis Question repeats many of the same errors.

          Ignorance of Hebrew

          Ross routinely gives audiences the impression of being very familiar
          with Hebrew. However, in a meeting with Dr Ross on 12 April 1999, Dr
          Russell Humphreys asked Ross in Hebrew: `Do you speak Hebrew?' and
          Ross was clearly non-comprehending. Humphreys then said (in
          English): `You must respond in Hebrew', to which Ross admitted his
          inability by responding (also in English) `I can't.' Humphreys
          hastens to add that he himself is not expert in Hebrew, and nor am I,
          but we at least know enough to understand the question and to reply
          using the Hebrew word for `no'.

          Ross's ignorance of Hebrew shows when he tries to discredit the
          common creationist identification of behemoth in Job 40:15–24 with a
          sauropod, because he believes the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million
          years ago. Ross writes (p. 48): 'The Hebrew word for "behemoth"
          appears in its plural form, behema, …' However, even beginners in
          Hebrew know that –a is often a feminine singular and –oth is a
          feminine plural. So Ross got it back-to-front: behema is the singular
          form, while behemoth is grammatically plural. It is a figure of
          speech known as an intensive plural or plural of majesty, where `the
          referent is a singular individual, which is, however, so thoroughly
          characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is
          used',3 `beast of beasts'. The context says that behemoth is the
          largest beast God made. And Job 40:17 says: `His tail sways like a
          cedar' which certainly doesn't fit Ross's suggestion of a
          hippopotamus (unless it was a bonsai cedar, maybe).

          Fanciful eisegesis4

          One of Ross's major aims is to show that Genesis can be fitted into
          uniformitarian astronomy and paleontology. To avoid the plain
          teaching of Genesis — that land dinosaurs were created with man and
          after whales, Ross also claims (pp. 52–53):

          `The list [of creatures created on Day 6] does not purport to include
          all the land mammals God made. … Though remes refers occasionally in
          Hebrew literature to reptiles, the opening phrase of Genesis 1:25
          makes it clear that these are mammals. … Both behema and chayyah
          refer to long-legged land quadrupeds. The former group encompasses
          those that easily can be tamed or domesticated for agricultural
          purposes, and the latter, those that are difficult to tame but have
          the potential to become excellent pets. Remes refers to short-legged
          land mammals, such as rodents, hares, and armadillos.'

          However, this is typical of Ross's imaginative eisegesis. Genesis
          1:25 teaches nothing so restrictive. And his analysis of Hebrew terms
          has no basis — Ross's own source, the Theological Wordbook of the Old
          Testament (TWOT),5 doesn't support him. Chayyah is simply a generic
          word for a living creature although it can often refer to wild
          animals (TWOT 1:281) — the phrase nephesh chayyah is used of sea
          creatures in Genesis 1:20, and of man in Genesis 2:7. Behema refers
          to both wild beast and domesticated animal (TWOT 1:92). Remes
          describes small creeping animals `especially reptiles' (TWOT 2:850).
          The TWOT shows that Ross is `over-defining' these terms.

          Van Bebber and Taylor6 pointed out the same errors in Ross's earlier
          book,1 and it's tiresome to see Ross repeating discredited
          nonsensical arguments time after time.

          Note that even if we grant Ross's contention that remes means `short-
          legged land mammals', it still doesn't match the uniformitarian order
          in the fossil record. Such creatures are alleged to have appeared
          millions of years before whales, which Ross identifies as created on
          the millions-of-years-long `Day 5'. And mesonychids, the alleged
          predecessors of whales, were certainly `long-legged mammalian
          quadrupeds', so would fit even Ross's descriptions of 6th-day
          creatures.

          Those who promote Ross's material as sound science should thus think
          again. It is doubtful that secular people will be impressed by Ross's
          claim that the order of Genesis matches `science'. When they point
          out exceptions, Ross redefines terms so that Day 6 doesn't really
          refer to any creature that appeared before whales. And when all else
          fails, he claims that the `days' overlapped.7

          Insightful exegesis or delusions of grandeur?

          One key point about Ross's `harmony' of Genesis with billions of
          years is to claim that Genesis 1:2 ff. is written from the viewpoint
          of an observer at the earth's surface. He claims (p. 21):

          `The frame of reference, or point of view, for the creation account
          suddenly shifts in Genesis 1:2, from the heavenlies that make up the
          entire physical universe to the surface of planet Earth. For whatever
          reason, perhaps because it comes so abruptly, most readers — even
          scholarly commentators — miss the shift. I am convinced that my
          absorption in science prepared me to see it.'

          So Ross, despite a demonstrable ignorance of even the most basic
          Hebrew and an inability to use Hebrew lexicons correctly, discovers
          amazing insights, thanks to `science'. This claim by Ross, like so
          many others, is a denial of the perspicuity of Scripture. I.e., God's
          people were left entirely in the dark about Genesis until modern
          uniformitarian theories were invented — mainly by bibliosceptics.

          More likely, this alleged frame shift has been missed because it is
          not in the text! The real frame-shift to the Earth is very clear in
          the Hebrew, and occurs in Genesis 2:4, not Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:1–
          2:3 is a summarised account of the whole creation, while Genesis 2:4
          ff. focuses on the creation of mankind (in chapters 7 and 10, Ross
          rightly rejects higher critical theories that claim that Genesis 1
          and 2 are contradictory creation accounts). This shift is clear from
          the boundary marking phrase `These are the generations (toledoth) of
          the heavens and of the earth', or better, `This is the account …'.8
          Also, in Genesis 2:4, the order `heaven and earth' changes to `earth
          and heaven', alerting the reader to focus on the earth.9

          Ross applies this alleged Genesis 1:2 frame shift to assert that what
          really happened on the fourth `day' was that the sun and other
          heavenly bodies `appeared' when a dense cloud layer dissipated after
          millions of years.

          Disks around stars, by an amazing leap in logic, supposedly show that
          all planets, including the Earth, started with opaque atmospheres of
          hydrogen, helium, methane and ammonia (p. 26). But it would not take
          a very sophisticated knowledge of science to know that hydrogen
          couldn't be held by earth's gravity, and methane and ammonia would be
          photolysed quickly. These gases are transparent, incidentally.

          Ross's ideas are not only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of
          Hebrew. The Hebrew word `asah means `make' throughout Genesis 1, and
          may be used interchangeably with `create' (bara'), e.g. in Genesis
          1:26–27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the
          same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage,
          just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas. If God had
          meant `appeared', then He would have used the Hebrew word for appear
          (ra'ah), as when the dry land `appeared' as the waters gathered in
          one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). This is supported by Hebrew
          scholars who have translated the Bible into English. Over 20 major
          translations were checked, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon
          and stars were made on the fourth day.

          See also How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn't
          created until the fourth day?)

          Days of Creation

          To justify his interpretation of the six creation days of Genesis 1
          as millions of years long, Ross writes (p. 65):

          `In English, the word day enjoys flexible usage. We refer to the day
          of the dinosaurs and the day of the Romans, and no-one misunderstands
          our meaning. But we recognize this usage as figurative, acknowledging
          just two literal definitions: a twenty-four hour period, from
          midnight to midnight, and the daylight hours (roughly twelve, but
          varying from one latitude and season to another).'

          Because `day' (Hebrew yôm) in some contexts can have a non-literal
          meaning, Ross feels justified in assuming that a non-literal meaning
          is acceptable in the particular context of Genesis 1. But such an
          interpretation shows that he could benefit from elementary training
          in exegesis, e.g. the book Exegetical Fallacies10 by the evangelical
          New Testament scholar Dr Don Carson. Ross commits a classic case of a
          fallacy that Carson called:

          `Unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in
          this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in
          a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and
          may bring with it the word's entire semantic range.'

          Ross's fallacy can be illustrated by the following sentence that has
          several uses of the word `day'.

          `In my father's day, he would go to bed early Sunday evening and rise
          early in the morning of the following day, and spend the next six
          days travelling, during the day, to cross the whole country.'

          Of course `my father's day' is an indefinite period of time. But this
          doesn't mean that it's legitimate to interpret the `six days
          travelling' as anything but ordinary days. And the combination of
          evening and the next morning are another way of showing that his
          bedtime was contained in one ordinary day, not an indefinite time
          period.

          Genesis 1 modifies the creation days with both `evening and morning'
          and a number, almost as if God was trying to make it as obvious as
          possible that they were ordinary days. Exodus 20:8–11 reinforces the
          point that the six days of creation followed by a day of `rest' were
          the basis for the Israelites' six-day week and seventh day Sabbath.
          The phrase `during the day' is also obviously the daylight hours, as
          per Genesis 1:5.

          Ross also claims (p. 65): `In biblical Hebrew, no other word besides
          yôm carries the meaning of a long period of time' and cites his own
          book1 and TWOT.5 Again, Van Bebber and Taylor pointed out11 that
          Ross's own source contradicts him, stating that the Hebrew olam and
          its Greek equivalent aion (from which we derive the word `eon') often
          means `long age'.12 There were plenty of other words that God could
          have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time.13,14 God
          could also have used phrases like `x myriad myriad years ago' to
          teach ages of hundreds of millions of years. For a less precise
          indication of vast ages, God could have compared the years to the
          number of sand grains or stars. Yet God did not use any of these —
          rather, He emphasized literal days.

          Does the seventh day continue?

          Ross claims on p. 64:

          `Each of the six creation days closes with the refrain: "There was
          evening, and there was morning," then the day's number. The statement
          suggests that each day had a start time … and an end time. However,
          the refrain is not attached to the seventh day. Its closure is
          missing.

          … its absence from the account of the seventh day can be taken as a
          meaningful hint: the day has not ended.'

          From this, Ross has concluded that the other creation days could be
          long ages. However, the systematic theologian, Dr Douglas Kelly,
          responded to the same argument from Ross1 as follows:

          `To say the least, this places a great deal of theological weight on
          a very narrow and thin exegetical bridge! Is it not more concordant
          with the patent sense of the context of Genesis 2 (and Exodus 20) to
          infer that because the Sabbath differed in quality (though not — from
          anything we can learn out of the text itself — in quantity), a
          slightly different concluding formula was appended to indicate a
          qualitative difference (six days involved work; one day involved
          rest)? The formula employed to show the termination of that first
          sabbath: "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had
          made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had
          made" (Genesis 2:2) seems just as definite as that of "and the
          evening and the morning were the first day".' 15

          Ross also argues that Hebrews 4:1–11 teaches `that the seventh
          creation day began after the creation of Adam and Eve, continues
          through the present, and extends into the future.' However, again
          Ross repeats an argument rebutted by Van Bebber and Taylor.16 Hebrews
          never says that the seventh day of creation is continuing to the
          present; it merely says that God's rest is continuing. If someone
          says on Monday that he rested on Saturday and is still resting, it in
          no way implies that Saturday lasted until Monday.17 Kulikovsky
          carefully analyses the grammar of Hebrews 4 and concludes:

          `The "rest" of Hebrews 4 clearly refers to the Kingdom of God …
          Nowhere in the text is it equated with the seventh day of creation,
          nor is there any grammatical or contextual data suggesting any such
          equation.'18

          The history of mankind

          A straightforward reading of the biblical genealogies according to
          the reliable Masoretic text19 shows that Adam was created about 4000
          BC, and this was on the 6th day of creation.20 And Jesus said: `But
          from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female'
          (Mark 10:6), not billions of years later. But Ross dates Adam at
          about 35,000–47,000 BC, based on secular chromosome research (p. 111)
          i.e. almost at the end of billions-of-years old creation.

          Since he also accepts the `earlier' evolutionary `dates' for other
          hominids, Ross concludes that they have no relationship to man,
          although they buried their dead, made tools and musical instruments,
          painted pictures, etc.

          Biblical genealogies

          Ross (pp. 108–110) points to some biblical genealogies that have gaps
          to claim that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are largely
          incomplete. He also claims (p. 109):

          `The words translated in to English say this: "When X had lived Y
          years, he became the father of Z." Someone reading the same passage
          in Hebrew would see a second possibility: "When X had lived Y years,
          he became the father of a family line that included or culminated in
          Z."'

          However, none of Ross's examples of gaps in genealogies (Matthew 1:8–
          9 vs (1 Chronicles 3:10–12) mention the age of the father at the
          birth of the next name in the line, so are irrelevant.

          Ross also points out that father can mean grandfather or ancestor,
          while son can mean grandson or descendant. But Ross again errs by
          unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field.10 The (Genesis 5
          and (11 genealogies say that X `begat sons and daughters' implying
          that Z is likewise a son of X in this specific context.

          And even if we grant that Z is a descendant of X, Z is always
          preceded by the accusative particle 'et, which is not translated but
          marks Z as the direct object of the verb `begat' (wayyoled). This
          means that the begetting of Z by X still occurred when X was Y years
          old, regardless of whether Z was a son or a more distant descendant.
          The Hebrew grammar provides further support — wayyoled is the hiphil
          waw-consecutive imperfect form of the Hebrew verb yalad. The waw-
          consecutive is the typical Hebrew way to indicate a sequence of
          events (see Doug Kelly interview), and the hiphil stem communicates
          the subject participating in action that causes an event e.g. Seth as
          the begetter of Enosh. No wonder the Jewish historian Flavius
          Josephus (AD 37/38–c. 100) saw no gaps in the genealogy.21,22

          James Barr, then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University,
          wrote in 1984:

          `… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old
          Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the
          writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the
          ideas that: … 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.'23

          Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not believe
          Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was
          only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the
          earth which led people to think anything different ã it was nothing
          to do with the text itself.

          Ross also points out that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. But
          this is spurious, because this name was probably not in the original
          autograph, but inserted later,24 certainly after the time of
          Josephus.25,26

          Secular history

          Ross also uncritically claims that missionaries teaching a literal
          Genesis were discredited by:

          `Chinese historical accounts placing Chinese national origins earlier
          than 4004 BC. … The same reaction comes today from … Australian
          Aborigines, who date back to 25,000 BC …. All are firmly established
          dates.' (p. 108).

          However, the Encyclopædia Britannica says on China: `The first
          dynasty for which there is definite historical material is the Shang,
          or Yin (18th–12th BC).' 27 The Australian Aborigines were an oral
          culture, without writing, so their `dates' are not based on
          historical records but on `dating methods'. However, some of these
          claim that Aborigines existed before even Ross's `date' for Adam —
          what will happen to his apologetics if such dates become widely
          accepted?

          Floundering on the Flood

          Some Ross supporters like Dr James Dobson, of Focus on the Family,
          evidently believe the overwhelming biblical evidence for a global
          Flood, but fail to see the inconsistency of this position with
          billions of years. A global Flood would have laid down a vast
          thickness of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock in a year, which would
          nullify much geological `evidence' for billions of years. Conversely,
          accepting that the fossil record was formed over billions of years
          eliminates any evidence for the Flood. Ross is more consistent, and
          believes the Flood was restricted to Mesopotamia.

          Local Flood arguments

          Ross points out that there are passages where `all the earth'
          and `whole world' are used in a non-global way. Again, Ross is guilty
          of unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field.10 In the
          Flood account, the frequency of the Hebrew word kol (all, every)
          indicates that God is going out of his way to emphasize the
          universality of the Flood.28 Genesis 7, NIV reads:

          19 `They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under
          the entire heavens were covered. …

          21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished — birds,
          livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth,
          and all mankind.

          22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils
          died.

          23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and
          animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of
          the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with
          him in the ark.'

          A question could be asked of Ross: `Just suppose, for the sake of the
          argument, that God had wanted to teach a global Flood — how could He
          have said it more clearly than in Genesis 7?'

          Too little room for the animals?

          Ross caricatures belief in a global Flood, parroting discredited
          sceptical/atheistic arguments against the Ark. Ross ignores key books
          like John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark — a Feasibility Study,29 which
          answers nearly all his objections.

          Kinds and species

          Creationists, arguing from the text of Genesis, believe that Noah
          took two of every kind of land vertebrate animal. Ross distorts this
          into a claim that creationists believe two of every single species
          had to go on board. He also claims that the fossil record documents
          that `half a billion to a billion new species of life arose between
          the Cambrian explosion … and the arrival of human beings' (p. 150).
          But the number of actually catalogued fossil species is only about
          200,000, about 95 % of which were marine invertebrates which Noah was
          not required to take on board anyway. The `billion' is probably
          estimated from the transitional forms needed if neo-Darwinism were
          true, and even then is a huge exaggeration. And it's likely that many
          so-called fossil species and even genera within a family were merely
          varieties of a single polytypic `biological species'. This is true
          today, as shown by many cases of hybridization between members of
          different `genera'.30

          Ross regurgitates the sceptical nonsense that it was impossible to
          derive all current species from the relatively few kinds on board the
          Ark, unless super-rapid evolution occurred. Ross effectively believes
          in fixity of species, in ignorance of proven speciation within a
          kind.31 Sceptics would thus find him an easy target.

          However, not all change is evolution, in the sense of molecules-to-
          man, which requires an increase of genetic information, just as not
          all monetary transactions are automatically profitable ones. Many
          varieties can arise rapidly from an initial population with large
          genetic variety. If this population splits into isolated small
          populations, each subgroup may carry a fraction of the total genetic
          information. Later information-losing mutations, e.g. in proteins
          recognizing `imprinting' marks,32,33 can result in reproductive
          isolation, thus a separate `biological species'.

          Rapid production of `varieties' can be shown in humans: it is well
          known that a marriage between two mulattos (people with one black and
          one white parent each) can produce children with a large variety of
          skin colors. Of course it couldn't happen quickly by evolutionary
          means, because they must rely on random mutations to generate new
          genes, and slow substitution over many generations to establish them
          in the population.34

          This is why both Eskimos and native equatorial south Americans have
          mid-brown skins and haven evolved very white or very dark skins — the
          relevant information is simply not present. Such `people groups'
          today are highly specialised, with less genetic variation than
          mulattos (and Adam and Eve), which is why they produce offspring of
          limited variety.

          Because of Ross's lack of knowledge of genetics, he postulates direct
          divine intervention at Babel to introduce `racial' traits into
          separate populations (pp. 177–178). The Bible doesn't even hint at
          this. Ross admits that it's a `God of the gaps' explanation, which
          would be unnecessary if he had read any of our books. Ross says that
          the different `racial' characteristics were designed to aid man's
          dispersal. This is disturbing — although Ross does repudiate racism
          and sees nothing wrong in `inter-racial' marriages, this theory
          almost implies that God designed racial prejudice.

          If Ross had read basic creationist books, e.g. Stones and Bones, The
          Answers Book or What is Creation Science? [or seen the brief Internet
          article How could all the human races come from Noah, his three sons
          and their wives?], he wouldn't need to resort to such daft
          explanations, which hardly give the would-be Christian apologist
          relying on his books any credibility.

          `Fear of the millions'

          Ross claims that a main motivation of those opposing billions of
          years is fear that it would make evolution possible, hence the above
          subheading on p. 92. As usual, Ross's claim betrays a willing
          ignorance of creationist literature as well as ignorance of
          evolution/variation as shown above. Many years before Ross wrote any
          of his books, leading creationists like Dr Duane Gish made it very
          clear that they believed the earth was only thousands of years old,
          on both biblical and scientific grounds. But Gish also strongly
          pointed out that evolution would be impossible even if billions of
          years were granted, e.g.:

          `Therefore, whether the earth is ten thousand, ten million, or ten
          billion years old, the fossil record does not support the general
          theory of evolution.'35

          `Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would be no
          possibility whatever that a single molecule could have arisen by pure
          chance on earth in five billion years.'36

          The need for the Ark

          Why would God have told Noah to build an ocean-liner-sized Ark just
          to escape a local Flood? Noah could easily have migrated. Why bother
          to take birds, when many can fly hundreds of miles in a day?
          Ross `explains' (p. 160):

          `First, when God pours out judgment, He gives ample warning ahead of
          time. He sends a spokesperson, a prophet, and gives that prophet a
          kind of platform from which to be heard. For the antediluvians, Noah
          was that prophet and the scaffolding around the Ark was his platform.'

          Another Ross flight of fancy — what other prophet needed
          a `platform', let alone one requiring such a huge expenditure of
          labour?

          'Straw man' and `guilt by association' arguments

          Ross often misrepresents what creationists believe and have clearly
          stated. For example (p. 148):

          `Some global flood proponents who acknowledge the problem of a
          grossly inadequate water supply propose that Earth's surface
          was "smoothed," or flattened, by the Flood, thus reducing the water
          requirement. More specifically, they claim that during the forty days
          and nights when the floodwaters rose, Earth's mountains radically
          eroded from their lofty heights of ten fifteen and even twenty
          thousand feet to just one or two thousand feet, perhaps less.'

          This is totally inexcusable, because Ken Ham had responded to a
          similar Ross misrepresentation (which was even then inexcusable) well
          before The Genesis Question was published:

          `In my 20 years of involvement in creation ministry, I have never
          known of any material from any Biblical creationists indicating that
          God "eroded the mountains from a height of 30,000 feet down to sea
          level during the forty days"! … Biblical creationists believe that
          most mountains today did not exist before the Flood, but were raised
          up (and ocean basins sank) towards the end of the Flood, thus causing
          the water to run off to where it is today.'37

          Akin to straw man arguments is guilt by association — Ross complains
          that a TV documentary about the alleged discovery of the `Ark' gave
          the sceptics an easy target (pp. 165–167). The obvious implication is
          that it's all the fault of global Flood proponents, although the
          major global Flood organisations have repudiated such claimed
          discoveries.38 Many creationists even agree with Ross that the Ark is
          unlikely to be found because its timber would probably have been used
          for construction, so that is hardly a unique local-floodist insight.

          Ross also copies the ploy of the apostate Ron Numbers,39 attributing
          biblical creationism and flood geology to `the visions of an
          Adventist prophetess [Ellen White]' via George McCready Price. A
          number of papers by Dr Terry Mortenson in the Creation Ex Nihilo
          Technical Journal show that the early 19th century Scriptural
          Geologists presented such ideas well before Price [see The 19th
          Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson]. Ken Ham
          pointed out that he had never even heard of Price at the time he
          founded CSF/AiG, and that he adopted creationism because of the
          biblical teaching.37 Even if Ross were right about Price, he is wrong
          to think that discrediting Price is enough to refute creationism ã
          this is a classic case of the genetic fallacy.

          With such serious logical fallacies in Ross's book, it is astonishing
          that it was endorsed by Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, who is
          usually very astute at spotting such fallacies. (Did he actually read
          it?).

          Pitching the Ark?

          Ross parrots another discredited argument from atheistic sceptics:
          that it would be impossible to `pitch' the Ark without millions of
          years for petroleum products to accumulate (pp. 153–154). This shows
          that Ross is unwilling to admit to his readers that biblical
          creationists have already addressed most of his arguments long ago.
          Dr Tas Walker pointed out 15 years ago that pitch need not be made
          from petroleum at all — the pitch-making industries in Europe made
          pitch from pine resin for centuries.40 The Encyclopædia Britannica
          says about naval pitch: `Oleoresin, also called gum or pitch … is
          extracted from the pine …'41

          Too much coal?

          Like bibliosceptics, Ross claims that there is too much coal in the
          earth's crust to have been formed in the Flood (pp. 151–154). Even
          worse, as `evidence' he cites some calculations from a CEN Tech. J.
          paper, `Too much coal for a young earth?'42 However, the whole point
          of this paper was to solve that problem, by showing evidence that
          much coal had formed from large floating ecosystems comprising
          arboreal lycopods, which had been catastrophically buried by water.
          Ross also omitted the question mark when citing the title, thus
          further conveying to his readers the diametrically opposite meaning
          to the paper's intention. Also, John Woodmorappe had shown long ago
          that vegetation living at the start of the Flood was not the only
          possible source of carbonaceous material which had eventually
          transformed into coal. There were about 1656 years between the
          Creation and Flood, enabling much peat to form, which could have been
          buried by the Flood and easily transformed into coal since.43

          Death and the Fall

          Since Ross accepts the billions of years, for consistency he must
          believe that the death, suffering and disease shown by the fossil
          record occurred well before Adam sinned. Thus Ross denies the
          biblical teaching that death could not have been part of God's `very
          good' creation (Genesis 1:31) because death is `the last enemy' (1
          Corinthians 15:26).

          Vegetarian diets

          Ross agrees that Genesis 1:29 teaches that humans originally had a
          vegetarian diet, not `merely an indication that all food resources
          derive from plants' (p.71). But he `explains':

          `Vegetarianism perfectly suits the potential longevity of the first
          humans. Animal tissue contains between ten and ten thousand times the
          concentration of heavy elements that plant material contains. This
          difference sounds drastic, but it poses an insignificant health risk
          for people living only 120 years (the limit God imposed at the time
          of the Flood). However, the difference is by no means trivial for
          people living nearly a thousand years.'

          Ross provides no documentation. How could he know what dangers would
          face long-living people without any to test?! This statement is
          falsified by the lifespans greatly exceeding 120 years long after
          people were permitted to eat meat. And his statement is hopelessly
          imprecise: which plants and animals? Some plants take up heavy
          elements so readily that they are used to clean up waterways. Soy and
          tea plants are known to take up aluminium readily. Conversely, many
          animals can excrete such elements. And accumulation is more of a
          problem in animals higher in the food chain, e.g. sharks with
          mercury, as well as filter-feeders. This might be a reason for the
          Mosaic laws against eating carnivores and shellfish.

          Also, Ross undercuts one of his own claims. Ross agrees that Genesis
          1:29 teaches original vegetarianism for humans, but then surely by
          his own reasoning, the next verse must teach original vegetarianism
          in land animals and birds. But Ross denies this without realising the
          contradiction, because he believes that carnivore fossils pre-date
          Adam.

          Plant Death

          Ross points out that plants must have died before the Fall. Again, he
          persistently misrepresents what creationists actually teach.37 We
          have never taught that plants or individual cells didn't die before
          the Fall, but only nephesh (soul) creatures. It should be obvious
          from Genesis 1:29–30 that the Bible is clear that plants do not have
          life in the sense of nephesh, while animals do.

          Biological incompetence

          It's perhaps understandable that Ross, whose major qualifications are
          in astronomy, would not be an expert on biology. But it's astounding
          that a man who specializes in supposedly scientific apologetics,
          makes fundamental errors with even high-school level genetics. His
          apparent ignorance of speciation is covered above, but there are
          other areas where he does not understand basic genetics.

          Human longevity

          Ross does accept the biblical long life spans, and rejects any
          redefinition of the word `year' (a pity he isn't so careful with the
          word `day'). But in ch. 15, Ross interprets the 120 years of Genesis
          6:3 as shortening of human life-spans. This is clearly fallacious
          because it contradicts other Scriptures showing that people lived for
          hundreds of years well after the Flood. The best understanding is
          that the 120 years was the time left for mankind before the Flood
          would destroy it, with only a remnant surviving on the Ark.

          Ross's explanation for shortening human life spans is: God
          supernaturally increased the rate of apoptosis (programmed cell
          death) to `protect' us from an increasing-with-age risk of cancer in
          the aftermath of a radiation burst from the Vela supernova. But it's
          bizarre to talk about `protecting' people from cancer should they
          reach 500, 600, even 900, by making sure they become decrepit and die
          before 120! What next, `protecting' people from Alzheimer's disease
          at 80 by causing fatal heart attacks by 60?

          A sensible physical explanation for the drop in longevity is loss
          of `longevity genes' by genetic drift because of the population
          bottleneck at the Flood, and maybe other post-Babel bottlenecks as
          well, but Ross's book ignores creationist literature and evidence
          from gene studies.44

          Cain's wife

          Ross correctly believes that Adam's sons and daughters must have
          intermarried, that such close intermarriage happened in Abraham's
          time, and that God did not forbid this until Leviticus 18:6–18. But
          his explanation is garbled (p. 105):

          `Genetic defects as a result of intrafamily marriage develop slowly.
          They would present no risk until after the first several dozen
          generations.'

          Aside from the inconsistency with his deviant view of hundreds of
          generations between Adam and Abraham, this misunderstands the problem
          of close intermarriage. It's not the intermarriages per se that cause
          defects. Rather, there is a greater likelihood of inheriting two
          recessive defective mutant genes in the same locus, which would thus
          be expressed. Whereas if the parents were more distantly related, the
          offspring would likely inherit defects in different loci, each paired
          by a normal allele that would mask the defect. But since Adam and Eve
          were created with no defective genes, recessive mutations would take
          many more than `several dozen generations' to accumulate to levels
          where close intermarriage would be dangerous for the offspring.

          See also: Where did Cain get his wife?

          Other scientific fallacies

          Some of Ross's arguments are blatantly circular, in effect: `Isn't it
          amazing how modern uniformitarian science backs up what Genesis
          says?' Hardly surprising, because Ross has re-interpreted Genesis to
          fit in with uniformitarian science!

          Ross strongly overstates the case for fine-tuning of the earth and
          universe. He claims (p. 32) that Earth's gravity is strong enough to
          hold lots of water vapour (relative molecular mass (Mr) = 18), `but
          not so high as to keep life threatening quantities of ammonia [Mr =
          17] and methane [Mr = 16].' Not true — earth's gravity even holds
          helium (Ar = 4) strongly (incidentally, more helium from a-decay is
          released into the atmosphere than escapes into space, and the total
          amount in the atmosphere is evidence that it is less than two million
          years old45). We are protected from methane and ammonia because they
          are rapidly destroyed by UV light.

          There are many other errors, even in Ross's own field of astronomy,
          documented by the astronomy professor Danny Faulkner.46

          Conclusion

          I haven't covered all of Ross's errors in this review. This would
          require a whole book, which is planned within a year. But there is
          enough documentation here of his biblical and scientific errors to
          show that Christians should not promote his books.

          References

          Ross, H.N., Creation and Time, Navpress, Colorado Springs, p. 56,
          1994. Return to text.

          Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S., Creation and Time: A report on the
          Progressive Creationist book by Hugh Ross see online chapters or
          purchase online, Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994. Return to text.

          Waltke, B.K. and O'Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
          Syntax, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, p. 122, 1990. Return to text.

          Exegesis means reading out of the text (i.e. letting the text teach
          you); eisegesis means reading one's own ideas into the text. Return
          to text.

          Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Wordbook of
          the Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980. Return to text.

          Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 86–91. Return to text.

          Ross, H., Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective, Wiseman Productions,
          Sierra Madre, CA, p. 12, 1983. Return to text.

          Kelly, D.F., Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the Light of
          Changing Scientific Paradigms, Mentor (Christian Focus Publications),
          Ross-shire, UK, ch. 2, 1997. Return to text.

          Kelly, D.F., lecture at Moore Theological College, Sydney, 7 August
          1999. Return to text.

          D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
          MI, 2nd Ed., p. 60, 1996. Return to text.

          Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 76–77. Return to text.

          Harris, et al., Ref. 5, 2:673. Return to text.

          Grigg, R., How long were the days in Genesis 1? What did God intend
          us to understand from the words He used? Creation 19(1):23–25, 1996.
          Return to text.

          Stambaugh, J., The days of Creation: a semantic approach, CEN Tech.
          J. 5(1):70–76, 1991. Return to text.

          Kelly, Ref. 8, p. 111. Return to text.

          Van Bebber and Taylor, Ref. 2, pp. 69–73. Return to text.

          Is the seventh day an eternal day?, Creation 21(3):44–45, 1999.
          Return to text.

          Kulikovsky, A.S., God&# 146;s Rest in Hebrews 4:1–11, CEN Tech. J. 13
          (2):61–62, 1999. Return to text.

          For a defence of the Masoretic text vs the altered Septuagint (LXX),
          see Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology,
          CEN Tech. J. 12(1):98–106, 1998. Return to text.

          Not just Archbishop Ussher, but also Kepler, Luther and Melanchthon,
          calculated very similar dates. See Young, R., Analytical Concordance
          to the Holy Bible, 8th Ed., Lutterworth Press, London, p. 210, 1939.
          Return to text.

          Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books I–IV, Harvard Press, Cambridge,
          MA, 1930, p. 73; Loeb Classical Library No. 242. Return to text.

          Young, Ref. 20. Josephus calculated the creation date at 5555 BC,
          because he used mainly the inflated figures of the LXX (5508 or 5586
          BC). Return to text.

          Barr, J., Letter to David C.C. Watson, 1984. Return to text.

          Sarfati, J.D., Cainan of Luke 3:36, CEN Tech. J. 12(1):39–40, 1998;
          see also Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36
          and Gen. 11:12? Return to text.

          Josephus, Ref. 21. Return to text.

          Pierce, L., Letter to the editor, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):76, 1999. Return
          to text.

          `China', Encyclopædia Britannica, 3:230, 15th Ed. 1992. Return to
          text.

          Kruger, M., Genesis 6–9: Does `all' always mean all? CEN Tech. J. 10
          (2):214–218, 1996. Return to text.

          Woodmorappe, J., Return to text.

          Marsh, F.L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, Mountain
          View, CA, 1976. Return to text.

          Wieland, C., Speciation Conference brings good news for creationists,
          CEN Tech. J., 11(2):135–136, 1997. Return to text.

          Cohen, P., The great divide, New Scientist 160(2164):16, 1998. Return
          to text.

          Jerlström, P., Genomic imprinting, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):6–8, 1999.
          Return to text.

          ReMine, W.J., The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, St. Paul, MN,
          1993; see online review. Return to text.

          Gish, D.T., Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Creation-Life Publishers,
          San Diego, CA, 2nd ed., p. 43, 1973. This book has been superseded by
          Evolution: The fossils STILL say NO!, Institute for Creation
          Research, El Cahon, CA, USA, 1995. Return to text.

          Gish, D.T., The origin of life: theories on the origin of biological
          order, ICR Impact 37:iii, 1976. Return to text.

          Ham, K., Demolishing `straw men', Creation 19(4):13–15, 1997. Return
          to text.

          Snelling, A.A., Amazing `Ark' exposé, Creation 14(4):26–38, 1992.
          Return to text.

          See the review of Numbers' historically unreliable (perhaps due to
          his anti-creationist bias) book The Creationists by Andrews, E.,
          Origins (Journal of the British Creation Society) 8(20):21–23, 1995.
          Return to text.

          Walker, T., The pitch for Noah's Ark, Creation 7(1):20, 1984. Return
          to text.

          `Naval stores', Encyclopædia Britannica, 8:564–565, 15th Ed. 1992;
          emphasis added. Return to text.

          Schönknecht, G. and Scherer, S., Too much coal for a young earth? CEN
          Tech. J. 11(3)278–282, 1997. Return to text.

          Woodmorappe, J., The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of
          supplying the entire fossil record, Proceedings of the 1st
          International Conference on Creationism, 2:205–218,1986. Return to
          text.

          Wieland, C., Living for 900 years, Creation 20(4):10–13, 1998. Return
          to text.

          Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: A Study of the
          Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research,
          El Cayon, CA, 1990; see also Blowing old-earth belief away:Helium
          gives evidence that the earth is young. Return to text.

          Faulkner, D.R., The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross, CEN Tech. J. 13
          (2):52–60, 1999. Return to text.


          Exposé of NavPress's new Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp
        • vr_junkie@yahoo.com
          Regarding no animal death: Young-earth creationists insist that there was no death of any kind prior to the fall (man s sin). The entire reason for this
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Regarding no animal death:

            Young-earth creationists insist that there was no death of any kind
            prior to the "fall" (man's sin). The entire reason for this doctrine
            is that it places all death after mans sin. Why is that important to
            young earthers? It dates every creature in the fossil record to after
            the fall. This arms them with alleged Biblical proof that the earth
            is VERY young. As we shall see this concept of no death prior to the
            fall is indeed the "weakest of reeds".

            These are the 3 passages that are summoned on to support this
            doctrine:

            Romans 8:22
            "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
            together until now."

            I don't see any backing for this belief here... do you?

            They also point out 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - but leave out verses 20
            and 23... for good reason - it kills the theory!

            1 Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and
            become the firstfruits of them that slept."

            1 Corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also
            the resurrection of the dead."
            1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
            all be made alive."

            1 Corinthians 15:23 "But every man in his own order: Christ the
            firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

            I don't think the animal kingdom will participate in the
            resurrection... do you?

            Romans 5:12
            "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
            sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

            Hello? This is speaking of Adam's sin and how it passes to all men.
            There is no mention of all the rest of the creatures of creation
            (mammals, fish, birds, insects, plants, bacteria, virus etc). You may
            not have seen this verse quoted in its entirety before. Young earth
            creationists always stop the quote after the semi-colan; the second
            half of the verse depicting "all men" only, is always conveniently
            left out in their materials. This in my opinion is outright deception!

            Death was man's punishment for sin. Man was the only creature given
            the possibility of immortality by God. Bacteria, cockroaches, plants,
            horses, and my pets never had that possibility. To interpret this
            verse as implying no death of any creatures prior to man's sin is
            taking the verse further than it can go.

            The very fact that God created reproduction, argues strongly that
            death, at least for the animals and other lower life forms, was part
            of the creation. If reproduction was not designed to compensate for
            death, why not place all the creatures you wanted here and simply let
            them live forever! Look at bacterial reproduction... If unchecked by
            death, they would cover the entire Earth in less than a week's time.
            Cockroaches are well renown for their reproduction. Do we really
            think that God created a world in which cockroaches would continue to
            multiply without end? No, death was part of nature at the creation of
            Adam, but Adam had the opportunity to not participate in that death
            had He made the correct choice.

            Further, this passage probably refers to spiritual death rather than
            physical death anyway. Adam indeed did not physically die immediately
            after eating the forbidden fruit. He died spiritually immediately
            after eating the fruit. Not only that but it is insinuated that with
            ongoing access to the tree of life, Adam would have lived forever
            despite sin, this is why the way to the tree of life is blocked. See
            passage below.

            Genesis 3:22-24
            "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
            know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
            also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the
            LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground
            from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at
            the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which
            turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

            Let's look at the creation of vegetation in a little more detail...
            The Bible says (in Genesis 1:11) "And God said, Let the earth bring
            forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
            fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it
            was so." This is an implied reference to soil. It even mentions
            seeds. This depicts plant activity as we understand it today - with
            seeds being in soil, being watered, germinating, and growing into
            mature plants. What is "soil"... Does it not consist of many
            generations of dead and dying organisms??? Does not the presence of
            this soil itself require much time to form? I don't think you can
            invoke miracles here either because God clearly defers this activity
            to the Earth.

            I have challenged many young earth creationists to site 1 Biblical
            verse that says there was no animal death prior to man's fall - I
            have yet to see one. I do however have one that I believe indicates
            there indeed was animal death prior to man's fall. Psalm 104 deals
            with creation, consider verse 21:

            "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from
            God."


            Remember that Psalm 104 deals strictly with the subject of
            creation... and I don't think berries can be considered "prey", and
            you certainly would'nt roar after them!

            Animals not dying... is this credible? Vegetarian predators... can
            you imagine a T-Rex eating berries? All the predatory animals with
            their fierce claws and fangs begging Eve to take the fruit so they
            could eat meat? What of sea life... there are not exactly fruit trees
            growing under the ocean! What did killer whales or sharks eat early
            on? I used to have elaborate aquarium setups... they require a very
            delicate death and decay cycle involving micro organisms to provide
            liveable water. What did Venus Flytrap plants do? What of all the
            parasitic relationships (some of which are beneficial to their host)?

            Would every tiny creature (like brine shrimp) be prevented from being
            sucked up by whales combing the ocean for food (as they do)? I could
            go on and on here. How do we expect to be taken seriously with these
            crazy beliefs!

            Another issue to consider is... if animal death is so against God's
            plans... why did He kill the first animals - and skin them?

            Consider Genesis 3:21
            "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins,
            and clothed them."

            Further, animal sacrifice is demanded throughout the Old Testament.

            How do Christians fall prey to this ludicrous belief? It basically
            comes down to a gut feeling, that God's creations devouring one
            another cannot be perfect! This is arrogance! Who are we - to be
            critics of God's creation?

            Consider Isaiah 55:8-9

            "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
            ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
            so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
            thoughts."

            Consider Romans 9:19-20

            "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath
            resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
            God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou
            made me thus?"

            You don't think you make judgements concerning God's creation? Do you
            think that EVERY creature is beautiful and perfect? You think so?
            What about; viper snakes, cock roaches, pigs, etc. What about every
            day things like going to the bathroom... is that in your eyes
            beautiful, aromatic, and perfect? And further, God never pronounces
            this creation perfect, just "good" and "very good". The new heaven
            and new earth will be perfect creation after his ongoing day of rest
            from his current creation (I will elaborate on this "rest" later).

            I also believe the view that animals killing one another is so
            terrible - is "new age" creep into Christianity. The new age liberals
            are the ones that are worried about every criminal's well being
            (against capital punishment), against any form of hunting or killing
            of ANY animal! After all, they think that each person and animal is
            God (or a god) - greatly and artificially elevating the
            meaningfulness of temporal life on this planet.

            Remember that the old Testament is pretty bloody! God himself
            commanded the slaughter of animals, men, women and children. We as a
            society have become squeamish - eating only prepackaged and processed
            foods. Most (myself included) would have a hard time fending for
            ourselves without Krogers!

            Regards...



            --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Jonathan" <x-evolutionist@m...>
            wrote:
            > The one thing, as I see it, is that his whole issue of death before
            > sin. How does he honestly deal with the Bible on this one?
          • Jonathan
            SEE AiG s Answer regarding your staw-man argument: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp Study the word nephesh! ... doctrine ... to ... after
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              SEE AiG's Answer regarding your staw-man argument:
              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp

              Study the word nephesh!


              --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., vr_junkie@y... wrote:
              > Regarding no animal death:
              >
              > Young-earth creationists insist that there was no death of any kind
              > prior to the "fall" (man's sin). The entire reason for this
              doctrine
              > is that it places all death after mans sin. Why is that important
              to
              > young earthers? It dates every creature in the fossil record to
              after
              > the fall. This arms them with alleged Biblical proof that the earth
              > is VERY young. As we shall see this concept of no death prior to
              the
              > fall is indeed the "weakest of reeds".
              >
              > These are the 3 passages that are summoned on to support this
              > doctrine:
              >
              > Romans 8:22
              > "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
              pain
              > together until now."
              >
              > I don't see any backing for this belief here... do you?
              >
              > They also point out 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - but leave out verses
              20
              > and 23... for good reason - it kills the theory!
              >
              > 1 Corinthians 15:20 "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and
              > become the firstfruits of them that slept."
              >
              > 1 Corinthians 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also
              > the resurrection of the dead."
              > 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
              shall
              > all be made alive."
              >
              > 1 Corinthians 15:23 "But every man in his own order: Christ the
              > firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
              >
              > I don't think the animal kingdom will participate in the
              > resurrection... do you?
              >
              > Romans 5:12
              > "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
              > sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
              >
              > Hello? This is speaking of Adam's sin and how it passes to all men.
              > There is no mention of all the rest of the creatures of creation
              > (mammals, fish, birds, insects, plants, bacteria, virus etc). You
              may
              > not have seen this verse quoted in its entirety before. Young earth
              > creationists always stop the quote after the semi-colan; the second
              > half of the verse depicting "all men" only, is always conveniently
              > left out in their materials. This in my opinion is outright
              deception!
              >
              > Death was man's punishment for sin. Man was the only creature given
              > the possibility of immortality by God. Bacteria, cockroaches,
              plants,
              > horses, and my pets never had that possibility. To interpret this
              > verse as implying no death of any creatures prior to man's sin is
              > taking the verse further than it can go.
              >
              > The very fact that God created reproduction, argues strongly that
              > death, at least for the animals and other lower life forms, was
              part
              > of the creation. If reproduction was not designed to compensate for
              > death, why not place all the creatures you wanted here and simply
              let
              > them live forever! Look at bacterial reproduction... If unchecked
              by
              > death, they would cover the entire Earth in less than a week's
              time.
              > Cockroaches are well renown for their reproduction. Do we really
              > think that God created a world in which cockroaches would continue
              to
              > multiply without end? No, death was part of nature at the creation
              of
              > Adam, but Adam had the opportunity to not participate in that death
              > had He made the correct choice.
              >
              > Further, this passage probably refers to spiritual death rather
              than
              > physical death anyway. Adam indeed did not physically die
              immediately
              > after eating the forbidden fruit. He died spiritually immediately
              > after eating the fruit. Not only that but it is insinuated that
              with
              > ongoing access to the tree of life, Adam would have lived forever
              > despite sin, this is why the way to the tree of life is blocked.
              See
              > passage below.
              >
              > Genesis 3:22-24
              > "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
              > know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take
              > also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the
              > LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground
              > from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at
              > the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which
              > turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
              >
              > Let's look at the creation of vegetation in a little more detail...
              > The Bible says (in Genesis 1:11) "And God said, Let the earth bring
              > forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
              > fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and
              it
              > was so." This is an implied reference to soil. It even mentions
              > seeds. This depicts plant activity as we understand it today - with
              > seeds being in soil, being watered, germinating, and growing into
              > mature plants. What is "soil"... Does it not consist of many
              > generations of dead and dying organisms??? Does not the presence of
              > this soil itself require much time to form? I don't think you can
              > invoke miracles here either because God clearly defers this
              activity
              > to the Earth.
              >
              > I have challenged many young earth creationists to site 1 Biblical
              > verse that says there was no animal death prior to man's fall - I
              > have yet to see one. I do however have one that I believe indicates
              > there indeed was animal death prior to man's fall. Psalm 104 deals
              > with creation, consider verse 21:
              >
              > "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from
              > God."
              >
              >
              > Remember that Psalm 104 deals strictly with the subject of
              > creation... and I don't think berries can be considered "prey", and
              > you certainly would'nt roar after them!
              >
              > Animals not dying... is this credible? Vegetarian predators... can
              > you imagine a T-Rex eating berries? All the predatory animals with
              > their fierce claws and fangs begging Eve to take the fruit so they
              > could eat meat? What of sea life... there are not exactly fruit
              trees
              > growing under the ocean! What did killer whales or sharks eat early
              > on? I used to have elaborate aquarium setups... they require a very
              > delicate death and decay cycle involving micro organisms to provide
              > liveable water. What did Venus Flytrap plants do? What of all the
              > parasitic relationships (some of which are beneficial to their
              host)?
              >
              > Would every tiny creature (like brine shrimp) be prevented from
              being
              > sucked up by whales combing the ocean for food (as they do)? I
              could
              > go on and on here. How do we expect to be taken seriously with
              these
              > crazy beliefs!
              >
              > Another issue to consider is... if animal death is so against God's
              > plans... why did He kill the first animals - and skin them?
              >
              > Consider Genesis 3:21
              > "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of
              skins,
              > and clothed them."
              >
              > Further, animal sacrifice is demanded throughout the Old Testament.
              >
              > How do Christians fall prey to this ludicrous belief? It basically
              > comes down to a gut feeling, that God's creations devouring one
              > another cannot be perfect! This is arrogance! Who are we - to be
              > critics of God's creation?
              >
              > Consider Isaiah 55:8-9
              >
              > "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
              > ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
              > so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
              > thoughts."
              >
              > Consider Romans 9:19-20
              >
              > "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who
              hath
              > resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
              against
              > God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast
              thou
              > made me thus?"
              >
              > You don't think you make judgements concerning God's creation? Do
              you
              > think that EVERY creature is beautiful and perfect? You think so?
              > What about; viper snakes, cock roaches, pigs, etc. What about every
              > day things like going to the bathroom... is that in your eyes
              > beautiful, aromatic, and perfect? And further, God never pronounces
              > this creation perfect, just "good" and "very good". The new heaven
              > and new earth will be perfect creation after his ongoing day of
              rest
              > from his current creation (I will elaborate on this "rest" later).
              >
              > I also believe the view that animals killing one another is so
              > terrible - is "new age" creep into Christianity. The new age
              liberals
              > are the ones that are worried about every criminal's well being
              > (against capital punishment), against any form of hunting or
              killing
              > of ANY animal! After all, they think that each person and animal is
              > God (or a god) - greatly and artificially elevating the
              > meaningfulness of temporal life on this planet.
              >
              > Remember that the old Testament is pretty bloody! God himself
              > commanded the slaughter of animals, men, women and children. We as
              a
              > society have become squeamish - eating only prepackaged and
              processed
              > foods. Most (myself included) would have a hard time fending for
              > ourselves without Krogers!
              >
              > Regards...
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Jonathan" <x-evolutionist@m...>
              > wrote:
              > > The one thing, as I see it, is that his whole issue of death
              before
              > > sin. How does he honestly deal with the Bible on this one?
            • vr_junkie@yahoo.com
              ... Ok, I ve been letting these 1 or 2 sentence rebuttals fly pretty much unchallenged up until now. The remainder of this post is not just for this post -
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@y..., "Jonathan" <x-evolutionist@m...>
                wrote:
                > SEE AiG's Answer regarding your staw-man argument:
                > http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp
                >
                > Study the word nephesh!

                Ok, I've been letting these 1 or 2 sentence "rebuttals" fly pretty
                much unchallenged up until now. The remainder of this post is not
                just for this post - or you for that matter.

                What straw man argument?

                The topic is "Was their animal death before the fall" and I brought
                up numerous valid points and arguments (both biblical and
                scientific). And I get a 1 sentence response with a link to AIG???
                There is nothing there that changes what I said!

                This is the typical response I get (simplistic dogmatic response
                usually accompanied by a link to a YEC web page - usually one at
                AIG).

                Be specific! When responding to a post it is usually customary to
                actually spend some time and thought and come up with a legitimate
                response interspersed point by point. Demonstrating that you are
                capable of independent thought and argument without simply deferring
                to web pages is also nice. If you are not going to actually address
                the points brought up directly... Why even bother?

                The bottom line is there is not 1 verse that states that there was no
                animal death before the fall, nor is there one that says it began
                after the fall. I referred to the applicable verses and pointed out
                the error of their typical YEC interpretation. I further pointed out
                a verse that indicates there was animal death before the fall.

                If you respond to this... please respond to my prior message (#47).

                The burden is on you.

                -VR
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.