I get the same comments thrown at me by Catholics, Orthodox, gay theology proponents and atheists. When our webmaster posts “paraphrases” of Scripture to make a spiritual point he gets attacked by “purists” for his irreverent attitude toward God’s word. So no matter who “paraphrases” Scripture they have to defend why and explain their reasons.
Ross is using “paraphrases” of Scripture to back up his science. I find that self indulgent, arrogant, and pride based on “knowledge and intellect”. I find this attitude missing from the scientists Strobel interviewed and all of them are old age advocates.
I will not apologize for taking Jesus at His word: “Sanctify them in truth your word is truth.”
Ad hominem attacks against anyone do not accomplish anything. I have not misrepresented anything Ross has stated. On the other hand I have questioned his interpretation of God’s word.
You want to appeal to logic? Okay, if the universe is 12 to 18 billion years old then using “logic” evolution is a viable theory since some evolutionists believe in “leap” evolution, which gets around the fact that “generations” of evolution cannot explain the diversity found in the animal kingdom. If the universe is 12 to 18 billion years old all the genealogies found in Genesis, Matthew, and Luke are false because some geneticists (using DNA) have determined our mitochondrial mother lived 200,000 years ago.
Taking Genesis 1-11 as literally true does not invalidate real science; on the other hand it calls into question the “theories” developed by scientists to explain our universe. You accuse me of ad hominem attacks against Ross and then do the same in regard to Settlerfield and those who question Ross’ theology.
"On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer's conviction that yom [the Hebrew word for day] in Genesis one could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four-hour day," concludes Dr. Gleason Archer, a biblical scholar who is fluent in Hebrew and over 30 related languages, one of the main translators for the New American Standard Bible, and a bold defender of the historicity and authority of the Bible.[1]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html
There is absolutely noting new is the article I have not read before. On the basis of internal Biblical evidence I can establish Genesis 1:2ff is a recreation of God’s original creation referred to in Genesis 1:1.
The unusual syntax of the sentences referring to the creation days
In these sentences, we would have expected the linking verb (were) to appear only once in the Hebrew, reading "and were evening and morning day X," but instead the linking verb appears twice and it reads, "and was evening and was morning day X." Hugh Ross recognizes that "If `day X' were intended as the noun complement for the one evening and morning together, the linking verb should appear just once, in plural form," and goes on to point out that this "is clearly a departure from simple and ordinary expression. It creates an ambiguity. ...[this] suggests that `day' here is to be taken in some unusual manner."[10] If the expression "evening" and "morning" were meant to define the "day" as a twenty-four hour period, we would not expect to find this structure of the sentences.
On the other hand the Hebrew Scriptures repeat the same concept multiple times to emphasize a truth. Ross’ is simply ignoring this aspect of Hebrew literature to prove his
interpretation. Catholics do the same thing with John 6 in an attempt to prove transubstantiation using John 6:54-55.
The length of the seventh day is more than twenty four hours
Each of the first six creation days is said to have had a definite beginning and ending "there was evening, and there was morning...." However, there is no such statement about the seventh day. "Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this direct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests that this day has (or had) not yet ended."[12] This possibility is directly confirmed in Hebrews 4:4-11, which teaches us that God's Sabbath rest of the seventh day is still continuing. Due to the parallel structure of the creation week, since the seventh day is long, the others must be too.
I have brought this up to show that the first 6 days can be taken as literal 24 hour days. God rested from His creative work on the 7th day and will not create again until He creates the new heaven and new earth. Do you think the new heaven and new earth will take another 12 to 18 billions years to create? Where is the logic in this?
Ps 90:4
4 For a thousand years in Thy sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.
NAS
There is theory found is eschatology that teaches the millennial rule is the Lord’s day of rest, or the 7th day. This “theory” believes that mankind’s time of “tribulation is 6 thousand years. We are in the year 5765 on the Jewish calendar. So you see twohumble this one verse can be
interpreted to “prove” just about anything you want to use it to prove.