Archivedbad theology of Dr Ross.tuppence wrote:twohumble, we can start with the letter I posted on the other forum:
Sure, we can, its totally off topic here, since this response only deals with YEC concepts of creation, the flood, and death before the flood, and NO salvational issues whatsoever....but what the heck...lets start here.
A Response to Dr. Hugh Ross by Masami Usami
(http://web.fou.telenor.no/fou/ttolge/mn ... /usami.htm)
It is a great privilege to be here to give my testimony and respond to Dr. Ross' presentation.
First I want to tell a little about my own experience. I was born into a Shinto family. In school I learned only evolutionary thinking, so I was an evolutionist when I returned to Japan from Sakhalin (Russia). My brother became a Christian and I was surprised. I thought, "There is no creator and we have traditional, good religion, so why would my brother become a Christian?" I looked in my brother's Bible and read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I thought this was an unscientific thought because I had learned that evolution is science, and there is no creation. When I entered university I thought that science was the only way to reach truth.
At the university I searched every book in every field of science to find the answer to the Bible, to prove evolution. In the end, what I learned was that there is no scientific basis for evolution. There is only guess work, assumptions and circular reasoning. So I came back to the Bible and after days of turmoil in my mind, I trusted God and received Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.
I agree with many arguments Dr. Ross provides in disproving non-theistic evolution. Many of those arguments were developed by young-earth creationists. Yet some of his ideas do not agree with the Bible. Let us review his view of creation briefly.
1. God created the universe around 17 billion years ago, using the Big Bang. Dr. Ross was so convinced of this theory that he couldn't take the Bible literally. As a result, the rest of his view had to follow the evolution time scale.
2. Creation days are not 6 literal 24 hour days, but billions of years. The present age is the seventh day, which will continue until the end of the age.
3. Death and bloodshed have existed from the beginning of creation and is not the result of sin. Man was created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had taken place.
4. The flood of Noah was local, not global, although it did kill all humans outside the ark.
I certainly do not view these ideas as being Biblical. I believe Biblical creation requires these beliefs: 1. God created the universe several thousand years ago. Heaven and earth were created on the first of the 6 creation days. 2. Everything was created in the order mention in Genesis ch.1. These creation days are literal and not long periods. The seventh day is as literal as the rest, one 24-hour day. 3. Death and bloodshed were the result of Adam's sin. 4. Noah's flood was global and killed all humans, land animals and birds except those in the ark. Further, I believe such Biblical creation to be essential to Biblical Christianity.
Wow...so that fact that they disagree on biblical creation means what? That Dr. Ross cannot go to heaven, or is not a true Christian? I am curious what he actually means here.
Concerning the Hebrew word "Yom" (day), Strong's Concordance says, "a day whether lit. (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or fig. (a space of time defined by an associated term.)" In Gen. 1 there is no associated term to indicate a figurative meaning, so we must take it as literal.
Really? Well, what is an "associated term"? Is it, as some claim a numerical predecessor in the sentence? I think not. We see in Hosea 6:2 :
After two days He will revive us (Israel). On the third day He will raise us (Israel) so that we may live in his presence.
In this instance the word Yom is preceeded twice by numerical associated terms, and it clearly does not mean a 24 hr period.
So what is the "associated term"? Well, lets look at the entire definition in strongs, and not just the excerpt this paper uses.
yôm
yome
From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.
From this definition, can we exclude "indefinite periods of time"? Absolutely NOT. In fact, many OT Hebrew word studies define Yom in just that way. For instance, William Wilson's "Old Testament Word Studies" says just that. In addition "Vines Expository of Old Testament Words" agrees. As do many many preeminant biblical scholars from very orthodox conservative backgrounds.
Take this quote from Dr. Gleason Archer
"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,"
Archer is fluent (or was, he passed away I believe, very recently) in Hebrew, OT Hebrew, and over 30 other ancient languages. He was one of the main contributors to the NASB translation, which is still thought of as one of the best translations available today.
In addition, the commentaries on Ereb, and Boqer, are likewise useful for understanding the bad exegesis of the YEC mentality. Please take time to read some OT word studies with commentary on these terms.
Consider this quote from Matt Perman
Hugh Ross, an excellent scientist and Christian, has provided very convincing arguments that the days of Genesis one are not intended as 24 hour periods of time. Since it is his work that has been so convincing to me on this issue, I wish to lay out, in my own way, many of his arguments. I will also supplement them with much of the evidence I have gained from other sources. I also wish to point out that, even if the days of Genesis one are indeed 24 hour periods, it still would not follow that the earth is young. This is because Bible scholar John Sailhamer has recently argued a good case that if the days are 24 hour periods, they can be solidly understood as recounting the specific renovating of the promise land to make it suitable for man's inhabitation. So, on his view, the creation of the whole universe is stated in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," but the rest of the chapter deals with a much later time when God made the earth suitable for man's inhabitation. For those who are interested in looking into this view more, I recommend his book Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Boks, 1996).
and
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.
Now, to drive what I think is the winning run to the plate, let me quote you from Gen 2:4 " These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: "
Do you now argue that this use of "day" is a 24 hr period? I hope not, since it clearly refers to the whole creation process. Yet, by the definition Given by your writter in this post from Strongs, you could argue that this phras has no "associated term" hence has to be 24 hrs. Clearly this is poor exegesis, and bad linguistical approach. That is why using only the definition from Strongs is a poor method of exegeting scripture. In fact, he only quoted a fraction of the definition in the first place.
In Ex. 20:8-11 Moses used the word in a very literal way. God created for 6 days and rested 1, and thus did God sanctify the seventh day and commanded the people to rest the seventh day. He did not say to work 6 long ages and rest 1 long age. Anyhow, God is not still resting; He is working. Jesus said, "My Father is working still, and I am working" (Jn. 5:17). And Paul said, "God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." God is certainly working, not resting. The Bible says "God rested." That is past tense. It does not say, "God started resting." Let's get it right.
OH MY GOODNESS!!!!! This man should study Hebrew much more intently. Verbs in hebrew are often omitted in the sentence, and not at all present. When verbs are present, they are tense neutral, and the tense is implied by the context. Hence, any verb such as "rest" can be past, present, or future tense, and the english translation often does not make this clear. This is an inherent problem with translating, and why scholarly exegisis is important. This gentleman clearly has formed his opinions from a lack of any real knowledge of OT Hebrew, and he is the one who should "get it right".
If, indeed, those were long ages, all flowers that are pollinated by insects and birds would have become extinct before insects were created.
This is a pyrimid of inferences NOT born out by logic of the facts. Ross does not rule out, and in fact holds to, fiat creation by God, so this line of reasoning is AGAIN, without merit and based in a HUGE lack of knowledge.
It had to be a short period. Dr. Ross' teaching that there was death before Adam sinned and that his sin resulted only in spiritual death is old news. The heretic, Pelagius, taught this around 400 A. D. The Pelagian view is that man was created mortal. He taught everything about us dies sooner or later, so it is and has always been with man. The principle of death and decay is a part of the whole creation. Pelagius was rightly denounced by the early church, for which we should be thankful. According to Dr. Ross' beliefs, Jesus Christ would have eventually died anyhow, even if He had not been crucified.
What a belligerent and ignorant statement this is. Ross holds to the Divinity of Jesus and has NEVER said ANYTHING remotely like this. This man has inserted words in Ross's mouth, that do not in any way follow from ANYThing Ross has ever said. To debate death before the fall is a paper in and of itself, and this post is already too long...I will save the critique of this false line of logic another time.
The Big Bang is no exception. Evolutionists have for a long time presented "proof" of the Big Bang, only to have their "proof" proven wrong. Their assumptions which "proved" the Big Bang, turned out not to prove it after all. This is what Einstein said, "It is the theory which decides what we can observe." The big bang theory is a belief, not science.
Well, again, ingornance is bliss for some. This man has espoused scientific information from a purely uneducated perspective. He has said that the Big Bang has its evidence proven wrong? Funny, its more accepted now than ever, and the proof is only stronger, not weaker. He wishes it were a "belief with no evidence" but he is wrong. That is not a sin, we can love him anyway.
Astronomer Halton Arp wrote in "Nature" magazine, "Cosmology is unique in science in that it is a very large intellectual edifice based on very few facts." (Nature, Aug. 30, 1990 pp. 807-812). He means that cosmology is mainly constructed of guesswork and imagination. Dr. Ross would have us believe his edifice is nothing but fact. Dr. Arp says it has very little fact. I have to wonder if Dr. Ross has just accepted the Big Bang blindly, or if he knows the truth of the fragility of the theory and is willingly misleading people.
Another attempt at ad hominem attacks against a Christain. No substance, only personal accusations, nice.
In conclusion, this paper you have posted has NOTHING at all do do with salvational issues, hence nothing to do with the reason Aineo asked me to start this thread. This is supposed to be about theological doctrines that cause Aineo to believe Ross is somehow related to "word of faith" theology, and heresy. Not a debate on YEC/OEC. I assume that you do not think those that hold to an old earth are out of the love of Christ, and forever band to the Abyss, do you?
Lastly, even if this paper were on target with the purpose of this thread, it is nothing but an example of one mans opinion, that is poorly researched, and terribly misrepresentative of the facts.
Read this paper in its entirety, its worth it...
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |