twohumble, your responses beg several points.
1. nature cannot be 'accurate' as it cannot be 'inaccurate.' Nature simply is. It is man's interpretation of what he sees which is accurate or inaccurate. By claiming creation to be a revelation equal to the Bible (which Ross does), he is claiming that man's interpretation of what he sees is on par with the Bible. It is quite clear, as pointed out in the link on SNR's, that he is not letting the data speak for itself!
Therefore I again assert that the way in which Ross claims dual revelation is non-biblical.
2. Here, again, is Danny Faulkner's response to Ross' use, or misuse of John 3:16, and I concur 100%:
Anyone even remotely familiar with John 3:16 is struck by the glaring omissions of this paraphrase. No mention is made of such important terms as ‘only begotten (Greek monogenes = unique, special)’ ‘Son’, ‘believe’, ‘not perish’, and ‘everlasting life’. This is either blasphemy to the point of heresy or gross carelessness of the first rank.
It is almost inconceivable that Ross really believes this, so one must conclude that he was shooting from the hip. Assuming that that is the case, then it appears that Ross is guilty of dealing with Scripture in a cavalier manner, which is precisely my point. Ross has received a virtual free ride from many pastors and apologists despite these sorts of outrageous views, primarily because these Christian leaders have been intimidated by his scientific pronouncements. But his science is full of errors, contrary to what many believe. His sloppy handling of Scripture and manner of gross overstatement are unfortunately his method of operation in science as well.
If Ross, as you state, was simply "making an analogy", why did he choose to use a verse about salvation and not some other verse having to do with the creation itself. Danny is right -- Ross was, at the least, acting in a cavalier manner and his 'analogous' verse was not even good parallellism.
3. Ross says a number of things regarding God and time. While he may have dissociated himself from one statement at one time, he nevertheless has stated in Beyond the Cosmos, "...the cause (Causer) of the universe operates in a dimension of time or its equivalent (that is, maintains some attribute, capacity, super-dimensionality, or supra-dimensionality that permits the equivalent of cause and effect operations) completely independent of ours" (p. 23).
Independent makes no difference. If God operates in time, outside of our time, then He seems to be subject to time in Ross' opinion.
On page 65, he writes: "My choice of the word timeful to describe God's time-related capacities deliberately contradicts a notion that much of the church has held and taught for many centuries, the notion of a 'timeless' eternity as the realm where God lives and where we will live someday also " [emphasis his]
The following paragraph is out of Craig's essay, linked earlier:
Singling out Augustine and Aquinas as proponents of this doctrine, Dr. Ross exclaims, "...rare indeed is the student or professor who dares to challenge the doctrine of God's dwelling in a timeless eternity" (p. 66), as Dr. Ross evidently means to do. In his view, God "must possess at least one more time dimension (or some attribute, capacity, super-dimension or supra-dimension) that encompasses all the properties of time...The Creator's capacities include at least two, perhaps more, time dimensions" (pp. 23-24). God is thus a temporal being which exists in at least one additional dimension of time to the one we experience. Less explicit, but strongly implied is the view that God also exists spatially. Dr. Ross frequently speaks of God's "operating" in ten dimensions of space, which a defender of divine spacelessness might reasonably construe to mean that God, though transcending space, produces effects in space. But this is evidently not Dr. Ross's meaning. For he thinks of God accessing our four-dimensional realm from higher dimensions, just as a three-dimensional being can access a two-dimensional realm from the third dimension (pp. 74-79, 89-95). Thus, he says that God "exists and operates in several spatial dimensions beyond our three" (p. 24); "God...lives and operates in the equivalent of at least eleven dimensions of space and time" (p. 33); "...His space or other dimensions give Him a complete view of us, inside and out" (p. 132); by contrast, "...we lack God's extra-dimensional perspective to look directly upon 'the thoughts and intents of the heart'" (p. 158). It is difficult to avoid the interpretation that God literally exists in higher spatial dimensions which afford him access to our three-dimensional space.
Ross may simply be demonstrating his inability to comprehend God outside of our time/space/mass reference -- and we probably all have that problem! But he is lifting his ignorance and thought to the level of theology and treating them as though they were fact. At this point, he does, indeed, at least border on the heretical if not cross the line.
Playing with ideas is fine. We all do it. Trying to comprehend what is essentially incomprehensible this side of eternity is probably something we all do at one time or another. But it is not wise to treat one's thoughts and ideas as truth when one does not know what the truth may be in this area.
Ross does say something I do agree with -- that time is measured by cause and effect. That is the only way we really have to measure time. The question is, and this is something I have played around with, since Revelation makes it clear there is cause and effect in the new creation, or at least motion, which we think of in terms of cause and effect -- but does this mean time as we know it?
I don't know. It's fun to think about, but there will be no way of knowing until we get there.
So there is NO way I could present it as doctrine!
But in presenting his thoughts as truth, Ross is denying the transcendent nature of God. God is above EVERYTHING we know or can conceive. And we really need to get that firmly lodged in our brains. We can only know what He has revealed to us, and yes, this includes creation itself. But the Bible is His Word, and it is the final and supreme arbiter of truth on any matter is speaks about. Nothing else is equal to it.