twohumble, Aineo's use of the 1 Cor. passage was right on target. Ross and many others are trying to figure out things by, first, questioning the clear intent of the meaning of various parts of Scripture, whether it have to do with the nature of God or the clear meaning of Genesis 1, or anything else.
And whenever God's Word is questioned in that way, it becomes a salvational issue -- because it diverts trust in God and promotes trust in man.
There is nothing minor about that.
I would call to your attention -- and not to deny other uses of intellect -- that there is only ONE place in the Bible where God calls upon us to reason. Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD.
"Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow;
though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and obedient, you will eat from the best in the land;
but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
Again, I am not denying that there are other very good uses of intellect, but please notice that the only time God invites it is, first, to reason with HIM and not with other men, and, secondly, in order to recognize our own sinfulness and find salvation in Him.
In stark contrast are the many, many times when the wrong use of intellect is demonstrated, from Eve to Solomon to Paul.
So I repeat, Aineo's use of 1 Cor. was totally on target where Ross is concerned.
You stated that he takes Genesis 1 as inerrant Scripture. And yet I already posted in the Science forum the Hebrew experts who say that Genesis 1 is communicating basic 24 hour days to the reader. That is the intent, no matter how many people try to declare it is 'really' saying something else.
I think, from the 'clues' you have posted regarding yourself, that you are a medical doctor. Suppose you wrote a prescription for Amoxycillin requesting that 30 500 mg capsules be issued to the patient to be taken at the rate of one twice a day for fifteen days. Your intention is clear.
But the druggist explains to the unwitting patient that what you 'really' mean is twice during the day you can decide if you need a tablet, and you can do this for any fifteen days in the future you like.
Not exactly what you had in mind, is it? But, after all, 'day' is a disputed term....
Not that the patient will be healed with the alternate course....
The patient does not and cannot know your mind as a doctor. He can only know what you have communicated to him in the office and via the script.
We do not and cannot know the mind of God. We can only know what He has communicated to us. We can either trust that or not. And the difference may indeed be salvational.
Interesting, right now I have on the CD of some of Amy Grant's old hits, which my retarded son loves. The words to the song being played right now:
"Are you living in old man's rubble?
Are you listening to the father of lies?
If you are, then you're headed for trouble;
If you listen too long you'll eventually die."
Ross is living in the old man's rubble of worldly wisdom, and trying to interpret the Bible according to that. That's not a smart move.
Regarding 'yom' quickly -- when it is used in conjunction with the possessive (in English expressed as a prepositional phrase), then it can well be an indefinite period of time: the day of the Lord, etc. But in Genesis it is used in a straightforward way with ordinal markers and the only possible way to describe a rotational day without reference to hours or minutes, which are man's invention: evening and morning. Every effort, in other words, was made by the Genesis 1 Author to describe a rotational day "light, dark, evening, morning, first, second, third, etc...)
It takes the perversion of sinful thinking to twist this into anything else.
You can disagree with it, but the better part of wisom dictates taking the material as it is presented, on its own terms.
If Ross truly wants to present the Gospel to a lost world, then at least let him present it as it is written, and not his variations on it.
My dad presented an interesting picture to me when I was a teenager. He described a lot of sticks stuck in a muddy field. Only one was absolutely vertical, and all the others leaned one way or another. Some a little, some a lot. Thus, tne vast majority were not straight up and down, but that did not mean that the one that was could be redefined as being any different. It remained perfectly vertical.
That's the way the Bible is. It doesn not matter how many choose to lean one way or the other in 'interpreting' it. It remains the straight, and only, vertical truth by which all else is judged.
And THAT is the danger of pretending that it is 'not quite right' until redefined in the context of 'modern knowledge.'
It remains. And it remains true, while modern knowledge will pass away.
Until Ross is humble enough to recognize this, he should not be presenting anything.