Creation and Inerrancy: Evaluating the Mortenson vs Ross Debate

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Mat 7:15)

There was a recent[1] debate on creation and inerrancy which addressed the question: “Does belief in inerrancy necessitate a particular view of the age of the earth?”[2] In contrast to U.S. political debates this election cycle where moderators prop up one candidate and challenge the other one, this debate was moderated fairly by apologist Frank Turek who holds to the old earth position[3], though you couldn’t detect it from the way he moderated. Debater Terry Mortenson holds to the young earth position, as do I, and the other debater, Hugh Ross, holds to the old earth position.

Debate link:
Debate: Does Belief in Inerrancy Necessitate a Particular View Of The Age Of the Earth?
Archive

That is actually incorrect. Both debaters argued for an affirmative position:

Mortenson argued yes, inerrancy requires young earth belief.
Ross argued yes, inerrancy requires an old earth belief.

So the question that Turek was actually asking is, “Does belief in inerrancy necessitate a belief in a young earth?” With this question his introduction is correct. Mortenson argues yes, and Ross argues no. I suspect that the question was originally created with “young earth creationism” (YEC) in mind, but the words “young earth creation” were removed and replaced with “a particular view of the age of the earth” in order to maintain the appearance of neutrality. Which is fine. But once you do that, you must change all subsequent statements to be in alignment with the “neutral” statement, which was not done, and thus the error.

I suspect that was an unwitting and, thus, “honest” mistake on the part of Turek or whoever framed the question. But as you might surmise from my graphic above, I believe the many incorrect or misleading statements by Ross are intentionally deceptive because there are far too many, too blatant, with too many intentionally obscure statements for them to be accidental.

Ross shows a pattern of making deceptive statements. Such deception can rightly be deemed satanic[5] since they are meant to intentionally hide the truth and lead you to believe a lie. So the primary focus of this evaluation will be to point out the many deceptions that Ross used in his 20 minute opening statement to support an old earth. For those seeking the truth, separately I will add a summary of Mortenson’s young earth defense, of which he did a very good job, in a side bar or separate article at a later date.

Tangled Webs
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”[6]

We begin our journey of untangling the web of deception, lies and hidden assumptions woven by Ross by pointing out an intentional lack of precision with words and phrases. This is the case in Ross’ opening statement.

Misdirection #1: No debate about Earth age
Ross opens with, “We’re here to talk about the earth. Is it old or is it young? The first thing I want to say is that it’s not a scientific debate.”(41:57) Why are they having this debate if it’s not a scientific debate? Many scientists hold to a young earth belief. Ross’ point is that the debate is not “scientific.” What he apparently means is there’s a scientific consensus that the earth is old. (He will later contend the debate is not scientific, but “biblical”, meaning a debate between bible believers, not scientists. This is also false.) But scientific consensus does not mean either final truth or no debate. It was formerly the scientific consensus that doctors need not wash their hands before doing surgery. In the 1800’s “… they would proceed straight from dissecting a corpse to delivering a baby …”[7] This was not debated and did not change until the work of Pasteur and Lister demonstrated the existence of germs and pathogens and the need for antiseptic techniques.[8] Science does not advance unless there is dissent and debate. It is not true that no scientists oppose the consensus on the age of the earth, so it is not true there is no scientific debate.

What Ross is apparently alluding to is that  the scientific disagreement is not published in the manner and periodicals that Ross approves of.  But as Ben Stein points out in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” secular viewpoints typically dominant the institutions and organizations that are accepted for peer review, thus ideas diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus rarely get published. What you typically see are small variations, small new findings that fall within the theory of the accepted consensus. Just as lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence; lack of publishing is not evidence of lack of disagreement.

Misdirection #2: No Young Earth Evidence
Ross states “there is no scientific evidence for the earth being only thousands of years old.” (41:57)
On this site (Rational Faith) I have a number of articles that list young earth evidences. This article lists 10 evidences. Creation Ministries International lists 101 evidences in their article “Age of the Earth.” Thus when I first heard Ross’ statement it sounded like an outright lie. On further reflection, what Ross is likely trying to do is define away the evidence. If it points to a young earth, an old earth believer like Ross may not accept it. This fallacy is known as the fallacy of Persuasive Definition on our reference site for logical fallacies, IEP’s Fallacy page. So either Ross means it literally, that there’s no evidence, which is clearly false, or he’s intentionally trying to define the evidence away (whatever evidence you give he claims is not evidence), which is a logical fallacy and thus deceptive.  He also makes a statement about YEC being indefensible due to the book of nature, but he’ll return to that topic later, so I’ll cover it at that point.

“Both Sides Agree” Misdirections
In this section, Ross makes a number of statements claiming that old earth and young earth believers agree on certain points in an apparent attempt to make old earth belief seem acceptable and merely a small disagreement between believers. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As you’ll see further on, in my opinion his beliefs and corruption of the biblical text warrant considering his errors a modern day heresy. The “both sides agree” gambit appears designed to lull you into a false sense of acceptance based on the idea that the misdirections that Ross is about to present are agreed on by both sides, thus making his main error on the age of the earth seem less objectionable.

Misdirection #3: Both sides agree 14 billion years is too short for life.
In this section Ross tries to point out areas of agreement, in an apparent attempt to make his unpalatable beliefs seem palatable. But even here he is deceptive. Ross states:

“Both of us would agree, young earth creationists and old earth creationists, that 14 billion years is far to little time for any naturalistic model of the origin and history of life. Not even quadrillion of years would be adequate.”(42.44)

Here he has changed the subject. He’s moved from the age of the earth to the viability of evolution. Since we’re not talking about evolution but the age of the earth, he’s essentially throwing out a red herring, another logical fallacy, trying to distract you from the vast difference in beliefs between young earth and old earth belief.

Misdirection #4: Both sides agree:
All humans are descended from Adam and Eve
Ross states, “All humans are descended from Adam and Eve whom God specially created only thousands, not millions of years ago. (43:05)

On the face of it, that statement sounds fine. The problem is found in what he doesn’t tell you. Ross’ organization “Reasons to Believe” supports the theory from their interpretation of the fossil record, that there were hominids which were not created in the image of God, not having the same soul as humans, that lived before Adam and Eve. Thus they support the theory that the fossil record shows ape-like creatures evolving into hominids, but their support of evolution stops short of  evolving into humans. [9] This view of hominids shows that despite his denials, Ross does believe in evolution. And thus his view remains challenged by the question: “Did God use evolution at all?” And also the major problem of death before sin, which will be discussed later. To these, YEC says no, God created by kind in six days, not evolution over millions of years, and there was no death before sin. Ross denies he’s an evolutionist, though his explanation of past history is an evolutionary one. And he outright admits, since he clearly can’t deny it, that his view means there was death before sin. This is a major problem that I’ll discuss later.

Ross has another problem with his position on hominids. [10] Ross holds that creatures like Neanderthals were hominids and thus not fully human. Modern science has determined that Neanderthals are in fact fully human, [11] and thus were “spiritual beings” and were created in God’s image. That leaves Ross on the horns of a dilemma. Will he deny modern science and say they aren’t human, or will he admit he was wrong by calling them non-human, non-spiritual? If he’s wrong about Neanderthals, what else is he wrong about? These are the types of problems you encounter when you first deny the clear teaching of scripture and try to hide you’re denying it. I suspect if asked about his clearly incorrect view (which didn’t come up in the debate), he will get testy about  it as he did when Mortenson pointed out (1:24:54 ) that he has supported different scientific views of the age of the earth, proving his belief is based on the changing science of men, not the revelation of scripture from God.

Misdirection #5: Both sides agree:
Verb placements in Genesis 1:1-2 permit a gap (43:20)
Here Ross claims the Hebrew text allows for a gap of time between Genesis chapter 1 verses 2 and 3; a gap in which he (and other old earth believers) would like to insert the billions of years he believes has elapsed since the creation. His exact wording:

“Both sides agree …Verb placements and forms in Genesis 1:1-2 permit an unspecified time period between the cosmic creation event and light’s appearance on Earth in Genesis 1:3.” (43:20)

His mention of light makes it clear that’s he’s also trying to solve the distant starlight problem. We’ll come back to that. But as to agreement, let me be clear here: both sides emphatically do not agree that the Hebrew allows a gap between verses 2 and 3. I’ll give you two rock-solid references in support.

First up: Dr. Michael Rydelnik, professor of Jewish studies at Moody Bible institute and co-author of the Moody Bible Commentary with Michael Vanlaningham. Rydelnik writes in the Moody Commentary regarding Gen 1.1-3:

“Since vv. 1-3 pertain to the same “stage” in the creative process, it is impossible to infer any historical ‘gap’ between any of the clauses in these three verses. Some interpreters infer such a historical ‘gap’, claiming that billions of years elapsed between the end of v.1 and the beginning of v.2.

…

However, v.2 has the word was not ‘became.’ Moreover, v. 2 indicates contemporaneous situation, not a subsequent one (as required by the ‘gap theory’).”[emphases his] [12]

Second, and even better, the testimony of the Septuagint. The Septuagint, typically referenced as LXX, is the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was done around the third century BC. It is the scripture that was widely used in Jesus’ day. Both the name Septuagint and the Roman numeral for seventy are a reference to its origin. Tradition has it that seventy scholars worked together to create the translation. Michael Rydelnik notes the verb in Hebrew is “was” not “became” in v2. How do the translators of the LXX translate it? They translate it “was” – [ην ( ēn – was] not “became” [ εγενετο (egeneto – became) ]. The word “became” is used in the creation account, but it appears in Gen 2.7, not Gen 1.2:

“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
(Gen 2:7 NIV)

Thus in both the original Hebrew, and the Greek LXX translation, the word is “was” not “became.” As Rydelnik states, this makes the gap theory impossible.

Misdirection #6: Both sides agree:
“The four literal definitions for yom (day) in Genesis 1 include a long but finite period of time” (43:55)

Ross argues here that day could have one of four meanings:
1. Part of the daylight hours
2. All of the daylight hours.
3. A 24-hour period
4. An extended finite period of time.

This four-fold division is reminiscent of the four-fold definition found in the Scofield Reference Bible [13]:
1. Part of the 24-hour day that is light
2. A 24-hour day
3. A time set aside for a specific purpose, for example the “day of atonement”
4. A longer period of time where “day” covers the entire work of God.

Ross goes on to state that you can pick up any lexicon and see the four definitions and that he notices that three of the four are used in the creation narrative. Which brings me to my point.

How does he know which of the four meanings are intended? When I look at my handy electronic lexicon I see 10 distinct senses for “yom” listed. How does one decide which sense is meant? Context. Context determines meaning. When I give an introductory teaching on biblical hermeneutics my first three points are:

1. Context determines meaning
2. Context determines meaning
3. Context determines meaning

That the context a word is found in—both immediate and the larger context—determines the meaning has long been recognized, since the days of the church councils [14], to more recent expositions on biblical hermeneutics. [15] Mortenson points this out in the his first five-minute rebuttal period. (1:01:47) And in fact Ross himself proves this point because he properly understood two of the three senses used. But when it comes to the numbered creation days, Ross does what the Chicago statement on biblical hermeneutics denies you can do:

“WE DENY that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.”
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
The denial statement from Article XIX

Ross wants to make the Bible fit foreign concepts such as the Big Bang and so he wants to import long ages and a gap that the text does not speak of. But basic hermeneutical principals deny the long age meaning for yom that Ross is trying to import into the text.

Misdirection #7: Both sides agree:
Sola Scriptura (44:43)
“The Bible is the only verbal, propositional, authoritative revelation.”

Here Ross talks a good game, but he clearly does not believe “sola scriptura”, that scripture is the only authoritative source. Scripture clearly indicates the creation days are 24-hour days, and the earth is young. But Ross wants to import ideas from science—radiometric dating, distant star light, uniformitarian processes, etc.—to argue for an old earth. If Ross believed in sola scriptura, he would believe in a young earth and this debate would not be necessary. After viewing Ross’ performance here I am convinced that Ross and all old age adherents use science as their final authority, not the scripture. Because it is clear that the plain meaning of the text, particularly when you consider Ex 20.11, is that God created in six regular 24-hour days.

Misdirection #8: Two books of Revelation: the Bible and nature (44.43)

Ross then appeals to the Belgic confession to support the belief that the Bible endorses a “two book” view of revelation: that of nature and the written word of God in the Bible. But the Belgic confession uses the word “book” in Article 2 only as a comparison of the beauty of creation seen through natural revelation. It does not put natural revelation on par with the special revelation of the Bible. It certainly doesn’t speak of the age of the earth. The Belgic confession merely speaks of natural revelation revealing the invisible things of God in the same manner that Rom 1.20 does:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(Rom 1:20)

In fact, the Belgic confession references Rom 1.20. Ross is clearly grasping at straws here. He does not appeal to the widely known, widely ratified Church creeds such as the Apostles creed or the Nicene creed, because he cannot since they do not support this two book view.

Misdirection #9: The Laws of Physics are unchanging (but YECs require they change)(45:44)

Ross claims that YECs think, based on Gen 3.17: “cursed is the ground  because of you,” that the record of nature is corrupted and untrustworthy, implying that YECs don’t believe science can yield reliable results.

First, the idea YECs don’t believe science can yield reliable results is simply nonsense and a straw man fallacy. There are plenty of young earth creationists who are scientists doing science in the typically scientific way. They believe their results are reliable. He will later refer to the RATE group, a group of scientists examining the rate of radiometric decay in relation to radiometric dating methods and the age of the earth. If YECs did not believe in science, they wouldn’t have bothered doing the work, or publishing the work. But they have done both.

Second, Ross claims “The bible rules out the young-earth doctrine that God radically altered the laws and constants of physics at the fall or Flood.” (47:59)

For his evidence he references the RATE project (48:30) and quotes from the book:

“Either accelerated radioactive decay accounts for isotope residues in a short period  of time, or a large amount of decay occurred at conventional rates and the earth is old.”
– Radioisotopes and the Age Of the Earth, p. 738

This requires some unpacking. I mentioned that we’d get to the problem of distant starlight. Well, here we are. The biggest apparent problem for a young earth view is the problem of distant star light. How can we see stars that are billions of light years away if the earth is only 6,000 years old? The distance divided by the speed of light implies the light would have taken billions of years to get here. This is such a serious and widely known problem that I did a two-part series on it with a couple of follow ups:

Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part 1
Distant Starlight – Under Occam’s Razor – Part: Critique and cuts
Distant Starlight – Unlikely Solutions part 1: Light in Transit
Distant Starlight – Unlikely Solutions Part 2: ASC – Questions for Dr Lisle

So young earth creation scientists are trying to answer the question of how one can see distant starlight in a young universe. My initial two-part series goes through a number of suggested solutions, with part two giving what I believe is the best likely answer. (Spoiler alert: Faulkner’s Dasha theory is the only one that looks feasible for those not wanting to read through it all.) The follow up series indicate theories I believe don’t work. Some of the solutions suggested are what Ross is calling a “change in the laws of physics”. For example:

Einsteinian Relativistic Time changes:
Examples:
– John Hartnett, whose theory calls for a massive, fast expansion of space, and an extra dimension of space;
– Russ Humphreys, whose theory calls for (among other things) a “white hole” cosmic event where time stops on earth.

Non-Einsteinian change:
– Lisle calls for a variation in the speed of light depending on the direction it’s going.

The specific example Ross cites is the work done by the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group where they posit a massive change in the rate of radioactive decay at some time in past which renders radiometric dates inaccurate;  inaccurate by a magnitude of millions (10⁶ zeros as he points out).
You can view a summary of the work here by the leader of the group Larry Vardiman:
“Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: The Earth’s Young After All”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iohAhbf_KrY )
Archive

This data was summarized in the video “Thousands…Not Billions” (ICR, 2005)
If you’ve seen this DVD you’ve seen material similar to that covered in the YouTube video

Two things to note about all YEC attempted explanations:

1. They are scientific explanations, so his complaint that YECs don’t believe science is reliable is invalid and way off target.

2. Since they are doing science, the scientists positing the theory are going where the data and theories lead them. And this is done acknowledging God may have done miracles – which may alter physical processes during creation or other times from how things work now. Ross is wedded to secular uniformitarian views which restrict God to doing only what secular scientists can see and understand. (The present is key to the past à la Lyell and Hutton) Restricting God is a rather arrogant attitude and approach when you think about it.

Third, and perhaps most importantly in showing how meritless this objection is, is that Ross has fallen into the fallacy of the double standard. This is true because Ross’ beloved Big Bang theory has essentially the same problem. Ross believes God used the Big Bang to create the Universe. Clearly God did not. Physicist John Hartnett explains some of the reasons why in an article titled with a play on the name of Ross’ organization “The Big Bang is not a Reason to Believe“

The distant starlight problem that the big bang has is this: surveys like WMAP (The Wilkinson Microwave Anistrophy Probe) show that the temperature of the universe is extremely even – to 1/50,000 to 1/100,000 of a degree across the entire universe – depending on who you listen to. This is extremely uniform and not expected from the initial big bang explosion, which should have left the universe lumpy and the temperature uneven. You can see physicist Michio Kaku describe the problem, called the horizon problem in the sidebar “The Big Bang Horizon Problem“.

The only way for the universe to be so uniform in temperature is if there was a mixing of energies – if light was able to reach from one end of the universe to the other. The problem: even with a (supposed) nearly 13.8 billion year old universe, there has not been enough time elapsed for light to travel from one end of the universe to the other (or one horizon to the other) in order to mingle and even out the temperature. This means the big bang theory is dead unless they solve the problem since they are confident of the WMAP data.

The solution came in the form of an impossible theory by Alan Guth called cosmic inflation. There are a number of problems with the theory of inflation. I won’t list them all here, but you can read about them in another sidebar “Problems with the Big Bang theory.” I will simply point out that the theory of inflation also requires a number of change in the laws of physics which no one can explain. For example, cosmic inflation requires, among other things, two changes in the direction of gravity, and a massive change in its value to create an expansion of space (or spacetime, as Einstein would call it) that was supposedly faster than the speed of light – though Einstein said, and scientists agree, that nothing can move faster than light. Of course big bang theorists have a lame excuse for inflation breaking this law of physics. (Supposedly the law doesn’t apply to space.) This is to say nothing of unobserved but required entities such as dark matter and dark energy.

In summary, let me repeat: the big bang theory, which Ross supports, is dead without cosmic inflation. Cosmic inflation requires a change in the laws of physics. (Inflation is now a part of the “standard model” of the early universe.) But Ross doesn’t want you to know that. He wants to pretend that only YEC scientists propose theories that require a “change” in the laws of physics. The needed changes in physics needed for the big bang are so egregious that scientists who have refused to sign on to them have pointed them out and have made a formal complaint and protest against it in “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” published in May of 2004. You can read it here.

Misdirection #10 These are the major creation texts in the Bible
Ross lists the following as creation texts, and states we need to read all the texts to properly understand the creation event, and makes a quip about not all answers being in Genesis, a clear poke at Ken Ham and his organization.

Gen 1, Gn 2, Gen 3-5, Gen 6-9, Gen 10-11
Job 9, Job 34-38, Job 39-42
Ps 8, Ps 19, Ps 33, Ps 65, Ps 104
Ps 139, Ps 147-148
Prov 8, Eccl 1-3, Eccl 8-12
Is 40-51
Rom 1-8, 1 Cor 15, 2 Cor 4
Heb 1, Heb 4, 2 Pe 3, Rev 4, Rev 20-22

Noticeably Ross has taken any text that has the slightess mention of creation and lists it as a “Bible creation text”. Nevermind the overriding themes or theology of the passage in question. For instance, Is 40-51 is highly messianic, Rom 1-8 is Paul’s most thorough explication of the gospel; Eccl 8-12 is the musings of the Preacher (Eccl 1.1 KJV) on life, wisdom and foolishness, and his conclusion on the wisest way to live life (Eccl 12.13-14). But as Mortenson points out in his rebuttal, only the Genesis creation account narrates the sequence of events and has anything to do with chronology. The rest are descriptive passages that say nothing about the sequence or chronology of the events and thus prove nothing about those things or the age of the earth. This is simply another red herring Ross is throwing out.

Misdirection #11: Evening, Morning Days; Day 7 is not finished (50.25)

This claim is so self contradictory I don’t know why he bothered making it. Ross points out that days one through six are bounded by evening and day but day seven is not. That clearly implies fixed, regular days for days one through six. The implication Ross makes is that day seven is ongoing. But we’re not seeing billions of years of only daylight during daytime hours. Or billions of years of night time. Days go on as from the first day: evening and morning. Ross has defeated himself with this argument.

Further, Ross argues that if day seven is a long time, “Genesis 1 grammatical structure requires that the first six creation days also be long periods.”

Nonsense. First, he’s already made the case that day seven is special, different from days 1-6. But, even in its specialness, we don’t see billions years long day portion or night portion. We see regular 24-hour days.

Second issue: context. Context determines meaning. Ross doesn’t seem to understand this.

Ironically in this section he mentions that Adam sees the trees grow (Gen 2.9).  It’s the growing of the plants (Gen 1.11) from which Faulkner derives his Dasha theory as a solution to the distant starlight problem.

Ross then claims the Hebrew word for “at long last” (happa’am) (54:45) means a long period of time. Since neither he nor the Bible specifies the amount of time this took, it is an argument from ignorance to assume it means a long period of time. Further, since Adam is speaking it, it clearly doesn’t mean thousands, millions or billions of years. This is clear since humans—even the original long-lived ones—didn’t and don’t live thousands, millions or billions of years.

Misdirection #12: “Do any Bible authors directly comment on Earth’s antiquity?” (54:58)

Ross points out that some biblical authors speak of long ages. He thinks that by pointing out such passages, he strengthens the case for an old earth. But what he’s actually doing is pointing out words that could have been used in the creation account to specify a long period of time but were not. Since the passages don’t define what “ancient” or similar words reference in terms of length of time, Ross proves nothing about an old earth, (as Mortenson says in his rebuttal), but rather provides further evidence that old ages are not in view.

Mortenson pointed out the Hebrew word “dor” (generations) that God could have used to indicate long ages in Genesis, but didn’t. In my article Correcting “The Origins Of Young Earth Creation” Video I point out a number of other words and phrases that God could have used had he wanted to indicate long ages (millions or billions of years)

Summary of some Hebrew words used to express long ages:

In his presentation, Ross pointed out the words for “everlasting” and “ancient”:
Gen 49.26 –  עוֹלָם – (Olam) everlasting, eternity, which is already in the chart above. But he does point out a different word to add which I highlighted above:
Hab 3:6  עַד  -(`ad);   perpetuity, for ever, ancient

This word “`ad”, an adjective,  could have been used to modify “day” in Genesis 1, but it was not. Also in Habakkuk 1.12 and again in 3.6 is the word קֶדֶם qedem (antiquity, ancient). Even more interesting is what Ross again chooses not to mention. Here is Hab 3.6 which speaks about God:

He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient (`ad) mountains crumbled
and the age-old (olam) hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal (olam).
(Hab 3:6)

Rhyme in Hebrew poetry is accomplished through the repetition of ideas, not the repetitions of sounds as in English. Here you can recognize Hebrew poetry from the repetition of two ideas: shaking/trembling and ancient/age-old. There’s also the parallelism of God taking action (standing or looking) followed by shaking or trembling. There’s also the repetition of the word olam typically translated eternal or everlasting. Let’s consider the two words used to describe the mountains here since that’s what Ross pointed out. There’s
`ad (which he highlighted) and
olam (which he also mentioned).

First off, there are no firm dates or length of time given, as previously mentioned, so no conclusions can be drawn about the age of the mountains. Second, the mountains are described with the word “olam”—eternal. That word is typically used to describe the eternal nature of God. It’s used here of God in the last phrase. “His ways are eternal (olam)” It (olam) is also used of the eternal natural of the messiah who was  to come in Mic 5.2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old (qedem), from ancient times. (olam)”
(Micah 5:2)

Olam is typically used of eternal, everlasting things. Yet in this verse in Hab 3.6 it is used of the mountains. Are we to conclude the mountains are eternal? No. Why not? First, because as we’ve already noticed, this is Hebrew poetry. Habakkuk is speaking poetically, not literally. He’s using poetry to convey the idea the mountains have been around a long time, as far back as humans remember. Second, they are not eternal because the mountains are part of the creation. The creation is not eternal. Only God is eternal.

Thus there is no duration given concerning this verse and further the author is speaking poetically. It is strange that Ross doesn’t point that out. It couldn’t be that Ross wants to mislead you into believing the biblical author is indicating millions or billions of years, when he’s clearly speaking poetically of mountains that have merely been there a long time, could it?

Speaking of specific words that are used to describe long ages, when asked for the definition of inerrancy at the beginning, it would have helped the YEC case for Mortenson to point out that the inerrancy of the scripture extends to the very words of the biblical text. In other words, the words themselves are inspired. Ross brought up the Chicago Statement and claimed he adhered to it. That tenet of the faith (inspiration extends to the words) is Article Four of the Chicago Statement. I have the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy on my website here for ease of access. This, along with the above list of phrases referring to long ages, would support Mortenson’s contention that God had other words he could have used for long ages besides “day” (yom) if he had wanted to express long ages.

Between the inspiration going to the very words, and a number of different words and phrases God could have used, this makes an air-tight case that had God wanted to indicate long ages, he had a number of phrases he could have used. But God didn’t use any of them. Instead, 6 times he used a phrase (evening and morning) that indicates a single day.

Misdirection #13: What about early Church Fathers, what did they believe? (56.22)

Ross mentions that some early church fathers held the position that the earth was old. Which is true, and he mentions Augustine as an example. But then he doesn’t quote from Augustine, he quotes Sir Isaac Newton. The problem with his quote is, it’s out of context. We’ve already seen the importance of context. Ross has taken Newton completely out of context and makes it appear that Newton is saying the exact opposite of what he is actually saying:

Newton is actually making the opposite point of what Ross shows – that the words must be understood as written. You can view the letter from Newton that Ross references here:
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00253

Notice Newton references “what is said above”.,,, What is said above? Newton is making the point that it is not poetic language, but it is language that accommodates the vulgar (by which he means the common man), and  it is “true” and “succinct.”

“Consider therefore whether any one who understood the process of the creation & designed to accommodate to the vulgar not an Ideal or poetical but a true description of it as succinctly & theologically,” [emphasis mine.]
From Newton’s letter to Bishop Burnet

Newton’s point then is, if you deny that the creation account is true, or just as importantly insist it is poetical or something along those lines, you can make the days any length you want. That’s the one portion Ross uses – out of context. So once again, Ross has taken a statement out of context – and in this case claimed it makes the exact opposite point from what it means when taken in context. (Newton goes on to point out support for the creation days being regular days by referencing the Sabbath mentioned in the Ten Commandments – meaning the 4^th commandment (Exodus 20.11) which re-affirms a 6 day creation. He also points out natural objections to days being years – like how do plants and particularly creatures still in the egg survive through a year(s) long night? When read in context there is no question that Newton supports a young earth in the letter.

Misdirection #14: Death before sin (57:53)
Ross states “Death, not the universe’s age, is the real issue dividing young from old earth creationists.” He goes on to claim “Only two Bible passages address the death Adam introduced when he sinned. That would be Romans 5:12-s19 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-22. But both of these texts attribute human death, not animal or plant death, to Adam’s sin.” [emphasis his]. He then quotes Roman 5:12 with the following focus:

Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–[emphasis his 58:23]
(Rom 5:12)

The first thing I note is that Ross has used a translation that uses “inclusive” language, changing “death to all men (ανθρωπος – anthropos – “man”) ” to death to all people. For one trying to be so particular over grammar and precise with the text, that’s a significant point to note. Because it shows that he is willing to accept someone’s interpretation of what the text means because that’s not what the text says. So what does the text mean? Ross has once again missed it because it’s seen in the larger context. For that context, you must keep reading the next two verses:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–
13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
(Rom 5.12-14 NIV)

What point is Paul making here? Adam broke a direct command of God, which is sin. This sin allowed death to come to not just to Adam who sinned, but into the entire world (κοσμος – kosmos) (v12 and v13). Thus now the whole world, not just Adam, is under the power of sin and death. A point that is implicit in 2 Cor 5.19 and Heb 11.7 which speak of what God did for the world, not merely man. The proof of that in this passage is that death reigned over  the world – meaning all creatures in the world (animals don’t live forever) —even over the people who didn’t break the law (the Torah, commands from God given by Moses at the time of the Exodus – 1446 BC) because they could not, since the Torah had not yet been given.

So if we take Bishop Ussher’s date for the creation of the world, 4004 BC, there was no law in the world (except for the single command given to Adam) from 4004 BC to 1446 BC when Moses gave the Israelites the law. Yet, through all that time,  when there was no law, all people still died because death had power over the whole world, not just Adam, because Adam’s sin affected all, so all die. As the apostle said, there were people who had sinned “without breaking a command”, that is without breaking the law. That is why humans die, because of sin, which is Paul’s focus. But that does not negate the fact that, for the same reason, the death that has entered the world through Adam’s sin is also why animals die. Paul does not mention animals because his focus is on man. So we see the sin of Adam was a cataclysmic event, reaching far beyond Adam and impacting the entire cosmos.

For further evidence consider the first two verses of the creation account.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Gen 1.1-2

Verse 1 contains a merism “heaven and earth”, a combining of opposes to signify a totality. Thus Genesis 1.1 is saying that God created everything. But then the focus changes immediately to the earth. “Now the earth was …” Does that mean God didn’t create the heavens? Of course not, that would negate the point just made in the first verse. But the point of the Genesis passage is to show the careful work God did in preparing the earth for man. Thus, the work he did in preparing the highest heavens (Dt 10.14),his abode, is not mentioned. Nor is there a mention of the creation of the angels, but clearly God created them as well.

The same approach applies to Rom 5.12. Sin entered the world, bringing death with it to the entire world. Then the focus immediately goes to man, which is the apostle’s focus. Does that mean that the death which entered the world only affected the one man or men in general? No, that misses the point that death entered into the world, and thus the whole world has been affected by Adam’s sin. I would argue the whole creation has been affected (Rom 8.20-21). That effect is visible even in the heavens, the realm of the stars. When I do tours of the Adler Planetarium, I tell my tour guests that Mars is now without a magnetic field allowing its atmosphere to be blown away by the solar wind and, with it, the water that was formerly there. It is now barren and desolate, where it appears at one point it could have been as lush as the earth, though without life. Even secular scientists agree there was a global flood on Mars since there’s evidence of it (like this Martian sedimentary rock – sedimentary rock typically starts in water) and it’s not mentioned in the Bible so they can support it without appearing to support the Bible. I submit that the global Martian flood is a result of Adam’s sin affecting the entire “kosmos”, the closest word the Greek language has to “universe.”

But Ross is correct that the view of the origin and entrance of sin separates young earth and old earth believers, with Ross’ view being both incorrect and troubling. Since he must support billions of years of death before Adam sinned, he must provide a reason for death since it couldn’t have been Adam’s sin from an old earth perspective since Adam was not created yet. Thus he must also provide a reason why God would allow death in an otherwise good creation for millions of  years before Adam.

Ross’ answer is a “two creation” model (1:08:50). God first creates a good (but not perfect) creation which contains and allows for death so that he can eradicate death and make a new perfect creation with no death. So for the imperfect, death- and disease-saturated world, God created the laws of physics like the second law of thermodynamics (which states that, in a closed system, entropy always increases) knowing they would bring death, and these laws of physics—not Adam’s sin—would be the cause of death at least for the millions or billions of years before Adam. In this view, death enters the world through the specific choice of God, making God—and not Adam—responsible for the entrance of death in the world.  According to this view, the God who commanded his people to choose life (Dt 30.19) himself chose death for every creature that he would put in his world. Thus, God didn’t create a “perfect” world, he merely created a “good” world since he himself put death in the world. This slander of God is inexcusable.

Ross’ view sounds very reminiscent of the gnostic heresy, where matter is evil, created by a lesser imperfect god, and we must be freed from the bad influence of this evil material world.  This is why his view is so troubling. Since he’s claiming God himself—and not Adam—is the ultimate cause of death to further his creative purposes. Though it may not be exactly the same as the gnostic heresy, it is just as heretical. God is not the author of sin or death. On the contrary, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” (1 John 1:5 )

Ross believes when death ends, so will the physical laws, like entropy, gravity, electromagnetism which causes death. But there is no Biblical reason to believe that. The picture of the new heavens and earth given in Rev 22.1-2 contains the “river of the water of life” and the “tree of life” whose leaves are “are for the healing of the nations.” Thus the picture is one of eternal life being maintained by the sustaining power of God, as, even now, we are sustained by being in the vine Jesus (John 15.5-6) and as, even now, the Son is sustaining all things (Heb 1.3).  As Moses reminded the Israelites of God’s care in the wilderness:

During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.
(Deuteronomy 29:5)

Just as God sustained the children of Israel through their wilderness wanderings, holding back the effects of entropy without changing or eliminating the laws of physics, likewise he can do so for all his children throughout all eternity without changing the laws of physics. While you can probably think of good reasons to retain laws like gravity and electromagnetism, you may be hard pressed to think of a reason to retain the second law, that of entropy. So let me suggest a solution offered by physicist Brian Cox for a purpose for the law of entropy:

“By saying entropy only increases the second law of thermodynamics is able to explain why time only runs in one direction.”[16]
Brian Cox

Cox speaks of the arrow of time running in only one direction. We may see a glass fall off the table and shatter, but we never see a glass having fallen and shattered, reconstitute itself and fly up to rest on the table again. The reason, Cox suggests, is that the second law makes time flow in only one direction. Thus there is at least one good reason why God may have decided to create and implement the second law and it has nothing to do with death or God supposedly choosing to be the author of death in the world. Sin and death did not come into the world because God elected to put in place the second law of thermodynamics. Sin and death came into the world because Adam sinned, and the penalty for sin is death.

Misdirection #15: His Conclusion
“Only if the Genesis creation days are long time periods, can one hold that all 27 of the Bible’s chapter-length creation texts are literal and consistent.” (59:00)
Or in other words as he puts it, Biblical inerrancy is only defensible from an old earth perspective.

The 27 chapter-length texts he references are the ones listed above in misdirection number 10. Since Ross has been wrong in literally every single step along the way in his arguments and thinking, this is a logical non sequitur when you read the Bible in context. This is particularly true when you consider the evidence of Exodus 20.11:

For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(Exo 20:11)

God lays down the pattern of life here: work six days, rest on the seventh day. He bases it on the pattern of what he did during the creation week: work six days, rest during the seventh day. If, as Ross claims, each day is an extended period meaning millions or billions of years, how do you make sense of this command? Humans would live the entirety of their lives in the span of time that Ross has defined as one day. How then can you keep this command?

Conclusion
This has covered just Ross’ opening 20-minute statement, but his comments in the rebuttal period and question and answer period that followed are just as misleading, misguided and just as troubling. The source of authority for Ross is clearly science, not scripture, and if you have any doubts about that you need merely to listen to his five-minute closing summary.(2:02:30) From that you will clearly see that the bulk of Ross’ evidence is from science and particularly from the false Big Bang theory and the supposed evidence that supports it. Ross is so deceived he does not seem to be aware that his interpretation of the data is based on his prior acceptance of the big bang. Consequently, he clearly considers the Big Bang a fact, not a theory. In contrast, Mortenson’s summary is based on what the Bible says.

What has been become clear to me through this review of Ross’ statements and beliefs is, Ross holds science in higher esteem and considers it as having greater authority than scripture. This view of science over scripture has corrupted his view of scripture.  And this corrupted view of scripture has corrupted his view of God, leading him to espouse a position concerning God that the fourth and fifth century councils on the faith would likely have condemned as heretical.[17]

Ross is so thoroughly deceived he can’t even see (or refuses to acknowledge) the sequence and order of appearance of items are radically different between the two. The big bang starts with a “singularity” (a breaking of the laws of physics which Ross claims don’t change) that creates plasma that, after millions of years of darkness, creates stars. The Biblical account begins with an event that starts with water, out of which the earth was formed and light shined on it on day one. Despite these clear and polar opposite differences (and these are just three out of many), Ross claims the sequences are the same (1:53:30) and both here, in this debate (with his reference to “the science”), and for years he has claimed the Bible supports the big bang theory. Which it clearly does not. So he’s either deceived or is willfully ignorant (2 Pe 2.5).  Either way, he should not be teaching or listened to. I put him in the same category that the apostle Paul instructed Titus about false teachers and deceivers:

They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach …
Titus 1.11

Thus, if you are a Christian leader or pastor I advise you to tell your congregants and all who look to you to stay away from the teaching of Hugh Ross. Despite the name of his ministry, there is no reason for them to listen to his modern-day heresy about the origin of death and  his errors about scripture and the age of the earth.

To all I say, the plain meaning of the text, using the grammatical-historical method is the proper way to understand the biblical text. This is affirmed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article XV. Or as a friend, quoting a preacher he heard, told me with regard to understanding scripture:

The main thing is the plain thing.
And the plain thing is the main thing.

You don’t need to be an astrophysicist steeped in modern science to understand Genesis chapters 1 and 2. You merely need to understand that a day, when described as “evening and morning” is a regular day, a 24-hour day, as we would say.

Duane Caldwell  | October 27, 2024 | Printer friendly version
Follow @rational_faith_

Notes
1. The debate was held on Friday Oct 11, 2024 at  Southern Evangelical Seminary
Back

2. Interestingly, the question at the introduction of the debate was announced as:
“Can you hold to Biblical inerrancy and come to different conclusions about the age of the earth” 16:54
That has a slightly different nuance than the question used by Turek to open the debate:
“Does belief in inerrancy necessitate a particular view of the age of the earth.” 21:22
Back

3. Turek has done a number of videos on the age of the earth including one with Stephen C Meyer and William Lang Craig, both who adhere to the old age position – Turek is silent; but one of the clearest indications of  Turek’s old age belief is this video where he indicates like Ross, that you have to consider evidence from nature, meaning our scientific understanding of nature, to understand the age of the Earth.
“Frank Turek Age of the Universe, Age of Earth”, YouTube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoB-YTlgrK4 , Dec 8, 2021
Back

4. Time references are based on the YouTube recording of the livestream on Oct 11, 2024 accessible at:
https://www.youtube.com/live/ciQLb_ei4_0
Back

5. Mortenson’s graphic at 37:26 Reads:
“The story of millions of years is a Satan-inspired, sinners-invented attack on God’s wisdom, goodness, power and truthfulness!”
Back

 6. A line from Marmion, an epic poem by Sir Walter Scott
Back

7. National Library of Medicine, The little-known history of cleanliness and the pioneers of handwashing, Oct 20, 2022, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9632745/#:~:text=Doctors%20did%20not%20routinely%20wash,the%20spread%20of%20puerperal%20fever
Back

8. On Pasteur on Lister:
Weill Cornell Medicine “Courage Under Crisis: Wash You Hands!”
Oct 19, 2020, https://library.weill.cornell.edu/archives-blog/courage-under-crisis-wash-your-hands
Back

9. For the Rational Faith Summary of what has been characterized as Progressive Creation, which it appears Ross subscribes to, see the article:
Creating Confusion: “Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation”, Duane Caldwell, March 19, 2015, https://rationalfaith.com/2015/03/creating-confusion-theistic-evolution-and-progressive-creation/ 

For an article directly from the Reasons website that describes the organization’s belief concerning hominids, see
“Chimpanzee Behavior Supports RTB’s Model for Humanity Origin”, Fazale Rana, June 7, 2007, https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/chimpanzee-behavior-supports-rtbs-model-for-humanitys-origin
Back

10. Reasons to Believe, “Hominids” updated March 1, 2021, https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101/hominids
Back

11. Neanderthals are fully human:

“What we have shown clearly is that we [modern humans] could interbreed with them [Neanderthals], and we could have fertile children. And at least some of these children became incorporated in the human community and reproduced and contributed to present day humans.”
Svante Paabo, geneticist
Max Planck Institute, Leipzig
Nova “Decoding Neanderthals”, WGBH Documentary, 2013

“We’ve been able to construct five or six different Neanderthal genomes. There is strong evidence that modern man and Neanderthals interbred meaning we are the same species by definition.”
Rob Carter, PhD Biology, currently involved in researching and writing on human genetics.
Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, Creation Ministries International Documentary, 2014, (48:43)

 Back

 12. The Moody Bible Commentary, Michael Rydelnik, Michael Vanlaningham, Chicago: Moody Publishers, Kindle edition, Loc 947-954
Back

13<. The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible Authorized King James version, New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, reference notes on Gen 1.2 on “yom”, pps 1-2
Back

 14. In “The Anathematisms of St. Cyril against Nestorius” it is noted:
“for the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of such a word must be determined by the context in which it is used.”
The Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Henry R. Percival, Edited by Paul A. Böer, Veritas Splendor Publications, 2013, Kindle Edition,
p. 304 loc 8036
Back

 15. On context:
“About the only evidence available to us, we must emphasize again, is the context, the thrust of a passage (or even the book) as a whole. With very few exceptions, we will find that the context supports the common usage of a word rather than unfamiliar senses.
Biblical Hermeneutics, Third Edition, Milton Spencer Terry, Cambridge, Ohio: Christian Publishing House, 2021, Kindle Edition, p.81 Loc 2519
Back

 16. Brian Cox, ref from Wonders of the Universe episode “The Cosmos Made Conscious”, BBC/Science Channel documentary, 2011
Back

17. In the “Tome of Leo” written around the time of The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) which dealt with the combining of Jesus’ divinity and humanity, where they concluded that Jesus is one person with two distinct natures (divine and human), the bishop mentions Satan (not God) as the “author of sin and death.” Attributing to God the evil work of Satan (which is essentially what Ross does) would not be approved or taken lightly, just as attributing to Satan the good and miraculous work of the Holy Spirit Jesus called blasphemy (Mark 3.29-30)
“The Tome of Leo” Ref. From The Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Henry R. Percival, Edited by Paul A. Böer, Veritas Splendor Publications, 2013, Kindle Edition, p.351 loc 9342
Back

Image
Wolf in Sheep’s clothing in Lab coat with Bible – AI generated image