|
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 on
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: Does Belief in Inerrancy Necessitate
a Particular View Of The Age Of the Earth?
Archive
Reference
markers:
Start 15.26
To emcee Frank Turek 16.30
Introduction of Terry
Mortenson 17:27
Introduction of Hugh Ross
18:37
Definition Biblical inerrancy
Mortenson: 19:45
Definition Biblical inerrancy Ross:
20:15
Mortenson start: 21:40
Ross Start 41:15
Hidden Questions and Assumptions
Right off the bat you
can see a pervasive problem common
to those who hold to the old earth
position: hidden questions,
assumptions or agendas that a
statement addresses without
explicitly stating the problem.
Answers are couched in terms to
address the hidden assumption which
leads to either a mistaken answer or
a misleading understanding or
presentation of a concept since the
context is not properly understood
or disclosed. We see the first
example of this in Turek's opening
of the debate when he gives the
positions that the debaters will
defend. Turek introduces the debate
with: "On the topic, 'Does belief in
inerrancy necessitate a particular
view of the age of the earth?' Dr
Mortenson will argue yes, and Dr
Ross will argue no." (21:22)
[4] |
Contents
Hidden Questions and
Assumptions
Misdirection #1: No
debate about Earth age
Misdirection #2: No
Young Earth Evidence
"Both Sides Agree" Misdirections
Misdirection #3: Both
Sides Agree: 14 billion years too
short for life
Misdirection #4: Both
Sides Agree: All humans are
descended from Adam and Eve
Misdirection #5: Both
sides agree: Verb placements in
Genesis 1:1-2 permit a Gap
Misdirection #6: Both
sides agree: "The four literal
definitions for yom (day) in Genesis
1 include a long but finite period
of time"
Misdirection #7: Both
sides agree: Sola Scriptura
Misdirection #8: Two
books of Revelation: The Bible and
Nature
Misdirection #9: The
Laws of Physics are unchanging (but
YECs require they change)
Misdirection #10: These
are the major creation texts in the
Bible
Misdirection #11:
Evening, Morning Days: Day 7 is not
finished
Misdirection #12: "Do
Any Bible authors directly comment
on Earth's antiquity?"
Misdirection #13: What
about early Church Fathers, What did
they believe?"
Misdirection #14: Death
before sin
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."
Conclusion |
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" mistaken 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 - 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 (whaever
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 be 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. A major problem 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? And 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 the
Hebrew allows a gap between verse 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 3 of the four are used in the
creation narrative. Which brings me to my
point.
How does he know which of the 4 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 2 of the 3
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
denies 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 6, 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. And 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 YEC 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. And 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 times 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 zeroes
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
compliant 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
merit-less 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 seventh 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 7 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's 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. And 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:
|
Passage |
Hebrew |
Root word(s) |
Literal Translation |
modern translation |
|
Job 8.8 |
דוֹר |
dor |
generation or age |
generation or age |
|
Ps 77.5 |
יׅמׅים מׅקֶּדֶם |
yom miqqedem |
Days from the earliest times |
days of old |
| |
שְׁנוֹת עוֹלָמׅים |
shenah olam |
years of eternities (both plural) |
years of ancient times |
|
Is 51.9 |
יׅמׅי קֶדֶם |
yom qedem |
days of antiquity |
ancient days |
| |
דֹּרוֹת עוֹלָמׅים |
dor olam |
generations of eternities (both
plural) |
generations of old |
|
32.7 |
יְמוֹת עוֹלָם |
yom olam |
days of eternity |
days of old |
| |
שְׁנוֹת דוֹר-דוֹר |
shenah dor dor |
years of generation on generation |
generations long past |
| Hab 3.6 |
עַד |
`ad |
Perpetuity, forever, ancient |
ancient |
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. 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 – 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 as
Moses has done,” [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 4th 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 he's willing to accept
someone's interpretation of what the text
means
because it's not what the text says.
So what does the text mean? Ross has once
again missed it because it's seen 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 whole world - meaning all the
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 Usher'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 kosmos.
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.
Likewise in Rom 5.12. Sin entered the world
bringing death with it to the entire world.
And 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 effected (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 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?
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 in a closed
system entropy always increases) knowing
they would bring death, and its these laws
of physics would be the cause of death at
least for the millions or billions of years before Adam
- not Adam's sin. In this view, death enters
the world through the specific choice of
God, making God responsible for the entrance
of death in the world, not Adam.
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. And 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-sequitor 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. And he bases it on
the pattern of what he did during the
creation week - work six days, rest 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 and
scripture. And this corrupted view of
scripture has corrupted his view of God,
leading him to espouse a position concerning
God that the councils of the fourth and
fifth century 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, create 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:
11 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
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.
|
