Rating: 
Summary: A Matter of Days
Review: "A Matter of Days" could also be titled, "A Matter of Interpretation" because this is what this book is really about-a matter of which interpretation of the biblical and natural record is the correct one. The hub of the controversy involves the meaning of a creation 'day' as noted in Genesis. Young earth leaders claim that each creation day was strictly a 24-hour period. Do their claims have solid proof- or does the data point to the days of creation to be long epochs? Utilizing historical, biblical, theological and scientific data, the author Dr. Hugh Ross helps the reader answer this question. Surrounding the 'hub' of the controversy are lightening strike subjects like, "Doesn't belief in an old earth equate a belief in evolution?", "Was there any kind of death before the fall of Adam?", "Does the Bible speak of a "big bang" of creation?" and "Is God's plan a restored paradise (like Eden) or a whole brand new creation?" Mindful of people's feelings about each of these subjects, the author masterfully and humbly leads the reader to logical conclusions.
I would say that the last chapter really shows how fair Dr. Ross is willing to be with such a controversial subject of 'Old Earth vs. Young Earth'. He recommends that the church and the world outside evaluate the different creation models in an objective, easy to apply and understandable way. He notes that effective models help explain how and why particular phenomenon arises and that they are capable of predicting future discoveries and anticipating breakthroughs. With this in mind, the author provides two sample, non-exhaustive models of the Young Earth view and Old Earth view respectively. This provides the reader an objective way to analyze, over time, which model best represent reality. This book is like a breath of fresh 'common sense' to anyone who has been touched in some way by the controversy. I highly recommend that you read it.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, some sense on this issue.
Review: A reasoned presentation of a third position on the creation/evolution debate too often drowned out by louder voices. Ross, one of the few writers with an understanding of both science and theology, thoughtfully and factually addresses the concerns and protests of both factions. Those whose minds are made up won't like it, but those who wonder if there is any compatiblity between the biblical accounts and the scientific evidence will find much food for thought here.
Rating: 
Summary: Heavy on Secular Theory, Light on Proper Exegesis
Review: As someone trained in secular astrophysics, the author does a commendable job of trying to persuade colleagues to consider how God fits in the equation.Sadly, in the process of trying to be winsome to the scientific community, Biblical exegesis gets the back seat, even the trunk. Moses' words are reinterpreted to mean something they were never originally intended to. Genesis says its own piece. Secular scientific inquiry about origins says the polar opposite. There is no reconciliation between the Wisdom of God and the speculations of men. Any attempt like this book to do so actually compromises both (ask any evolutionist/Big Banger who rejects the Bible as credible. The Bible for them simply cannot fit the evolutionary scheme. Likewise, the secular scheme cannot be made to fit the Bible.) John 20 uses this expression to tell us about Christ's resurrection: "On the first day of the week.." To be consistent, try and apply the author's secular academic training and creative 'exegesis' to John's words just like he does with Moses' words in Genesis 1 "first day". If John means a 24-hr Sunday, Moses means a 24-hr Sunday. If as Dr.Ross believes Moses means "eon", "vast geologic age", "indefinite time period of great length", then John's use of the term is also called into question. Let all diligent Bible students practice less Eisegesis (reading outside definitions/control beliefs into the text) and more Exegesis (letting ONLY the Bible itself define its own terms without outside secular interference). It will take more than books like this to persuade committed Bible students to read things into the Bible that don't naturally come from within the sacred text itself, such as the normal, natural, ordinary, straightforward, plain definition of Day, also used in 1:16 "signs, seasons, DAYS, years". Book not recommended for uncompromising Scripture understanding.
Rating: 
Summary: Some good points raised
Review: I agree with the reviewer who said there's lots of food for thought here, he does address the Biblical issues without avoiding them, though I think some of the statements he makes are off the mark.
For example, Ross mentions that Augustine thought the creation days were different than the days we know (he did), but then he includes Irenaeus and Basil in support of non-24-hour creation days, when that that is incorrect, they only meant that earth's history could be divided into long days, not that the creation days were like that. But mentioning Augustine is important.
And he doesn't make his point about the possible gaps in the genealogies completely clear, I think that is a strong point of the book, we need to hear that "'became the father' can mean 'became the ancestor'" shows that the next listed descendant in the Genesis genealogies may have had other generations between them, *without* a contradiction in the number of years given for how long each person lived, or when they had their son.
That wasn't real clear, what I just said, myself...
But he makes good points, and gives, I think, good reason to hold to a day-age view of the Genesis account.
Rating:
Summary: AT LAST- A Rational Response to Young Earth Groups
Review: In this outstanding book, Dr. Hugh Ross gently yet firmly responds to the young earth community's (YEC) strange Biblical exegesis, and even stranger "flat earth" science approach to the creation of the universe. Without compromising Biblical inerrancy, the author makes the Biblical and scientific case for the "big bang" and long creation days, and at the same time responds to every major YEC claim. Absolutely outstanding! At last, the Christian community has an authoritative, well documented response to this huge YEC embarrassment.
Rating:
Summary: Rejecting Genesis is not a position, but a dysposition
Review: Mr. Ross insists on rejecting Genesis as actual history & science. He overlays his anti-biblical-evolutionary-education-premises onto the Genesis text to come up with a "third position" between Genesis as-written and Evolution as-written in textbooks. The end result is a Rossian dysposition neither truly Genesistic nor evolutionistic, a misbegotten hybrid. Trying to tell Genesis what it should mean and say to a modern scientific-skewed person is just another anti-Genesis posturing. It's sad to see a well-intentioned Christian, confused and self-deceived about Genesis' plaintext accuracy, contribute to the confusion/deception of those not trained astrophysicists. But the PhD authoritativeness does not override the Word of God's authentication.
"Heaven and earth (and pseudo-scientific speculative astronomic theories and Genesis-editing) will pass away, but My (Jesus') Word will not pass away." Genesis stands intact as is. Rossism is a masquerading stand-in imposter impersonating God's own truth.
Rating:
Summary: Theistic evolution masquerading as `literal Genesis'
Review: Once again Hugh Ross has written another book attacking those who take the Bible as the infallible written revelation of the Creator. His RTB ministry primary focus seems to be to cause division among Christians. Using his usual scare tactics claiming a `young earth' reading of the Bible will cause `scientifically-informed' people to reject the Bible. Though he doesn't say it directly, Ross's message is clear. If you believe the Earth is about 10,000 years old you are just to dumb to understand the complexities of evolutionary science. Ross elevates the evolutionary interpretation of astronomy and geology to scripture. It must be used as our authority to decode the written word not the standard rules of hermeneutics. Though he tries to separate evolutionary geology from biology (p. 131) he fails to realize both start with the same unbiblical assumption of materialism as true. Ross likes to claim that only his position is capable of converting secular people skeptical of Christianity, ignoring the thousands and thousands of people who prove him wrong. In reality the atheist who reviewed this book earlier on Amazon, David Mills, is a great example of how secular people really see his apologetics for what it is. Nothing more than a desperate attempt to try to get some intellectual respectability and still believe in Biblical miracles.
He opens the book as a peace seeker portraying himself in the usual martyr role. Yet throughout the book he can't help but take shots at the young earth position calling it 'damaging to the faith' (p. 39), 'a hinderance' (pg. 38), implying they use 'deception' (pg. 206), are 'dishonest'(pg. 125) and are `nonthinkers or even as antiscience or antirational' (p. 16) . He claims literal creationists are dogmatic on the age of Earth only allowing a window from 6,000 to as high as 50,000 years. But yet he doesn't apply the same criticism to himself insisting the date of `creation' of the Earth be 4.6 billion years and the age of the universe being 13.7 billion plus or minus .2. So in actuality its his position that is far more dogmatic allowing less room for error than the young earth one. In this book he pleads for tolerance of other views on Genesis but asks all young earth creationists to surrender to his view.
In his chapter on toward a better interpretation he correctly identifies ways to determine the proper interpretation of scripture, although at times its hard to determine what he means (p.65). However after stating ways to interpret scripture with scripture he determines how we can falsify interpretations of scripture (p.67). What's his answer? Science of course. The interpretation that is not in harmony with 'science' must be rejeted. Of course what he means by science is what ever the latest fashionable secular theories are on the evolution of the universe. Apparently there is no way to falsify his interpretation based on the standard rules of hermeneutics. What he ultimately does is undermine apologetics by using such circular logic. The atheist can easily see that this philosophy makes Bible inerrancy free from refutation.
Perhaps the most amusing part of the book is his statement in the chapter on the scientific case for a young earth. On pg. 185 he claims that many young earth objections are so technical that many lay people are unable to evaluate them. Yet he never applies the same objections to himself. Apparently lay people should have no trouble understanding the technicalities of general relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear decay, stellar fusion, thermodynamics, etc. that he uses to support an old earth but those young earth arguments are just too technical for the average lay person to even evaluate. But what's far worse are his `biblical' arguments for an old cosmos. Nearly ever time he tries to make a case for an old earth interpretation of scripture he goes to the highly technical aspects of Hebrew which he has zero formal training on. Where is his concern for losing his lay audience on this very important aspect? But the careful reader doesn't need advance training in Hebrew to see Ross doesn't know what he is talking about. On pg 75 Ross argues against the Hebrew word olam being a possible way of demonstrating long ages in Genesis since according to him it always means forever except in post biblical times. But about 40 pages later (pg. 113) he argues against the idea that the earth will exist forever by claiming that olam means a long time and not necessarily forever. He also says yom is the only word to refer to a long time period (p. 76) yet later (p. 83) he argues how the bible describes the long time period the Earth has existed without using yom.
I highly advice every Christian who reads this book to also check out Jonathon Sarfati's book `Refuting Compromise'. If you want to be informed on this important issue its best to hear an accurate presentation of both sides. Sarfati does an excellent job of dismantling most of the errors in Hebrew and the historical understating of Genesis that Ross has once again sadly misrepresented.
Rating:
Summary: There was no churchwide Genesis controversy pre-Darwinianism
Review: Rated 5* if it resolved the controversy. It didn't.
Rated 4* if it really is just a matter of simple days. It isn't.
Rated 3* if naturalistic godless science theory of origins, Darwinianism evolution: "goo through zoo to you knew who" and modern astrophysics misassumptions is Genesis'original real message. It's not, actually.
Rated 2* if author allows Moses' evening & morning sort of days in the Hebrew language can also mean 24 hr calendar days. He says NO WAY.
Rated 1* if the book and its supporters are sincere believers, but sincerely wrong as Bible revisionists. Yes, sadly, yes.
See Caputo's commentary on Genesis (conservative Jewish scholar from Hebrew University in Jerusalem) and Dr. Sarfati's Refuting Compromise expose' of this book and its misguided hybridizing synthesis of God's Word plus man's words into clay plus iron crumbly composite that doesn't hold water or consistency.
The farther back in time and the farther away in space scientists and their presuppositional secular equationing, uninformed by the Holy Spirit's textual discernment of spiritual truths received by faith beyond mere naturalistic methodology, try to go with starry lightyears and primeval world when dinosaurs ruled 65 million years pre-Adam, the farther away they get from the Bible's plain record that needs no modern re-interpretation. Scripture tampering is a very serious offense (Rev.22:18 warning). May God forgive those not knowing what they do!
Rating:
Summary: Big Bang is Biblical Bust
Review: Science's 'big bang' is a biblical bust, a whimsical whimper best left undiscussed. Genesis clearly says it was a WORD, not cosmic self-exploding that first stirred the universe from nothingness to be a recent history's creativity. Take reason's billioned years and lay them bare against the WORD of God's Son Who was there. He proves that It Is Written in 6 Days of am/pm houring - one week's phase - He made the earth from water, then the sky, and on Wednesday the sun, moon, stars shined high, taking the light that already set clocks arranging earth's solstice and equinox, and put it into astronomic spheres before light-instants down-switched to light-years.
Rating:
Summary: Finally!
Review: The latest book by Dr. Ross treats the age of the earth controversy in a way most of us cannot - with repect and charity. But this book doesn't just tell us why the old earth view is more plausible from a scientific standpoint, although it does that well. Dr. Ross does several things unique to the whole controversy.
He not only uses science to support his interpretation of Genesis, he uses the Bible itself. He takes us out of Genesis One (a stronghold for those of young earth persuasion) and into other creation accounts in the Bible showing that they too support an old earth interpretation. And he is not bound by the English translation, but goes right to the Hebrew translations of eminent world-class Hebrew scholars.
He also does the correct thing at the end of the book by laying out predictions. If the young earth interpretation of Genesis is correct, then there are many things that will be revealed in the coming years (e.g. there will be fewer and fewer scientists accepting the big bang model, or, more actual scientific evidence will support a thousand-of-years-old universe). On the other hand if the universe is old, more and more evidence will be revealed to support that (e.g. radiometric dating will prove more accurate and reliable, the big bang model will stand up even stronger under new evidence, etc.)
Here is my prediction: The dyed-in-the-wool young earth creationists will not read it, but they will reject it as heretical, never the less. Many people who are undecided will read it and because of the beautiful logic, ease of reading, and Dr Ross' general tone of reconciliation and harmony and his uncompromising love for God, will be convinced that both the Bible and what we see around us in nature are from the same One.
|
