Rating: 
Summary: Hugh Does it Again
Review: Once again, Hugh Ross has promoted his misunderstanding of the Bible. He has started with the premise that science has accurate answers that trump anything that seems to disagree, and earnestly seeks minutiae upon which to conform the Bible to science.
But it is quite likely that the paradigm that science purports is, in fact, quite wrong. There is pretty good evidence that the sun is not primarily fueled by nuclear processes, and so is very young, for instance. (There are hundreds of anomalies such as this. Just one ought to be enough, as one exception is enough to disprove any theory.)
Hugh focuses on distinctions such as the difference between 'bara' and 'hayah,' missing the plain reading for concentrating on itty-bitty details.
Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus, and his commentary in Exo. 20:9-11 shows, (just in case you missed it in Genesis...), that God created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them in 6 real, literal days, Hugh Ross notwithstanding.
In Hugh's world, science and physics call the shots, with God breathlessly running along side saying, "I did that; it's Me!"
Hugh Ross' God is a pathetic imitation of the God that created heaven, earth and you.
Hugh Ross is interesting, but woefully mistaken.
Rating: 
Summary: Genesis is not necessarily myth.
Review: This is the book that caused me to re-evaluate my having been an atheist for 20 years. I don't think that my having been an atheist gives any more credence to my arguments or my positive opinion of the book, but my point is that this book was good enough to make me start considering that I might have been wrong my entire life.If you're a total skeptic, it's not going to make you drop to your knees and beg for forgiveness from God. If you're a questioning Christian, it's not going to have answers to all of your questions. What it will do if you are either is show you that Genesis is not necessarily false, and that the common belief of science vs. religion is more accurately summed as scientists vs. fundamentalists, with the two subjects actually quite able to support each other. The first half of the book does a fantastic job of this, giving numerous scientifically sound arguments about the origins of the Earth. What I found most impressive was that these arguments did not require much reaching or stretching at all, they were quite straight-forward and not very interpretative at all. The second half does stray slightly, as the analysis gets further and further into the Bible. What complete skeptics need to keep in mind, however, is that the book was not -just- written for atheists; it was written to address a wide audience, so some of the chapters treat arguments put forth by various Christian sects, and they are written as such. With all of that said, I fully recommend this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Science meets Religion (and get along!)
Review: I'm not usually big on books apologetic in nature, but what I like about Dr. Ross's are that they are written by a Christian for other Christians primarily. Dr. Ross does a nice job in this book of presenting material from the scientific community in order to bring harmony between science and religion. This book focuses on Genesis and primarily with the creation account. If you're open minded enough to at least consider a Christian oriented approach to science outside of the traditional approaches by the group founded by Henry Morris this book should challenge you. Ross' spin on Genesis comes primarily from a challenge to the context in which these passages appear that is a refreshing change to the "science" that looks for obscurities that generally drive nothing but a wedge between the scientific community at large and theologians. It's time to stop ignoring the science that is prevalent in the world and realize that these discoveries should promote faith not hinder it. This book's pragmatic approach may just be the ignition needed.
Rating:
Summary: Let reason prevail
Review: Dr. Ross is a world-class Astronomer/ Physicist and his work holds up scientifically as well as theologically. I would chastise the "Young Earthers" who so vociferously attack Ross and books. While Ross may occasionally mis-state all of the Young Earthers' points of view, that does not invalidate HIS ideas. The literal day and day-age debate needs to taken seriously and with civility- something often missing from the Young Earthers. What is most convincing to me (though Ross doesn't make as strong a point of it as I would) is that God is not deceptive, tricky or out to confuse us. Therefore one would expect the revelation of nature to be fairly clear, straightforward and there as a strong witness to God's design, plan and orderliness. That perception of God and the revelation of nature more easily fits with an Old Earth perspective. If we take a literal 6-day view (and all its likely suspensions of the laws of nature) I would see a god that didn't want us to understand and appreciate his creation. While we may not completely understand the record of nature and while Big Bang Creationism (as it stands now) may not have it all perfectly right, we have to believe that the truth is closer to the Old Earth perspective- if we are to believe that God intends us to understand his creation and use it as a tool to witness.
Rating: 
Summary: Ross uses secular 'science' to interpret scripture
Review: This is yet another book from leading progressive 'creationist' Hugh Ross. Like many other books by Ross, the main focus of this book is attacking the young earth position and attempting to convince Christians that the evidence for the billions of years (which really is just an interpretation resulting from uniformitarian philosophy) required in secular astronomy and geology is so powerful that the Bible must be made to fit with these ideas. I consider progressive creation a serious threat to conservative Christianity because it claims to be upholding the inerrancy of the Bible, but in reality the Biblical arguments for their position are all completely bogus. Van Bebber and Taylor pointed this out in their response to one of Ross's earlier books and its clear the Biblical text takes a back seat to whatever the latest popular theories in secular astronomy and geology are. But, Psalm 118:8 says it is better to trust in the Lord than to but confidence in man. In fact, Ross knows his biblical arguments for an old earth are unconvincing which is why he wants to canonize nature as a 67th book. By doing this Ross will be able to fit any secular theory into the Bible making the Biblical text plastic and open to any interpretation clearly opening the door to apostasy. Throughout this book Ross gives the impression that he is some kind of Hebrew expert. Yet he fails to inform his audience that he is incapable of saying even basic sentences in Hebrew. In fact he was incapable of saying No in Hebrew in a confrontation with creationist Humphreys. Ross knows using Hebrew will deceive many in his audience since few will be able to challenge him. Yet major English translations of the Bible throughout history were all translated by Hebrew experts and all contradict the day-age/local flood compromise. Even granting the alternate interpretations of Yom in Hebrew allowing for a period of time longer than 24 hours Ross totally fails to justify it Biblically that these 'days' mean millions and billions of years. His 'evidence' mainly comes from the lack of the phrase evening and morning on day 7. This hardly justifies a 'literal' interpretation of overlapping days of billions of years. The book doesn't even mention the most relevant verse, Exodus 20:11, on how long the creation days were. By accepting an old Earth comes very serious theological consequences. The most serious consequence being the death of higher animals before sin. Not plants which young earth creationists accept, but the death of birds, mammals and reptiles. This clearly is contrary to Genesis 1:30 which teaches no carnivorous activity before the fall. Ross attempts to find good out of animals eating other animals and claiming it is a necessity (p. 97-98). However, he interprets Isaiah 65:25 referring to a future kingdom were all carnivorous activity will stop. So if God is capable of eliminating carnivorous activity then, and still maintaining a better creation than we have now, all his argument are spurious on how carnivorous activity was a necessity before the fall. Worst of all is Ross's position on the dating of humanity. Secular theories date mankind arriving several million years ago. Since the Bible uses a strict chronology from Adam to Jesus this gives old earthers huge problems. Ross has two solutions. First, he concludes Neanderthals and Homo Erectus were not fully human since they date far too late for him. Second, he allows for gaps in the chronology allowing up to 60,000 to 100,000 years between Adam and Jesus. Both solutions have serious problems. The evidence for the full humanity of especially Neanderthals is compelling since they likely used language, developed sophisticated tools, buried their dead, interbreed with what Ross would consider modern humans and had brains larger than what are consider modern humans. So Ross has these very complex human-like creatures going extinct as part of God's very good creation unrelated to Adam's sin. Second, the gaps in the chronologies are completely unjustified since the age of the father is mentioned at the birth of the son. Even if begat could refer to grandson or great grand son, etc as Ross claims it still does not allow for more time because the age given of the descendant must refer to how old he was when the child was born or the numbers given are completely meaningless. God must have put them in for a reason. To be consistent with an old earth Ross must downgrade the flood account in Genesis. Since the evidence for an old Earth is interpreted in the rocks that leaves no room for a global flood. Most of his attacks on the global flood interpretation are, as usual, on what he sees as scientific problems. Most of these are blatant misrepresentations and gross caricatures of what creationists actually teach. For instance Ross refuses to get the information issue on the rapid post-flood adaptation model in the young earth position again claiming creationists embrace evolution. One of Ross's main sources for his position, Gleason Archer, a Hebrew scholar, agrees the Bible clearly teaches a global flood. It is clear that this book is a testament to how futile it is to try to make the Bible fit with billions of years and uphold inerrancy. Christians should trust in the Lord who was there and not worry about the lack of acceptance from unsaved men.
Rating:
Summary: This is a five-star book
Review: The average rating for this book is only 3 stars because young-earth creationists have been stuffing the review box here. The books they recommend are put out by the Institute for Creation Research (a young-earth "think tank") and similarly-minded sources/writers. I have read many of the books they recommend and find that they do not wash, scientifically or Biblically. Dr. Ross is not the only Christian who holds to the old-earth view. Others who do include Forster and Marston (Reason, Science and Faith) and Wonderley (e.g. Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings). I also recommend Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, edited by Dembski. The modern young-earth creationist movement has made aggressive inroads into Christian thought, especially since the 1960's. This does not make it correct, only very good at marketing itself. Readers, prayerfully study both sides of this issue before deciding who is "right".
Rating:
Summary: Progressive Creation is not Darwinism
Review: Most hard-core 6-day, young earth creationists will absolutely hate this book. The thought is that the historical church has always taught from a young earth perspective. The fact is that a large number of great figures in chuch history held vastly different ideas about the age of the earth and the six days of creation. Ross' progressive creationism, or day-age theory, is not a new idea. Most young earthers hear "billion year old universe" and immediately connect it to Darwinian evolution. Hugh Ross is not proposing Darwinism. In fact, his position adamantly opposes Darwinism and gives the Christian real, scientific evidence to discredit it. Although I don't agree with everything that Hugh Ross teaches, I think we have to consider the possibility of the day-age theory. In an evangelical world where Christians are called to deny all scientific knowledge of the age of the universe, Ross' treatment of the Genesis creation account is a refreshing look at how science does not oppose Biblical Christianity.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy of your consideration
Review: I found this book a provocative challenge to my traditional fundamentalist interpretation of the "Genesis event" in chapters 1 - 13. Written in a logical, intelligent and thoughtful manner by a man(brother) who has overcome the insurmountable odds of modern American intelligence'a (SIC). A miracle for sure and a testimony of God's grace to convert not only the 'vile sinner', but the intelligent 'heathen' who are just as needy. Don't be bothered as some by the fact that Dr. Ross doesn't speak fluent Hebrew. If that were a prerequisite, the Old Testament would be a closed book to most Gentiles. Dr Ross presents compelling evidence from the original Hebrew text for his arguments and at the end of the day it does not contradict the continuity of scripture on this matter. It challenges some of our traditional thinking on the subject and perhaps that's a good thing. It's a good read for those interested in not only the how, but the why of the Creation as well.
Rating:
Summary: This man does not know hebrew/greek or science
Review: Another book by Hugh Ross is not needed. The man is inept when it comes to the Biblical languages as was proved when in a debate he was asked by Russel Humphreys if he spoke hebrew. Dr. Humphreys asked this in hebrew and Hugh Ross had no idea what was said. Dr. Ross also fails to take into consideration his theological contradictions in his reasoning. A book outlining the theological errors of believing Dr. Ross is: Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, the authors are Mark Van Bebber & Paul S. Taylor. This is a much better book. ...Do not waste any more time with the logical errors of Hugh Ross
Rating:
Summary: THE GENESIS QUESTION by Dr. Hugh Ross
Review: THIS BOOK IS EXCELLENT ! Hugh Ross shows that the Bible and GOD's creation (as observed in the heavens and other physical pheomena) are in beautiful harmony - as they must be. He stresses that since GOD does not lie or misguide, both the Bible and HIS creation must reveal the same TRUTH. A believer in Biblical inerrancy, he continually puts his scientific observations to the test of Scripture (often referencing original Hebrew text). 'The Genesis Question ' is a combination of good theology and good science ......a refreshing addition to current books on GOD and science.
| 
