The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis

Rating:
Summary: What's True's Not New, What's New's Not True
Review: Thanks to the author for bringing to our attention both true things and new things.

Regrettably, what is true isn't new, and what is new isn't true.

Rating:
Summary: INEXCUSABLE EISEGESIS OFFENDING GENESIS
Review: Hugh has given evangelicals a dubious gift by questioning Genesis as-written plaintext uninterpreted by specious sciencism. One could not ask for more Eisegesis (reading what's on his mind INTO the text instead of reading what's on the original author's mind OUT OF the text). Such pseudo-scholarship by an astronomer-exegete-of-science-dominating-scripture shows contra-relation with the Genesis verbatim record. It is such a sad thing to see Genesis as it is without it having to be deformed and contorted as do many old earthers like Reasons to Believe and their sciencism-interpretive disciples. The chapters on a local tranquil flood (why then did Noah even need an ark? Should've moved out of town like Abraham until things settled down locally! Besides, a strictly local flood solely confined to that Mesopotamian basin would have been geologically impossible to prevent from inundating other areas beyond the author's imaginary boundaries!) and misguided mysunderstanding of 'sons of God' (Seth's lineage of godly men who intermarried with ungodly women precipitating the flood) are especially speculative and commend themselves to needing serious Navpress re-editing. This book is bound to offend the Original Author of Genesis Who likely doesn't appreciate all the cosmythologic evolutionary Sagan-Hawking-Asimov-Hubble-sciencetext philosophistry warping Genesis far from what Moses or his audience understood from the Hebrew vocabulary meant in context. Such obfuscation is seen through by non-Christian observers as casting doubt on the historicity of Genesis 1-11, 12-50, Exodus to Revelation, rendering all of Scripture irrelevant as real history and preventing people from coming to the Christ Who is the Word of Genesis 1 Who Worded Genesis 1 the way Moses intended with 6 calendar weekdays Sunday-Friday.
Only Moses' original intent settles how long the first of weekdays went. See Dr. Sarfati's rebuttal of Hugh's eisegesis in Refuting Compromise, and Dr. MacArthur's Battle for the Beginning. Genesis deserves better than this neo-evangelical attempt at a sciencistic commentary eroding scriptural credibility to placate those beholden to billions of years's eon-days that have no semblence to biblical reality.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent apologetic of Genesis
Review: Dr Ross has given the evangelical community a wonderful gift in the 'Genesis Question' A careful and thorough exegesis of the scriptures sees excellent corellation with the scientific record. It is a great thing to see science as it is with out it having to be deformed and contorted as do many young earth creationists (like Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research).

I especially recommend his chapters on the flood as well as the sons of God controversy of Gen 6. This book is bound to equip many Christians with the ability to defend the historicity of Gen 1-11 and from there, the rest of scripture.

Rating:
Summary: Ross' theories are contrived and contorting to the Bible
Review: I used to believe the theory this book propounds supposedly based on solid science evidence. It may be based on gathering and observation of astrophysics data, but the processing of that data through questionable filtering is my big problem.

What it came down to for me was: at the intersection of astrophysics-geology-bioevolution data as understood by Darwin,Huxley,Dewey,Asimov,Sagan,Gould,Hawking,et al. without further vetting/spiritual re-evaluation (Left Turn Only)

and the Holy Bible written by the Holy Spirit as Omniscient Eyewitness using exactly the very words and natural definitions normative in the historical-linguistic context and as commonly understood by believers for 3,000+ years without vetting/re-evaluation/contorting from outside (Right Turn Only)

I turned Right toward the Bible.

If something has to give, it's gonna be scientists' limited grasp of origins and even more limited grasp of the Bible- as is- without distortion and re-interpretive gymnastics.

Just for once, I would dearly love to see some of these redefinition-of-terms and textual analysis techniques applied to all the textbook scientific hypotheses.

There could be a contest: Bible vs. Astronomy Textbook. Take all the arguments for changing the Bible's words to mean what the Textbook says they ought to and reverse the rules. Let's see how the Textbook tolerates being manipulated and having its use of 'day', 'year','stars were made' into 'day = epoch', 'year = astronomical eons', 'stars were made = stars appeared after already pre-existing for billion of years unseen'.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Turkey.

It's not whose theory or interpretation of Genesis is claimed to be biased, contrived, contorted. It's which bias is the best bias to be biased with? Which is compelled to undergo the most contortion to arrive at compromise? Should the Bible even be twisted at all to agree with Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan?

Let the informed, Spirit-led Bible student prayerfully decide.
Try Dr. Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise" for an excellent counter-perspective to this book's disputing compromise.

Rating:
Summary: A Christian astronomy/physics professor loves this book
Review: Hugh Ross and his "Reasons to Believe" group are a great resource for those who want to dispel the incorrect belief that science & the Bible are at odds with each other. I enjoyed this book very much, and have put it on my recommended reading list in my college astronomy class. It is interesting to read Dr. Ross's takes on the Flood, the Nephilim (Gen. 6:4) and the passengers on Noah's ark. While I do not take as gospel (sorry for the pun) every theory he has presented, I do appreciate the opportunity to consider his hypotheses; certainly they are backed by sound science.
Dr. Ross was the first scientist to show me that belief in the Bible does not necessitate belief that the world was created in 4004 BC. In college, while studying physics and astrophysics, I had a very difficult time suspending all the knowledge I was learning about science, in favor of my faith, b/c I (like so many others) assumed that a Christian believes in a 1000s-year-old universe. And yes, I was a believer in that theory, which is most notably presented by Dr. Henry Morris. But it is a highly contrived theory that forced me to contort and deny much of what I knew to be true.

My hope is that non-Christian skeptics and intellectually struggling Christians would read this book and realize that belief in God's perfect Bible does not in any way equal belief in a 1000s-year-old universe.

I also hope that Christians would stop fighting over issues (such as the age of the universe) that really don't matter that much in the context of eternity. The world is dying from sin, and we are supposed to guide them to the truth of Jesus Christ, our one and only Savior. All bets regarding the age of the world can be settled in the next life! :)

Believe in God's Word; all things were created by Him and for Him, to serve His purposes. And He loves you.

Rating:
Summary: Ex-Old Earther realizes Genesis is right, sciencism is wrong
Review: For years I struggled with the age of the cosmos and how recent Earth was created. As a Christian I wanted to take Genesis at face value, but how could I deny what I learned in Astronomy and Geology courses at the university? Progressive creationism seemed for a time to be the answer.I tried to reconcile scientific theory to the Bible and found more and more how Genesis had to be wrenched to speak Science-ese (day = epochs)instead of plain Hebrew (day = day).

This book was sort of the last straw. In good conscience I just couldn't see Genesis contorted beyond recognition in trying to compromise with the textbook-science-theory order of events.
I tried studying Genesis fresh, without outside filters or input biased by modern interpretive paradigms and presuppositions. It was almost like I could hear the Bible's own voice plainly for the first time. God was right. Moses was right. Textbook-science-theory about origins is wrong.

I certainly don't fault sincere Christian writers from trying to win non-Christians to the faith or from trying to integrate Bible faith with science faith. But for me anyway this book borders on embracing Sciencism as a faith different from what Genesis would have us believe based on textual language facts.

It's almost like the author uses astrophysics, etc. as an Additive to the Bible in a way that false religions add something like a book of mormon or science&health with key to the scriptures to authoritatively reinterpret the Bible's plain vocabulary and original language.

Why isn't Genesis believable enough on its own without all the supplements, updates, additives, correctives, external pronouncements and redefinitions to suit extra-Biblical preference?

If I have to choose between linguistic grammar facts in the first chapters of Scripture and textbook-science-theory data outside Scripture, I'm compelled to trust the Word of God over the best theorizing of men.

The only Genesis Question is:DID GOD REALLY SAY 6 ORDINARY DAYS?
So it would seem.



Rating:
Summary: A Young Earth Convert
Review: I was brought to faith in Christ through the teachings of Henry Morris' "The Genesis Record" - a book that explained a theory in how science and the Bible are not enemies. I had some remaining questions about how much of secular science could be wrong (e.g., Big Bang theory, age of fossils, etc.) but enthusiastically embraced the Young Earth position. While in seminary I was challenged to understand the various positions on theological topics such as age of the earth. I picked up a copy of "The Genesis Question" wanting to understand the Old Earth argument from their own mouths, although at the time I was confident that Old Earthers were demonically influenced and Hugh Ross was a goat not a sheep (this was what I was taught by my Young Earth friends). After reading chapter one, I began thinking "this guy is making a lot of sense." But I was scared that I would have to abandon my belief in the Bible to accept anything other than a 6,000 year old earth. Ross showed me how I could still believe in a literal interpreation of Genesis, a literal Adam and Eve, still believe the Bible was the inerrant, inspired Word of God AND believe in a 15 billion year old universe. For anyone interesting in learning how you don't have to check your scientific brain at the door to believe in the Bible I encourage you to check out this book!

Rating:
Summary: Arguments all hinge on redefining the Genesis 'Day'
Review: Genesis 1 gives us 6 consecutive times an Evening-Morning Day usage. Looks like a week of weekdays to the unscientifically biased reader (Young Planet, even younger star systems)

Secular scientific theorizing gives us billions of years. (Old Planet, even older star systems)

Here, the author tries to resolve two separate, conflicting equations by the following:

6 Young yoms = Bible Age of Earth; 4.6 bil.yrs.= Secular Age

Progressive Creationist's 'solution':

6 Old yoms = Bible AND Secular Age of Earth (4.6 bil.yrs)

What's the solution? Redefining yom from Young to Old.

It may solve the equation, but at the expense of changing KEY Variable of Yom. That means changing the Bible itself.

As a Genesist, it is best not to alter the Bible, but let it's divine equation speak for itself without tampering or forced harmonization to secular understanding.

John Mac Arthur's BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING is recommended instead as uncompromising to the Genesis text in situ.