Hugh Ross

CA, I have a different take then you do so sorry that I can't answer your question that you pose. My question goes back to how can he believe that God can raise his Son from the dead but that God couldn't have possibly caused a worldwide flood???Take another example from another OEC. Bernard Ramm. He completely believes in the literalness of the Jonah story in the OT. He believes every fact of it, yet doesn't believe scripture when it refers to Gen 1-11.I'll comment more on this as the discussion progresses.....But CA, you have a few different camps in the Christian community regarding this subject...YEC, OEC, TE, and then way left TE who claim Chrstianity but don't even believe that Adam and Eve were real people....i.e. those over at Biologos FoundationI could give you my opinion, and its the opinion of allot of YEC writers as to why a Hugh Ross believes in OEC and not a literal 6 day creationism, and then as to why he doesn't believe in evolution.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

I'm glad you think it's bs too nwr....although I'm sure for different reasons.

I think Jesus would take issue with Ross himself on what he is saying.

As a YEC, I have no use for Ross.....and most creationists that I read don't either.

Ringo, there is a difference between an OEC and a YEC. One believes that there are millions of years in Genesis when it's not stated, one goes by what the first two chapters of Genesis says....Melindoor, I didn't forget you...it takes a longer response.

subbie,very interesting you mention Kurt Wise as i'm a great fan of his...why do you mention him?

K...thanks for your response subbie. I believe Wise is the researcher currently heading the barimology study creationists are undergoing.

Melindoor, your question requires quite a response, as short as it was. I'm a Biblical literalist and inerranst (is that the right word??). I believe God told us exactly what he wanted everyone to know, no matter the time period. In other words, I don't believe the God of the Bible is a God who sat back and said, "well, in the 19th century, they'll finally figure it out".Ross, is one of those guys that for the "need to feel accepted in the scientific community" (amongst tons of others), has come up with a view of Scripture that tries to accommodate fallible man's science (please, I'm not blasting science, nor am I anti-science, it's a comparison with man vs. the God of Scripture). Guys like Ross and Ramm can completely accepted something in Scripture such as the story of Jona, but not Noah's flood or a creation is 6 days....because they adhere to uniformitarianism, and not scripture.Regarding Ross and his view of creation and the sun..First, the Bible doesn't say that the sun was created before the earth and only became visible later. That is an inference made by people (like Hugh Ross) that do not want to take the Bible for what it says.There is a guy I converse with on another website who is a YEC and he had this to say about Ross:"I have read parts of several of Ross's books, which are on my bookshelf at work. I also have read scathing critiques by far better biblical apologists than I. I am an author of Christian science textbooks, so I have to keep up on these things, since the cultural debate we are engaged in is between worldviews and their presuppositions."He further states: "The problem with an old-earth interpretation, which is driven solely by a desire to harmonize Scripture with secular scientific inferences, is that it opens the door to death before the fall, the loss of a historical Adam and Eve, which removes the proximal cause for the entry of sin into the world, and basically makes the first 11 books of the Bible irrelevant or completely unreliable. If you cannot read the Genesis narrative and understand it as hundreds of generations of Jews and Christians have, then the entire foundation of Christianity is destroyed.The so-called 'scientific' evidence for an old earth is based on uniformitarian stratigraphy, radiometric geochronology, and a self-avowed bias against the Bible, first publicly popularized by Hutton and Lyell. The source of the underlying presuppositions for these is an anti-theistic worldview, not empirical science.I have great understanding and longsuffering for people who struggle with sins of the flesh and with their old nature. But Ross is an apostate, who is attempting to destroy the Gods' word, and I have no patience for such as he."Quite frankly, I agree with him.And I'm sure you won't agree with much of what I posted....so, Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Coyote, that's fine if you feel that way. I'm just taking up issue with guys like Ross and Ramm in this thread. These are guys who cherry pick what they want to believe from scripture. You may not believe a single thing in the Bible and I could probably have a better conversation with you then Ross.There's nothing I can say on my part to change your mind and there's nothing you can say to change my mind. You take your presupposition from science, I take mine from Scripture. That in a nutshell is our cavern.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Cosmic, since you stated that a creationist sent you this video, I'm curious as to their position. Are they a "fan" of Ross, are they TE??

frog, you won't find a literalist cherry picking what's true and what's not in scripture. When I discuss this with TE themselves they ALWAYS bring up parables....I agree, there are parables, but they are always clarified as such by Christ himself.TE cherry pick what they think is literal, such as Jonah and the fish, and the flood. Both are written in the same style of writing. Neither is clarified by a statement such as, "and Noah told an allegory.....". Yet, they can believe one, and not the other.

Melindoor, thanks for your post...as usual, well thought out and sincere. I'll try and explain the position that I've taken over the last couple of months through study. Maybe surprisingly, and this may answer most of your questions right off the bat, I've come to my conclusions, not through the study of science, which I'm the layest of laypersons, but more so through theology. For me, I've come to (am coming to) the conclusion of a YEC based on Scripture. I know most here will take issue with this right from the start. But through reading commentaries and books over the last few months, it's strengthened my resolve that Scripture is without error. Not that some minor errors haven't crept in as far as scribing or translation goes, but I mean, errors that would change the meaning of the context. I believe Scripture validates Scripture.For example, Peter mentions the flood refers to it as a literal event. Christ loosely mentions creation and refers to it as a literal event. I feel that people who deny the literalness of the flood, but can yet accept Peter's words in the NT, have a serisous issue with Scriptural "authority". This, I must admit, is where I am at my weakest and where I'm trying to shore up my apologetics so to say. I"m no scientist that's for sure. Interesting though that you brought up Luther and Calvin. I'd have a hard time believing that they would have compromised scriptural authority based on science too. I'm no different, although not nearly as gifted as those two legends. Luther and Calvin would not have chosen #1. I don't think #2 is a viable choice, certainly not for a proclaiming Christian to distort facts for the sake of an argument. Leaving #3 for now......... I agree with what you say here and I'll explain my position. You are right when you say that if there was a fall before the creation, it doesn't destroy Christianity. I believe that Ross and Ramm are Christians and at the very least I'm in no position to judge their hearts. BUT, (I think we've talked about this before), if this is true...IF Adam and Eve are myth or allegory, if the flood is just a version of a Babylonian folk tale, then we've been lied to, not only in the OT, but also throughout the more modern NT. The flood account in Genesis 6-9 is the MOST detailed account of event in ALL OF SCRIPTURE. The detail that the author goes through in those 3 chapters is astounding. And all for a myth?? We are given less detail in things that you would consider literal in scripture! Furthermore, Peter reiterates the account (in less detail) and likens it to the end times....so, will the end times be myth, localized, a select few....or are we being lied to. I have a feeling where this part of the conversation will lead us but I'll wait for your response. I'll retract the harshness of the statement you were referring to. However, history does show quite clearly that it was NOT christian theologians who started the theory of uniformitarianism. Lyell and Hutton were atheists, Darwin used their age of the earth theories to continue his theories on evolution.Do I think there is a vast evolutionary conspiracy out there to crush Christianity?? No, but there are some who would love to see and their science will be biased based on that....this only goes back to my original statement that many christians have compromised scriptural authority to "fit in".FYI, I appreciate your conclusion Melindoor.

Jar, I don't believe that you are one who has embraced science over scripture for a need to fit in....nor do I think the Lyell, Hutton, certainly not Darwin, ect did so either. I should have clarified that I believe the church did so in general. "Evangelicals" is what I'm referring to....As far as searching for Lyell and Hutton, I'll once again stand corrected. Hutton was at best a deist (probably in the vein of Jefferson) and everything I could find on Lyell was pretty sketchy. Huntard, you produced the only conclusive line I could find anywhere including form AiG.....which only stated that Lyell's beliefs led some to believe he was an atheist. So I correct my statement on that guys.....Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.