A
friend, a good friend, gave me a copy
of Dr. Hugh Ross’s Creation and Time.
I specify a good friend, not
because the book is particularly helpful but because he is a good friend in trying to help me
out. The fact is I have been given this
book on more than this one occasion. But
it has been a few years.
Being
one of those pesky young-earthers, as
he likes to call us, Ross speaks quite disparagingly of us. He references the views of young-earthers
without footnote (e.g. p46 & 47) while footnoting the real scientists he uses for support.
But
the big irritation is the way he uses the Scriptures. Ross glosses over passages, pulling out some
validating idea that really has nothing to do with the passage he is dealing
with. And there’s a lot of what we call circular reasoning which is, as we also
know, empty logic. Case in point!
In Ch. 5 he is trying to show that the
Bible allows for the word day to
refer to an age and not just a 24-hour period with an evening and a morning (a
point I don’t dispute, as long as the context does not indicate a 24-hour day).
I am on p49-50 so you can read it for
yourself. Here’s what I consider the
relevant quote:
Supporting evidence for the seventh day as an ongoing period
of rest from creating comes from John 5:16-18.
… His Father works “to this very day” even though this very day is part
of His Sabbath rest period. God – both
the Son and Father – honors His Sabbath by ceasing from the work of
creating. The Sabbath does not preclude
healing people any more than it precludes a man from changing his baby’s diaper
on his day off from work.
First,
this passage in no way is supporting
evidence for the seventh day as an age.
You have to assume we are in that seventh age which is the very point
Ross is trying to prove. Circular
reasoning!
Second,
Jesus is saying absolutely nothing about the length of a day, of course. But if you wish to relate it to the age day debate it actually says the
opposite. The reference to His and the Father’s working to this day would be a violation of the Father’s own
statement that He rested on the seventh
day from all His work which He had done (Gen. 2:2).
Third,
how are you going to explain this healing miracle (of a man paralyzed
thirty-eight years) as well as the turning the water to wine? Are these in any sense creative acts? Before you
say “no” consider the point that Jesus did make after this miracle. To Him it is proof that He gives life (v21) and that He has life in Himself (v26). This miracle, and the one in John 2, show
that He is the Creator, who made all things and whose life is the light of men (John 1:3-4).
My
point is not to settle any question about the length of days. It is to call us to integrity in the
interpretation of Scripture. Let us not
get so wrapped up in proving a point that we distort the Scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment