CreatorsPixels wrote:I was quite taken back to hear your embrace of Hugh Ross during your little study this week and that got me thinking. I have always held to the Biblical fact of the 6 day recent creation, just as it is plainly stated in the Bible. I know that Hugh Ross is against this notion for some reason. While you may be able to be wrong in one area and right in another, it certainly lessens your credibility to a good degree. I am curious, first if you were aware of Dr. Ross's stance on creation and second, what is your personal belief? While I don't pretend to know much about Hugh Ross, I have yet to find any incorrect information on the site I pull this information from. Please reference it for my reasoning as I really can't do it justice myself.
You bring up some really good points, each of which could be a unique and lengthy topic if I try to respond exhaustively. I'll do my best to respond to a couple of your thoughts and try to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
Ultimately, I'm interested in truth. I'm not devoted to Hugh Ross in any way, and read his material with great care. I'm devoted to truth, whoever is presenting it.
I'm aware of Ross's main thinking regarding creation and read through half (or was it all?) of one of his books on that subject, though the issue has not been a particular area of study for me.
In high school I read a book by Ken Ham that I enjoyed very much and sat in the young-earth camp for awhile, as I had my entire life before then. As you said, it always seemed to be that the Bible "plainly" taught a 6, 24-hour day creation time-line. But as I've looked into the issue some more, particularly as it pertains to the original Hebrew words used to describe the creation event, I've concluded that there is plenty of room for an old-earth view that is consistent with the Bible.
Please note that I do not consider myself a staunch supporter of the old-earth view. But neither am I one of the young earth view. Based on the knowledge I have, it's inconclusive. But I certainly do not think that the old-earth view is a twisting of scripture, and I would say that I currently lean in that direction with 75%-90% confidence.
To even come to this "midway point", I had to get significantly outside of my comfort zone. But in the end the evidence had to be given weight more than my feelings. So here I am. And always willing to re-examine the evidence.
As I've sorted through some of this in recent years, I have noticed a disturbing difference in tone when I compare materials from "Answers In Genesis" to materials from Hugh Ross and "Reasons To Believe". The material from AIG(including the page from the link you posted) tends to use small doses of overstatement and imprecise language that seems to be emotionally loaded and slightly passive-aggressive. Granted, as I said earlier, truth is truth no matter the vehicle. But if the language used in this discussion is imprecise or overstated, the true details under examination become clouded.
I would suggest reading material from both sides of the issue until you are convinced you've learned what you can. As far as Hugh Ross goes, "A Matter Of Days" is a pretty good presentation of his view on creation.
I hope that's helpful! Thanks.