Exposé of The Genesis Question

Introduction

The book "The Genesis Question" by Hugh N. Ross, a prominent "progressive creationist" (PC), has gained popularity among evangelical Christians. However, it is important to critically examine the claims made in this book, as it contains serious biblical and scientific errors that deceive many people.

Ross's approach to Scripture is based on the authority of uniformitarian science, which promotes a materialistic worldview and billions of years of Earth's history. He attempts to fit this scientific framework into the biblical account of creation, including a local flood, pre-Adamite creatures, and death before sin. While he claims to take a literal reading of the Genesis creation chapters, his interpretation is far from literal.

The Canonization of 'Nature'

One of the major issues with Ross's teaching is his elevation of nature to the same level as Scripture. He treats the uniformitarian interpretation of nature as a canonical 67th book, which he believes should be used to interpret the biblical text. However, Scripture itself warns about the deceitfulness of human thinking and emphasizes the importance of relying on God's Word rather than fallible human theories.

Ross's view has been thoroughly critiqued by other scholars who have pointed out the errors in his approach. They have shown that his attempt to fit billions of years into the biblical narrative is not supported by a careful reading of the text.

Ignorance of Hebrew

Another significant issue with Ross's work is his lack of knowledge in Hebrew, despite claiming expertise in the language. In a meeting with another scholar, he was unable to respond in Hebrew when asked if he spoke the language. This lack of understanding is evident in his argument against identifying behemoth in Job 40:15–24 as a sauropod dinosaur.

Ross incorrectly states that the Hebrew word for "behemoth" appears in its plural form as "behema," when in fact, it is the singular form. He also misinterprets the context of the passage, which clearly describes behemoth as the largest beast God made. Ross's lack of understanding of Hebrew undermines his credibility in making claims about biblical interpretation.

Fanciful Eisegesis

Ross's main goal is to reconcile the Genesis account with uniformitarian astronomy and paleontology, which leads him to engage in fanciful eisegesis. He attempts to reinterpret the creation days as long periods of time to fit them into the billions-of-years framework.

However, his interpretation ignores the clear indication in Genesis that each day has a specific start and end time. The phrase "evening and morning" is used to mark the boundaries of each day, emphasizing their literal nature. Ross's attempt to redefine the meaning of "day" in this context is unsupported by sound exegesis and undermines the plain reading of the text.

Days of Creation

Ross argues that the word "day" in Genesis can have a non-literal meaning because it is used figuratively in other contexts. However, this argument fails to consider the specific context of Genesis 1 and the repeated emphasis on "evening and morning" as markers of each day.

The clear indication from the text and its use in Exodus 20:8–11 is that the creation days were ordinary 24-hour periods. The attempt to reinterpret them as long ages is not supported by biblical evidence or grammatical analysis.

The History of Mankind

Ross's dating of Adam at around 35,000–47,000 BC contradicts the clear genealogical record in Scripture, which places Adam around 4000 BC. Jesus himself affirmed this timeline when he referred to "the beginning of the creation" and mentioned Adam and Eve.

Ross's position also requires accepting evolutionary dates for other hominids, which contradicts biblical teaching about the uniqueness of humans as made in the image of God. The biblical genealogies and historical records do not support Ross's view, and his arguments against a young-earth timeline are based on flawed interpretations.

The Flood

Ross's view of a local flood is inconsistent with the biblical evidence for a global flood. The biblical account clearly describes the floodwaters covering all the high mountains and destroying all living creatures on the face of the earth.

The attempt to interpret "all the earth" and "whole world" in a non-global way is unsupported by the frequent use of the Hebrew word "kol" (all, every) in the flood account. The language used in Genesis 7 emphasizes the universality of the flood, making it clear that a local flood interpretation is incompatible with the biblical text.

Too Little Room for the Animals?

Ross raises objections to the feasibility of fitting all animal species on Noah's Ark, but these objections have been thoroughly addressed by creationist researchers. He misrepresents creationist views by claiming they believe in taking two of every single species on board. However, creationists understand that Noah only needed to take two representatives of each kind, not every species.

The number of catalogued fossil species is far lower than Ross suggests, and many so-called fossil species are likely just variations within a kind. Creationist research has shown that rapid speciation within kinds can account for the diversity we see today.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hugh Ross's book "The Genesis Question" contains serious biblical and scientific errors that deceive many Christians. His approach to Scripture elevates uniformitarian science over the authority of God's Word and leads to a misinterpretation of biblical texts.

Ross's lack of knowledge in Hebrew undermines his credibility in making claims about biblical interpretation. His attempts to fit billions of years into the biblical narrative through fanciful eisegesis are unsupported by sound exegesis and ignore the clear indicators of a literal interpretation.

Christians should critically examine the claims made in Ross's book and rely on a faithful reading of Scripture rather than fallible human theories. The biblical account of creation and the flood provides a solid foundation for understanding our origins and the history of mankind.