“Rescuing Inerrancy” by Hugh Ross: A Book Analysis Series (Part 4: The Earth’s Age, Fluctuating Science…and the Historicity of Genesis 1-11?)

Here in Part 4 of my analysis of Hugh Ross’ book, Rescuing Inerrancy, we will look at Chapters 14-16.

Chapter 14: Biblical Cues to the Earth’s Age
In Chapter 14, Ross directly addresses the claims of young earth creationists like Ken Ham. In doing so, Ross makes his own argument as to why the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years. Interestingly enough, Ross mentions that after he had become a Christian, it was a good eleven years until he ever came in contact with YECists in Southern California where he was sharing his personal story. I can relate to Ross on this point. I grew up in Evangelicalism in Wheaton, Illinois, and it wasn’t until around 2008 until I realized that there were actually Christians who seriously argued the earth was only 6,000 years old.

In any case, Ross then argues (contrary to the claims of YECists) that “day” in Genesis 1 can also mean a time period other than a literal 24-hour day. For Ross, “day” in Genesis 1 means “age.” YECists, though, argue that a “plain reading” of Genesis 1-2 suggests literal 24-hour days. Ross argues that it would simply be impossible, for example, for Adam to have accomplished all that Genesis 2 claims he did in just one days. YECists retort and say Adam was without sin and probably had an incredibly high IQ and was super-intelligent, so he could have.

This is where in my reading that I laughed and rolled my eyes. YECism is, at its heart, just pure comedy.

Ross then points to certain Church Fathers like Irenaeus, who said a “day” might have been 1,000 years, and Augustine, who wrote “At least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (137). Ross argues that the “early church fathers appreciated the mystery that surrounded the timing of creation” (137).

At this point, I couldn’t help but think, “Yes, that is why the YECist argument is ridiculous, but at the same time, if the early Church Fathers appreciated the mystery, then why are you (or anyone) trying to do away with that mystery by arguing a day was an “age”? The fact is that, yes, within Genesis 1, “day” means “day.” YECists are technically right on that. But at the same time, Genesis 1 is not attempting to give a history or science lesson. The problem with both Ham and Ross here is that both are arguing that ultimately, Genesis 1 is literal history and science. They disagree as to how long a “day” is, but their fundamental assumption regarding Genesis 1 is the same. But if Genesis 1 (and 1-11) isn’t in the genre of literal history or science, then this argument is irrelevant.

Ross then responds to the YECist claim that the genealogies in Genesis 1-11 add up to where we can calculate the earth is only about 6,000 years old. Ross says it is clear that the genealogies aren’t complete.

As with the argument regarding “day,” the issue regarding the genealogies in Genesis 1-11 ultimately comes down to both Ham and Ross assuming the function of the genealogies is to give a literal, historical record. I would argue (and I have argued in in a number of posts, as well as in my book “The Heresy of Ham”) that the genealogies in Genesis 1-11 serve a literary function to highlight the “war of the offspring” that began in Genesis 3:16. You can read about it here and here.

Ross ends his chapter by making the case that when it comes down to it, a basic problem with YECists is that “they view nature’s record as an unreliable revelation” because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Therefore, they claim (without any evidence) that the laws of thermodynamics operated differently before the sin in the garden. Ross counters that by saying the laws of thermodynamics are constant, just like the laws of physics…and that the Bible says so much (as in Jeremiah 33:25, that talks about the “fixed order of heaven and earth”).

My response this is two-fold: (A) Yes, YECism is absurd when it makes absurd claims like the one above (as well as claims that the speed of light might actually be able to speed up or slow down in space!); but (B) No, Jeremiah 33:25 is not talking about the laws of thermodynamics or physics. Yes, in a general way, the point in that verse is that YHWH will remain true to His covenant with Israel in the same way that His creation is upheld in His sovereignty—but to claim that Jeremiah 33:25 is making any kind of “scientific claim” is incredibly mind-boggling to me. I simply do not understand this obsession by many to read modern science back into the biblical text. I’m sorry, that is not what Jeremiah 33:25 is saying.

Chapter 15: Science in Continual Flux?
In this short chapter, Ross pushes back on scholars like John Walton, who claim that we shouldn’t try to “link scientific findings with biblical revelation in a concordant way” because science, after all, is always changing. Ross writes, “I have been warned by some theologians that using science to demonstrate the Bible’s truth and trustworthiness is both dangerous and potentially damaging” (143).

Ross’ basic pushback amounts to that just as the Bible’s perspicuity is generally clear (although some parts are admittedly harder to grasp than others), so too is nature’s record “abundantly and increasingly clear, firmly established, and beyond reasonable doubt” (145). The only difference is that while the canon of Scripture is now closed, the “’canon’ of nature’s revelatory ‘book’ remains open” (147). He continues by saying that the “job of all scientists is to advance our knowledge and understanding of nature’s records and workings” (147). Thus, through scientific discovery, scientists are now more confident than ever in the “Big Bang,” although the debate is now more over what kind of “big bang” model is most valid. That being said, Ross argues that there are still a lot of unclear issues when it comes to evolution. Because of that, he wonders why some Christian theologians are so quick to discard a historical reading of Genesis 1-11 based on the scientific findings of evolution.

I just have a couple of remarks on this chapter. First, Ross is right—for the most part, much of scientific findings about the natural world are, for all intents and purposes, pretty much settled science. Second, Ross is right when he says the job of scientists is to advance knowledge and understanding of the natural world. That being said, if anything, that is an argument against concordism. Ross still hasn’t established an argument that scientific findings in the natural world have to line up and “concord” with biblical passages like Genesis 1-11. To be absolutely clear: If the genre of a certain passage (like Genesis 1-11) is not that of history and/or science, then there is no need to try to make it “concord” with science. Ross’ argument that it must “concord” rests on the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is, in fact, intended to be history and science. If it isn’t, then the entire argument for concordism is irrelevant and unnecessary.

I do agree with him on one point, though. Any theologian who says that because of evolution we need to read Genesis 1-11 in a different way is absolutely wrong. We should read Genesis 1-11 in light of its intended, inspired genre and meeting, completely apart from evolutionary theory. Science and evolution are completely irrelevant to Genesis 1-11—they should have ZERO impact on the way we read and interpret Genesis 1-11.

Chapter 16: The Historicity of Genesis 1-11
Having said all that, it is in Chapter 16 where Ross makes his case for the historicity of Genesis 1-11. He begins by lamenting the fact that, by denying the historicity of Genesis 1-11, some Christians, whose very faith “stands or falls on a miraculous event” [i.e. the resurrection], willingly deny the miraculous [namely the creation account].

I have to interject here and say that is not the issue. The issue is genre recognition. I don’t say Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical because I’m denying God could have miraculously brought creation into being in the exact way Genesis 1 describes. I’m saying Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical because I recognize that that’s not the genre in which it is written.

Ross then goes on and notes that while some scholars have noticed “elements of myth genre” and “poetic elements” within Genesis 1-11, he, as a scientist, sees “a straightforward summary of Earth’s history” (152). The rest of the chapter thus consists of his scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Here are the bullet-points:

• The creation account in Genesis 1 needs to be read from the point of view of “an observer hovering just above the Earth’s surface, below the Earth’s primordial atmosphere,” and not someone looking down from heaven to earth. Thus, the “darkness” over the Earth’s surface was a result of “primordial clouds” that blocked visible light from passing through to the earth’s surface. Still, God allowed enough of the sun’s light to get through clouds to allow some light (i.e. “let there be light”) and that would allow the eventual vegetation before Day 4.
• The unfolding of creation in Genesis 1 coincides with a scientific understanding:
  • Day 1: Creation of matter, energy, space, and time; light from the sun allowed through primordial clouds; photosynthesis begins
  • Day 2: Earth’s water cycle established
  • Day 3: Earth transformed from a water world to landmasses and oceans; vegetation begins
  • Day 4: The primordial clouds burn off; Earth changes from translucent to transparent, to where one can see the sun, moon, and stars
  • Day 5: Animals are created to fill the oceans and skies
  • Day 6: Land animals and humans are created to fill the land
• Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 are not contrary accounts of creation; they are separate stories. Genesis 2:4-25 tells a close-up view of a critical part of the larger story. Basically, “Genesis 1:1-2:3 provides a physical perspective on creation, whereas Genesis 2:4-25 offers a spiritual perspective on creation” (157).
• The flood account in Genesis 6-9 was not a literal global flood. It was a flood of the area in which humans at that time lived, and, as Genesis 10-11 tells us, humans had not spread throughout the entire earth yet. Noah’s flood probably happened during the most recent ice age.

To get to the point, I do not find these arguments convincing. First of all, there is nothing in Genesis 1:1-2 that suggests the “darkness” that was on the face of the deep was caused by thick clouds over the earth’s surface. Secondly, Ross’ claim regarding the unfolding of the events in Genesis 1 isn’t convincing either. There is nothing about photosynthesis in Genesis 1—that is reading modern science into the ancient text. In addition, the sequence of the days does not suggest a “scientific sequence”—it is a logical and literary description that emphasizes God is a God of order and that His creation is good. Besides, how else would the author of Genesis 1 describe things? “On day one God created humans, but then kept them in a bubble in space for the duration of the week until He got the land ready”? Days 1-3 show a creation of the spheres of existence, then in Days 4-6 God “fills the spheres up” with living creatures. We don’t need to take that as a scientific description to see that what is being emphasized is God’s sovereignty over a good and orderly creation.

Finally, when it comes to Noah’s flood, the text is clear—it was a global flood. There’s no getting around it. That’s okay, though, because the story is in the genre of myth (it has parallels to Gilgamesh). Therefore, we don’t have to make it “concord” with any actual historical occurrence, like the last ice age, in order to show the story is true. Once again, it all comes down to genre recognition: if it walks and quacks like something in the genre of myth, then it probably is in the genre of myth. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means the inspired truth that God is conveying comes to us within that literary genre, and we need to read and interpret it according to that inspired literary genre.