I must admit that when I read "Creation And Time" by Hugh Ross years ago I was under the impression that he was an honest searcher for the truth with whom I disagreed. I believed his footnotes to be accurate and although I found some references that seemed unbelievable I assumed that a Christians would not intentionally fabricate a reference. I had seen other sloppily worded statements by Ross and I continually gave him the benefit of the doubt. I only wish that I had read this book years ago when it was first published. I had already discounted Dr. Hugh Ross as a sloppy researcher and someone prone to faulty logic but not out-right dishonesty. Those are harsh judgment against the man and many people assume that I hold this disdain for his scholarship out of some misplaced contempt for his OEC (Old Earth Creation) views. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the scholars that I have the highest regard for (Gleason Archer) holds an OEC view. Philip Johnson is well respected among YEC (Young Earth Creationists) despite his holding to an OEC view. What makes Hugh Ross different is beautifully exposed in this book. I frankly have been shocked over the last two years when I have revisited his writings with my eye open to the possibility that he was less than honest and this book touches the tip of the iceberg on the honesty issue.
Point by point his book "Creation And Time" is critiqued. When Ross claims that the Early Church Fathers were OECs the authors look up the references and find the exact opposite is true. When presented with comments by one Early Church Father, Ambrose stating the following "Scripture established a law that twenty four hours including both day and night, should be given the name day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty four hours in extent": Ross claims that the position of Ambrose is not explicit in support of a day being literally twenty four hours. This is typical of the scholarship found in the writings of Ross and these authors expose it point by point in utter clarity.
I have openly defended the YEC position but I can agree to disagree with people who have done honest scholarship and hold a different view but Dr. Ross is not of that class. He claims that Wendell Bird (a well known YEC) is not committed to the YEC position implying that even among the leaders of the movement there is serious doubt. The problem is that the authors contacted Mr. Bird and none of the comments that Ross makes about him are true.
The book tackles the tendency of Ross to redefine Hebrew words to support his position. They use the very Lexicon that he cites as his authority to prove that the words can not be translated in the manner that Ross suggests.
I have personal contempt for dishonesty. When that dishonesty involves supposedly "Christian Scholarship" I find it exceedingly offensive. Whether someone is still an OEC after reading this book doesn't matter but their eyes will be open to one deceiver among the brethren.
March 10, 1999
Back to Lambert Dolphin's Library