HL wrote (sigh) :

Hello, all.

We're leaving again for the weekend in an hour or so, but I can see that I've created a monster here. My two cents...

Remember that Day of the Lord passage we were all talking about earlier? It had an evening and a morning, and it is clearly not a 24- hour day. So just because the word "yom" is paired with a number, or because it is framed with evening and morning, does not require that it be a 24-hour day. Is it a good scriptural indicator? Yes. Is it definitive? No. How does one become certain of its interpretation? By looking at the rest of the scriptural evidence. When one does that, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Genesis 1, like the Day of the Lord, as not referring to 24-hour periods. 

This is actually restating the rule. Nothing was said about "morning" or "evening". I had said this:

"Whenever 'yom' is modified with a number (as in Exodus 20:11) it is to be understood as a generic everyday day. When there is no numeric qualifier, then a longer period is possible, but not necessarily mandatory. Context and cross-reference must then decide."

I am no longer writing about the "unique day" verse in Zechariah. The rule does not even refer to that verse as there is no numerical qualifier.

Most importantly in this discussion, there is more than one creation event. There are 11. And any creation theory must be consistent with all 11, not just Genesis 1. These other 10 creation events support the fact that God created the universe from nothing -- all matter space and time -- in a single moment, at the Big Bang, with the creation of the stars and planets coming about as a result of this explosion over billions of years. Take the Psalms, for example, in which God is said to "stretch out" the heavens. The word there for "stretch out," means a continuing process of stretching, a process that started in ancient past and continues today: consistent only with the Big Bang.

We can have a field day with the poetic imagery in Psalms and prove a variety of mutually contradictory points. (Study out your word for "stretch out", if you must, in a good Hebrew lexicon and see if you don't care to modify your assertion above.)

The creation days as 24-hour days also contradict everything we see in the historical record, and by contradicting the historical record, they contradict Romans 1. Most of the "science" supporting 24-hour days is not science (Ken Hovindt is a phys ed teacher); and the little real science being done is being done in the spirit of pretrib exegesis: interpreting evidence in light of a predetermined outcome.

This first statement boils down to: The 24 hour days (of Exodus 20) contradict the "historical record" (rather, the pronouncements of those whose bias misreads the evidence), so we must adjust Scripture. We do this first by belittling those who believe what the Bible teaches plainly.

Guilt by association is another tactic. "Spirit of pretrib exegesis"? Let us discuss the issue and put down the tar brush. "Ken Hovindt is a phys ed teacher". I wipe up people as part of my job (I did Nurse Assistant work at the time of this rebuttal), Am I to be discounted too? I do have a BA after my name - if I were willing to use it.

We cannot be swayed by people's credentials or lack thereof. Science can offer, at best, commentary on Scripture. It is not Scripture - contrary to Ross's claims about the "67th book of the Bible".

According to the 24-hour day theory, there were evenings and mornings before the creation of the sun on the third day. So if the sun was not yet created, what was the earth rotating around to create those evenings and mornings? The usual answer is God, because God is light, but then you get into serious problem of using leaps of logic completely unsupported by scripture. This would also require God, on the third day, to RADICALLY change the physical laws of nature that we know today. No such radical change is recorded.

Think about those last two statements. If God Had changed His Laws (and He did) would we perceive it now. Would we not rather unthinkingly include them (His changes) into the canon of "the laws of nature that we know today". We would be oblivious to both the infraction (I speak as a fool) and the creation of an infinite number of "new" laws. Such a charge is useless since the nature of proof required (for or against) is beyond observation.

Once again, we are back to where we should have been in the beginning; trusting God, that His Spirit will continue to unlock His Word. Ross's teaching does not have the mark of the Spirit but goes contrary to the Word of God. He cannot tell the difference between unprovable and unknowable. The Holy Spirit takes care of the gap between the two. Science is unable to comprehend their "67th book". We are on the Father's lap (so to speak) as He reads His Book to us.

Genesis 1 - 11 is absolutely, 100%, unequivocably harmonious with the record of nature of the earth being 4.7 billion years old, created gradually over millions of years using the laws God put into place in the beginning.

This is "all kinds of wrong". It is adjusting Scripture by "science". "Harmony" is achieved by ignoring the inharmonious Bible verses already mentioned.

Not just a little, not just in some places, but 100%, all the time. Every new discovery that scientists make continues to confirm the smallest details in scripture. The same cannot be said of the 24-hour day theory. It must be tweaked, adjusted, reframed, and re- scienced in order to make it work. To me, this is like like the pretrib argument ˜ they are trying too hard to make it work.

I don't know who you are talking about. I believe I have always been up-front about my beliefs, unbeliefs - and nagging in-between doubts. I don't need to "tweak, adjust, reframe or rescience" my view of Creation to make it work. (And there is that reference to pretrib again . I will not respond in unkind.)

This whole issue, like the rapture issue, is relatively new. It started in the late 1800s, as the church took a defensive stand against the scientific world, seeing science as a threat, rather than a friend, of scripture. Much of the staunch, dug-in-the-ground positions of the 24- hour day folks are legacies of this split. The pretrib argument, incidentally, started about the same time. A little earlier, but it didn't get its fuel until then. Interesting!

The issue is indeed relatively new. However, it is because Dual Theology (of Ross's stamp - and others) is a recent anomaly. "Defense" (Jude 4), not "defensiveness" is what fuels my fire against Rossism. Science Is a friend. But liars and wolves wear both lab smocks and backwards collars in order to sway the swayable. Your "staunch, dug-in-the-ground", sad to say, is part of my "Having done all, stand". I say this because you are defending someone who teaches of a god who is not spiritual, rather "multidimensional", who doesn't teach Biblically on the Trinity, who doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura" .

Ultimately Ross's problem re the Trinity (and other issues) is in attempting to describe God and His truths by bypassing the inspired Word of God. This is because he champions the notion of dual revelation. In Toccoa Falls, Georgia he said this:

"And the Bible tells us it's impossible for God to lie, so the record of nature must be just as perfect, and reliable and truthful as the sixty-six books of the Bible that is part of the Word of God.. .And so when astronomers tell us [Ross uses the example of scientists attempting to measure distances in space and goes on to say that] it's part of the truth that God has revealed to us. It actually encompasses part of the Word of God." (Toccoa Falls Christian College, Staley Lecture Series March 1997).

I didn't want to give the impression that I am a heresy-hound or that this is merely a case of one not articulating "shibboleth" to my satisfaction. Believe me, I have no pleasure in this kind of thing. But that last sentence from Ross is indefensible and dangerous. The only way that any of us are saved is through living faith in what Christ has done on the cross and and by responding to the Spirit working in our hearts. And "faith comes through hearing and hearing through the Word (in this case "rhema") of God." The theology of Ross would bring into our churches those who have "come to know Him" solely on the basis of that "67th book" - i.e. cursed nature interpreted by fallen man.

It is disheartening to me that many good men do not see through this bad theology. On the contrary, Ross is endorsed by Dobson, Sproule, Bright, Chuck Smith & many others. Men who ought to know better.