REASONS TO BELIEVE Atlanta Chapter

Resource Review Page

	Title:	The Genesis Debate
	Author:	Dr. Hugh Ross
	Publisher:	Global Publishing Services
	Publish Date:	2000
		Table of Contents
		Reviews on Amazon
		Order from RTB
		Other books by Dr. Hugh Ross
Abstract:
Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer team up for this written debate, moderated and edited by David Hagopian. The topic: the meaning of the word day as used in Genesis 1. The exchange begins with J. Ligon Duncan, III, and David W. Hall, who present their case for interpreting the “days” as six sequential twenty-four-hour periods. Second, Ross and Archer make a case for interpreting the creation days as six sequential long time spans. Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline present the view that the days in Genesis provide a non-sequential literary framework. Each team then responds to the others’ views.

Member Reviews:
01/11/05 - Ray Williams - Reviewed 1/31/2001
In a written debate format, three two-man author teams present and defend their view concerning the days of creation. J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall address the 24-hour day view, Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer, the Day-Age view and Lee Irons with Meridith G. Kline, the Framework view. The debate spanned a period of 18 months and it started with each team preparing an opening essay. Those essays were circulated to the other two teams, and each team prepared response essays that interacted with the opposing views. After the responses were circulated, each team concluded by preparing a reply essay that addressed the points raised in the response essays. A hallmark of the debate, as pointed out in the book's introduction, is the scholarly manner in which each of the views is presented and the opportunity it gave evangelicals, who are committed to the infallibility, inerrency and authority of Scripture, to defend their respective views in a lively, yet friendly, forum. The reader should come away from this book convinced of the hermeneutical and exegetical expertise of the authors. They are men of high intellect with outstanding writing and argumentative skills. Their knowledge of Scripture and church history is readily apparent and their views are expressed with clarity and conviction. Although the differing views are presented with sincerity, it must be kept in mind that only one creation day interpretation can be correct. Therefore, the church must calmly continue to search for the truth, being charitable at all times, but unrelenting in its goal of achieving a consensus through respectful dialog. For an individual to fully appreciate and personally assess the merits of the arguments, it is necessary that the complete debate text be read including the responses and the replies. Nevertheless, a brief commentary on each view is offerred in the following paragraphs. The Framework View, as expressed by Irons and Kline, "is that interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 which regards the seven-day scheme as a figurative framswork." God "completing his creative work in a week of days is not to be taken literally. Instead it functions as a literary structure in which the creative works of God have been narrated in a topical order." This view paints a complex and interesting pattern of parallelism and symmetry to the creation narrative, but it lacks credibility because of its denial of the clear chronological import of Genesis 1. Ross and Archer comment about this and say that it ignores "the quantity and quality of sequence markers and of other textural clues that powerfully suggest a time-ordered series of events." It is faulty also, because it is inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith's creation statement that explicitly conveys the idea that creation occurred over a time period of six days. Duncan and Hall express their disagreement with the framework view when they state, "We contend that the view is incorrect, eccentric, and thinly supported." The 24-Hour View - Duncan and Hall present a detailed case of what they consider to be the classical view of creation in which God miraculously created the universe in six ordinary days. In addition to a comprehensive exegesis of Scripture, they review church history in depth and cite the views of early patriarchs. Notwithstanding the fact that Ross and Archer dispute some of the information and point out that a number of early scholars wrestled with the issue of creation and struggled with creation day ambiguities, Duncan and Hall insist that Bible-believing theologians prior to 1800 were near-unanimous in their belief in an ordinary day creation. Duncan and Hall's case should be well received by those who are skeptical of the discoveries of modern science. But a glaring weakness in their presentation is the failure to use any evidence from general revelation to support their exegesis. This omission is intentional as evidenced from their statement: "We purposefully limit our discussion to the meaning of 'day' in Scripture and the history of its interpretation." Apparently, they feel God's general revelation does not shed light on the Genesis 1 narrative because they further state, "In short, we take no position on the age of the universe precisely because that question is not directly addressed by the canon." In their response to Ross and Archer's criticism of young-earth creationism they make another startling statement, "We do not understand young-earth creationism to be a central part of this debate, nor have we sought to be dogmatic about the age of the universe." In response to this, Ross and Archer replied, "Whereas the four of us Ross, Archer, Irons and Kline identify the 24-hour interpretation with a young-universe, young-earth creation model, Duncan and Hall claim that the age of the universe and earth are separate issues from the length of the creation days. Duncan and Hall never explain, however, how such a separation is possible." No doubt Duncan and Hall concur in the importance of using all available sources, including extra-biblical information, to determine the context of a Bible passage to fully understand its meaning. In view of this, what better context could there be than to use the physical evidence of God's creation to provide clarification and depth of understanding to the Genesis 1 narrative? Duncan and Hall decided to ignore this aspect of God's revelation, but what results is a defective hermeneutic. Along this same line, they are critical of Ross and Archer's use of scientific evidence and erroneously charge them with elevating science to the level of Scripture. The Day-Age View - In their presentation, Ross and Archer demonstrate expert knowledge of astrophysics and the hard sciences. They build their interpretation upon the conviction that God's revelation can be trusted as truth in both the words of Scripture and the works of creation. Based on language analysis, they point out that, unlike English, biblical Hebrew had no other word other than yom to denote a long time span. Therefore, there are three possible literal interpretations of the creation days; six daylight periods, six 24-hour periods or six long time spans. Consequently, the day-age view is also a literal interpretation of the text. In developing a creation model, Ross and Archer explain that the frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos, the beginning of space, time, matter and energy. Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator's vantage point, to the surface of the earth. From the initial conditions of the primordial earth, a place unfit for life, a straightforward chronology of creation events follows whereby God transformed the earth into a place suitable for life and to accommodate his crowning achievement, the creation of man! Ross and Archer also present biblical evidence that supports the long creation day view and they confidently assert that the abundance of scientific evidence that establishes the extreme age of the earth/universe is continuing to accumulate and becoming more compelling as time goes on. They point out that the day-age interpretation provides a straightforward reconciliation of the established scientific record and a literal reading of Genesis 1. Summary - From this debate, two key questions emerge. First, how should the evidence of general revelation be used to help in the interpretation of special revelation? And second, what does the evidence of general revelation say about the age of the earth/universe? Until there is substantial agreement on these two questions, the controversy over the length of the creation day will continue to rage. This book is a must read for those interested in learning more about the doctrine of creation and is recommended for teaching and ruling elders of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Please post your own review.
Member Name: