Jonathan Sarfati’s scrutiny of Hugh Ross’s eisegesis

Moderator: All right, Hugh, what’s your position [on interpreting the days of Genesis]?

Ross: I believe that the plain, literal reading of the text is that it’s six long periods of time.…

Sarfati: As I’ve said before, this is a very non-literal meaning of the word ‘literal’.

My two cents

English: Jonathan Sarfati (right) playing ches...
Jonathan Sarfati (right) playing chess against multiple players at the Heartland Creation Conference, Wichita, Kansas,. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I agree with Sarfati. I sometimes wonder if the word ‘month’ was used instead of ‘day’ in the first few chapters of Genesis, what sort of linguistic gymnastics that old-earth creationists would use then. I’ve been watching some DVDs recently on how old-earth creationism came onto the scene, and they show how bit by bit, how faith in the word was eroded—and replaced with deference to philosophical naturalism instead. I hope that old-earth creationism is a minority view, but I don’t know if anyone has kept figures on it.

Quote source

Sarfati, J. (2000). Ross–Hovind Debate, John Ankerberg Show, October 2000. Available: http://creation.com/rosshovind-debate-john-ankerberg-show-october-2000-analysis-by-jonathan-sarfati. Last accessed 17th Jan 2012.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s