Tag Archives: Hugh Ross

Taking a text literally

13 Apr

Literalists get bad press and are viewed as simplistic and irrational at times.

I’ve recently heard both an agnostic, Stanley Fish, and a Christian, Hugh Ross, expound on how to take a text literally. And they are nothing but reasoned and intelligent men who document a sensible manner to textual analysis.  Both men are experts in their field: Fish is currently a visiting professor at the Cardozo School of Law in NYC.  Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist who founded and guides a Christian think tank called Reasons to Believe.

Our law professor is a practitioner of intentional originalism.  Simplified, this is a method of interpreting the Constitution regarding cases that come before a court.  One examines the meaning of the original words in the written text and searches to find the original intent of those who wrote the law or the Constitution. Antonin Scalia, the recently deceased Supreme Court justice was also an originalist. However, he placed more emphasis on the text and differed from Fish who gave more weight to the intent of the author(s).

Although this distinction is not that wide, what IS striking is the vast gulf in worldviews between Scalia and Fish.  Apparently some critics of originalism have criticized Justice Scalia’s originalism as just ‘code’ for conservative values. That’s a simplistic strawman fallacy, however, even per Fish.

The other misunderstood ‘smart man’ is Hugh Ross who as a Christian takes the Bible literally.  And he is an old earth creationist.  Yes, he does believe the universe was created in 6 days.  But what counts is the translation of the Hebrew term, ‘day’. As Ross explains, Hebrew uses a small vocabulary compared to English. Here’s what Wikipedia writes:

Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]

  • Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
  • Period of twenty-four hours
  • General term for time
  • Point of time
  • Sunrise to sunset
  • Sunset to next sunset
  • A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
  • Time period of unspecified length.
  • A long, but finite span of time – ageepochseason.

To determine the appropriate literal meaning for words in Genesis, one has to look at the context and reasonably (based on REASON) evaluate which meaning best fits the context. Yes, this is a humble undertaking, but not beyond the abilities God has given us and redeemed for His use.

Here’s a clue for Hugh Ross that Yom means an epoch or long time, his view. He points to the words ‘evening….morning, the first day‘ and makes the obvious observation that until Day 4, there IS no sun, hence no 24-hour rotation of the earth.  Look at the text below:

Genesis 1:3-5

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

What do you make, then, of the words ‘evening….morning’?  Dr. Hugh Ross offers the following, as what he thinks could very well have been the intention of the author, God:

  • ‘evening and morning’ are used to communicate the start and the end of a period of time

In the evangelical world, there are Christians who self-identify as ‘young earth creationists’.  From some of the criticisms I’ve heard leveled at their ‘old earth creationist’ brothers and sisters, these Christians FEAR that assenting to ‘an old earth creation model’ smuggles in an accompanying assent to Darwinian evolution.  I can understand that fear, but I believe it is unfounded and not reasonable. These believers are acting more like liberal legislators or judges who fear that originalism might open the door to conservative values.

These differing approaches to finding truth DO encourage me in one way.  They showcase that most folks really do believe and function in a world of values and truth. (good, bad, right, wrong…). And the fact that people hold differing worldviews does not prevent them from agreeing on certain principles.

 

 

 

Logical Gal – possible explanations that don’t hold water

27 Dec

If you have read any of these logic posts you might have picked up two details about me:

  • I like the tool of making  DISTINCTIONS
  • I’m a slow learner who needs LOTS of repetition

I can’t tell you how many times I have read the caveat that “offering a possible explanation of how something came to be” is not the same as offering an argument for a point of view and then backing it up with reasons.

So the other day, I was delighted to find that I had remembered this distinction and was actually able to apply it to a debate ALL BY MYSELF!

I had heard of a debate about reconciling the book of Genesis to the Big Bang Theory.  I only remembered the name Dr. Hugh Ross as the one arguing for this.  So when I googled it, I didn’t find the debate, but my computer did bring up a response by someone writing for ‘Answers In Genesis’

As I scanned the lengthy counter-argument written to critique Hugh Ross’ point of view, I stopped at a paragraph devoted to EXPLAINING why Ross holds his position.  The author offered that the scientist had fallen in love with astronomy as a boy and read voraciously from age 8 until he arrived at the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning (i.e due to the Big Bang) then someone created it.  (In his later teen years Ross studied all the world’s religious holy books and settled on Christianity being the True account, so he accepted Christ as Lord and savior. )

The Answers in Genesis (AIG) writer further stated that Hugh Ross holds to the Big Bang Theory because his world view was shaped by his astronomy readings at an ‘impressionable young age’  before he became a Christian.

It was at this point that I intuited something fishy.  I read on to see if there were any reasons backing up this accusation.  That’s when it hit me: the AIG post writer had just offered a possible and perhaps plausible scenario to say WHY Hugh Ross holds his worldview. But it was mere supposition.  There were no reasons. He had NO evidence.  He had proffered an explanation, but not an argument.  This explanation is also an example of the Genetic Fallacy – supposing someone believes something due to the influence of their origins.  This huge assumption needs to be substantiated with evidence.

When I shared Hugh Ross’ point of view and the criticizer with my husband, Michael mentioned that all we had to do was find a counter-example, that is: a person who is NOT an astrononer nor scientifically-bent who believes Genesis and the Big Bang do NOT contradict. Such a person would just happen to be a thinking Christian. (gee – what a concept! – I hope we are not such a rare breed after all! If you want to know more about why God gave us a rational mind, see below.) 

Link to order the book

What this whole episode did, above anything else, was ENCOURAGE me.  Given enough repetition, these  logical tools for critical thinking DO stick, even to the middle-aged brain of an average logical Jane!  There IS value in reading, studying and thinking through ways to handle discussions about important issues.

Question: where have you been encouraged in your growth as a logical person?