Re: Book Review: Creation & Time: a Report...

Allen Roy (
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:23:25 -0700

This book review I found on the CRSnet. I post it here with permission
from the author.

Book Review

Title: "Creation And Time: A Report On The Progressive Creationist Book by
Hugh Ross"

Authors: Mark Van Bebber & Paul Taylor

ISBN 1-8777775-02-9

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 judgement 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

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

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.

In HIS Service
Bill Donahue