(Digressing radically from the OP…) I think a concordist ‘Rossian’ view is compatible, as two simultaneously true and nonconflicting narratives, with the ANE/Framework view. I think this is fairly astounding:
2 Likes
It may deserve its own thread. 
Meanwhile, this sentence appears in the Rossian “The Sequence of Creation” graphic:
The cosmological sequence matches the Bible’s sequence exactly.
Ross’ arguments about how “the water cycle develops” is followed by “dry land appears” and then “The translucent atmosphere becomes transparent” depend upon his questionable brand of amateur Hebrew exegesis, among other things. I have great respect for Dr. Ross on multiple levels—especially as a Christ-follower who represents Christ-like qualities very well—but his science accommodationism in Genesis 1 strains my brain. I don’t find it compelling.
2 Likes
He has consulted with any number of Hebrew scholars…
The sequence of the description of ‘day 4’ is quite remarkable and fits well (but of course, ANE-onlyists will have nothing of a linear sequential reading, even though Genesis 1 counts from 1 to 6):
Genesis 1:14-18. He let there be lights in the heavens. “Let” is not the same as “made” or “placed”. The “and it was so” precedes “God made” and “God set”, so note that verses 16-18 are not about when they were made, but why. The atmosphere has become transparent – the preexisting heavenly bodies can now be seen. And we do not have to invent a source of light for Days 1-3.
2 Likes
I like Mike Strauss a lot, too. One of my favorites – try this on for size 
:
2 Likes
@MStrauss sometimes pops in over here. Incedentally, he has been doing a a good job reviewing options on Adam and Eve on his blog (though I am not an evolutionary creationist 
) . See here:
3 Likes
Hugh Ross goes further and says that the Bible writes about Cosmic Inflation (i.e. the expansion of space exponentially before the creation of matter and time) in the book of Job.
1 Like
Here is a fine example of biblical exegesis with an agenda that strongly distorts the reading. This “astounding” correspondence is entirely manufactured on both sides.
1 Like
Yes, that’s a good example of how Ross tends to read too much into poetic imagery:
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
— Job 9:8
I can sort of see why a reading of the English translations might lead Ross to assume that the word stretches (from the Hebrew verb NOTEH) sounds a lot like the expansion of space-time (i.e., cosmic inflation.) He probably looked up NOTEH in other Old Testament contexts, such as:
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent. — Psalm 104:2
Dr. Ross probably also looked up NOTEH in a Hebrew dictionary where he found “stretch out, as with a garment or a tent.”
Unfortunately, with these limited lexicographic clues in mind, it was no doubt easy for Ross to apply anachronistically our modern notions of stretching fabric into the NOTEH passages, even though the ancients had no concept of our ubiquitous stretchable fabrics, such as Spandex and elastic waistbands.
Even a simple Hebrew-English concordance of NOTEH finds the word associated with the spreading out of a garment (think about laying out a robe, for example, flat on a floor) or spreading out a goat-hair tent between the supporting poles and ropes. None of those contexts suggest a radical expansion, such as a small uninflated balloon being stretched in all directions to cover a much larger area (which is sometimes used as an analogy to cosmic inflation.)
The NOTEH spreading out of a goat-hair tent isn’t at all like stretching out a pair of size-small spandex shorts to accommodate a very portly man’s expanding waistline. At most, it refers to a group of men taking up the slack in the goat-hair fabric as they plant the tent poles in their final positions. That’s why the “spreading out” translation is less likely to be misunderstood by modern day readers than “stretching out.” The latter can tend to connote (for some readers) far too much elasticity—exactly the misunderstanding which plagues Ross’ jumping to exaggerated conclusions where he confuses Job 9:8 with cosmic inflation, the rapid expansion of space-time itself.
Ross, like many others before him, may also have gotten wrong impressions from Isaiah 44:24b:
I am the Lord,
the Maker of all things,
who stretches out the heavens,
who spreads out the earth by myself,
— Isaiah 44:24 (NIV)
It would be easy to assume in this verse that both stretches out and spreads out are translated from the same Hebrew verb, NATEH—but that assumption would be invalid. In this passage, NATEH applies to the heavens but not the earth. The stretching out of the earth (i.e., the HA _ ERETZ, the land) is ROQA’, and that verb is used to describe the hammering out of malleable metal to cover a larger area. So it is easy for English readers to confuse NATEH and ROQA’. Moreover, the ROQA’ spreading out is related to the RAQIA, the expanse or firmament of Genesis 1. (The Isaiah passage is using routine human activities to explain how God as creator of the world just as easily manipulates and crafts raw materials to produce what he wishes. Ross reads far too much into such texts.)
The ancients day-to-day experiences with the stretching out of goat-hair tent cloth and the spreading out by hammering out of metal (as in making a warrior’s shield, and as viewed with the hammered out dome which they believed was visible as the sky above) is a far cry from Hugh Ross’ confusing the word as referring to the rapid expansion of space-time after the Big Bang.
POSTSCRIPT: This is probably the sort of exegetical post which @Michael_Callen likes to read. Perhaps @swamidass as well.
5 Likes
Since Ross usually finds a passage in the Bible AFTER a discovery by science, I have asked him to find the passage in the bible that resolves the Hubble constant tension. It should be easy for Ross to find the answer before cosmologists figure it out as he has stated that it is all explained in the bible.
3 Likes
Why is recognizing a fit after the fact ‘manufactured’? What do you object to in the chart?
As I said earlier, “He has consulted with any number of Hebrew scholars…”, so I think you are being unduly disparaging.
Can you please identify the specific Hebrew scholars Ross consulted in making those specific claims? And are you certain that Ross correctly reflects their scholarship? (Also, did he consult Old Testament professors he happened to know or did he consult scholars who specialize in Hebrew lexicography?)
Ken Ham has consulted with scientists and other scholars (primarily on his own Answers in Genesis staff.) Does that make Ham’s claims immune to challenge? If not, why would Ham be subject to challenge but not Ross?
Also, can you explain why Ross’ many years of claiming that the Biblical text recognizes (and thereby predicted the future discovery of) cosmic inflation has not resonated among leading Hebrew lexicographers?
Also, can you cite any peer-reviewed literature where this claim of NATEH describing cosmic inflation has been well received by the Classical Hebrew academy?
(Once again, I’m a fan of Hugh Ross in many regards. However, when Ross speaks far outside his training in astronomy and astrophysics, I don’t necessarily find his arguments compelling.)
3 Likes
Workin’ on 'em. 
Also, I do not, nor did I say that I did, necessarily agree with everything Hugh says, but I understand why you assumed so. For instance, I’ve only seen the cosmic inflation claim mentioned once and without supporting expository development, so I am not prepared to address that. (Subtract a question mark. ) I may also have some soteriological and eschatological differences with him, but nothing implicit or glaring enough, or even articulated to myself enough, for me to have pursued. And I do not consider myself particularly well read, nor do I consider myself to have a particularly wonderful memory.
3 Likes
After what fact? The bible side is not an accurate representation of what Genesis says, and the science side is not an accurate representation of what science says. Both have been force-fit into a common story. The bible says nothing about atmospheres, opaque, translucent, transparent, or otherwise. This is mere invention to fit the actual fact that the universe is much older than the earth, and that plants appear in Genesis before the sun, moon, and stars. The chart is nonsense from start to finish, from the standpoints of science and biblical exegesis both.
1 Like
The science side: the universe had a beginning; the Bible side: the universe had a beginning. I’m not getting what you’re not getting.
I’m not understanding your point. What is it? The opaque atmosphere is supposed to be one point of agreement on the chart. Are you disavowing that one?
So there is one point of agreement. How does that save the made-up correspondences in the chart?
Why is your picture a mandarin duck? Ducks are my thing.
1 Like
The opaque atmosphere is the second row of the chart and would be the second point of agreement. I am not a planetologist, far from it, but I understand (I think, a little ) that an opaque atmosphere would not be unexpected in scenarios of the moon’s formation. That would not be a force fit for Genesis 1:2 and the above cited verse, Job 38:9.
How is that supposed to relate to this?:
You have lost me.
You have lost me again, twice. Genesis says nothing about an opaque atmosphere; it’s a kludge to explain why the sun, etc., are made after the earth. (And plants!) And in Ross’s scenario, the moon’s formation supposedly happens before the earth is formed, nor does any theory of the moon’s formation have anything to do with an opaque atmosphere. The contortions here are comical.
1 Like