Title Author Date

Hugh Ross Brodhead, Dan Jun 29, 2008

I am not concerned about how scholarly a writer Hugh Ross is. However, you haven't convinced me one iota that his creation ideas are unfounded. I have read other people's work who share similiarities in their creation hypothesis' and they may have additional information that Ross leaves out.
It neither bothers me that Ross' understanding of Hebrew is weak or that he gets every scientific fact correct to the letter. I never did respect Ross' understanding of Who and What God is since he follows every ridiculous Christian doctrine to the letter. However, I believe he offers a credible account of creation regarding the bible and known science.

Dan

P.S.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages were very limited in wording and even definition. For instance, there was no term for eternity or forever. Ross and every damn churchian thinks that aion should be translated to mean eternity or forever.

Title Author Date

Hugh Ross TalkReason , Jun 29, 2008

Dear Dan:

Thanks for sharing with us your thoughts. As far as we are concerned, you may believe anything of your choice, including Ross's pseudo-scientific exercises, but we could not fail to notice that all you could assert was a statement that you were not convinced by the critique of Ross's position despite the factual revelation of his misunderstanding of scientific facts and of the Hebrew language.
Don't you agree that your position is rather funny as you accept Ross's piffle despite the obvious faults of his discourse (which you don't seem to deny)?

Talk Reason