Hugh Ross’s Hermeneutical Train Wreck
Exegesis Derailed
Copyright 2013 Darrel Patterson
Dr. Hugh Ross is founder of Reasons to Believe (hereafter referred to as RTB), a Christian organization that promotes concordism. RTB defines concordism as the “view that asserts that God’s Word (the Bible) and God’s world (the record of nature) are in harmony. Any conflict or discordance between the two arises from a faulty interpretation or incomplete understanding of the data.”[1] Beginning in April 18, 2011, Dr. Ross wrote a series of articles entitled “Interpreting Creation”. This five-part series, posted on RTB’s website (reasons.org), was written to “address the many questions and concerns both friends and adversaries raise about Reason to Believe’s (RTB) apologetics methods and hermeneutical principles.”[2] Dr. Ross explains that these questions and concerns are the result of “recent critiques and misrepresentations of our apologetics and hermeneutics by young-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and evolutionary creationist organizations.”[3] RTB’s sixteen hermeneutical principles are discussed in Ross’s series. This paper will critique many of those principles and show how faulty hermeneutics lead to wrong conclusions concerning Scripture.
Unfortunately for RTB, this series of articles fails to alleviate concerns pertaining to the ministry’s hermeneutics. For example, in the first article in the series, Ross explains that he is both an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist in regard to apologetics.[4] As a proof text to support how he can combine both seemingly opposite apologetic approaches into one, he refers to Hebrews 4:12. He says, “When Jesus said the Word of God is a two-edged sword, I believe that, in part, He was exhorting us to apply both evidentialism and presuppositionalism in our apologetics and evangelism.”[5]
Dr. Ross’s novel interpretation of Hebrews 4:12, breaks practically every well-established rule of sound hermeneutics. He lifts the verse completely out of context, misquotes it, completely ignores authorial intent, and reads into it a meaning entirely foreign to the text. With such poor handling of Scripture it is not difficult to see why there are those who have questioned RTB’s hermeneutics. An examination of these hermeneutical principles further on in this paper will reveal that they are plagued by eisegesis, subjectivity, and ambiguity.
Dr. Ross identifies himself as a “constructive integrationalist”.[6] As such he is a sort of presuppositionalist/evidentialist hybrid who takes the best of scientific evidence and integrates it with Scripture. In his own words, “In fulfilling their mission, constructive integrationalists are committed to integrating all sixty-six books of the Bible and all disciplines and sub-disciplines of science and, in turn, integrating the full revelation of nature with the full revelation of the Bible without limiting the scope of revelation from either.”[7] By this definition, constructive integrationalists effectively put fallible man’s observations of the natural world on equal authority with the omniscient, infallible Creator’s spoken Word. The end result of not recognizing the limited scope of general revelation is the practical elimination of the static nature of special revelation. This is hinted at in Ross’s suggestion that a good creation model is one that diminishes contradictions between theology and science.[8]
Robert L. Thomas counters such dangerous ideas saying, “The content of general revelation is quite restricted. The discerning recipient of general revelation must observe its boundaries carefully in whatever use he makes of it. General revelation is the vestibule for special revelation, but it can never override special revelation.”[9]
At one point Dr. Ross warns, “Again, owing to incomplete knowledge and philosophical biases, there are opportunities galore to draw the wrong conclusions about the Bible’s message.”[10] Regrettably for RTB and those exposed to the ministry’s materials, Ross eschews the consistent application of the one hermeneutical method that minimizes philosophical bias and best allows the text to speak for itself- the grammatical-historical method. In its place he espouses a “multi-purpose hermeneutic”[11] that he admits runs the “risk of reading more into the biblical text than the text actually warrants.”[12]
RTB’s sixteen hermeneutical principles are delineated in the last two articles of Ross’s five-part series.[13] Not surprisingly, these principles are not grammatical-historical friendly. Thomas accurately describes integrationalists such as Ross. He says, “In essence, those writing from an integrationalist perspective question the reliability of grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible in yielding certainty about the meaning of propositional revelation.”[14] A look at some of RTB’s hermeneutical principles will validate Thomas’s statement.
In part four of Ross’s “Interpreting Creation” series he begins to explain RTB’s hermeneutical principles beginning with what he calls the perspicuity hermeneutic.[15] He begins on good footing, explaining correctly the two rules of perspicuity: 1) the Bible’s basic message is clear and 2) the less clear portions of Scripture should be interpreted by the more clear text.[16] He then appeals to the Belgic Confession[17] and to the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI)[18] as authorities on the relationship between Scripture and general revelation. A matter of concern is the following statement he makes: “Neither the book of Romans nor the book of Hebrews holds priority over the other because both are the perfect Word of God, likewise neither the book of nature nor the book of Scripture holds supremacy over the other because both are the perfect revelation from God.”[19] The error here begins with a false comparison. First he compares two inspired books of propositional truth to show their equality, but then he compares the entire inspired Book of propositional truth (the Bible) with the “book of nature” which must be interpreted by subjective means. As noted, Ross appeals to the Belgic Confession and its reference to Psalm 19 for support of his “two books” theory.[20] He attempts to use the psalm to prove that general revelation is equally supreme with Scripture. A study of the passage does just the opposite. The psalm speaks of both general revelation and Scripture, but only Scripture is called “perfect”; general revelation is portrayed as being limited in scope. The psalm clearly implies that Scripture is supreme in that it alone is propositional truth. It alone is called perfect.
Ross needs Scripture and general revelation to be equal so that he can justify interpreting Scripture by science saying, “…at times the facts of nature will clarify what the Bible teaches.”[21] This statement has some truth in it, but it is dangerous because the “facts of nature” are subjective and are constantly changing as new “facts” replace the old ones. Another danger is that Ross fails to take into account the effect of sin on nature, i.e. what we observe today is not the same pre-fall creation that God originally called “good”. Any observation must take this into account to be valid.
RTB’s second hermeneutical principle is called simplicity hermeneutic.[22] This principle states “that complex, intellectually challenging, and frequently disputed issues are to be interpreted in light of more relevant issues that are simple, well understood, and beyond reasonable dispute or debate.”[23] There is some point of validity to this principle. It is possible, though, that this is ploy to declare the creation account of Genesis to be “complex” and “frequently disputed”, throwing a shadow of ambiguity upon the narrative that Ross will dispel later with RTB’s didactic hermeneutic.[24] The irony is that a straightforward reading of the text of Genesis 1 yields a very clear understanding of the creation story. It only becomes complicated when one tries to harmonize the text with an old earth. In Ross’s belief system it is a fact that the universe is billions of years old.[25] To him this is a simple, beyond-reasonable- dispute fact of science. Therefore the “complex” language of the Genesis creation narrative is interpreted by the simple facts of billions-of-years science.
The larger context hermeneutic is the third principle in the list and implies that the larger context dominates the smaller context.[26] For example, he appeals to Job 38-42 as the larger context that tells him that the leviathan and behemoth mentioned in chapters 40-41 are allegories meant to represent “the challenge of taming a proud, rebellious human heart.”[27] Ross requires that these creatures be allegorical because they are too dinosaur-like to have lived along side of man. According to RTB’s creation model dinosaurs and mankind are separated by millions of years.[28] While context is a proper consideration, Ross’s handling of this text appears to be a misuse of that time-honored principle.
Fourth is the language scope hermeneutic.[29] Ross states that “better interpretations will be those that most correctly take into account the scope of each biblical language.”[30] By scope Ross apparently means the “strengths” and “weaknesses” of each language.[31] Thomas gives an informative discussion on biblical languages in his book Evangelical Hermeneutics, the New Versus the Old.[32] Thomas says, “To be sure, God used normal human language when He inspired the Bible, but the ultimately divine origin of that language certainly puts it into a unique category.”[33] Therefore, caution should be used that the interpreter studies the text convinced of its verbal inspiration. Failure to account for God’s superintending work upon the authors of Scripture might give the interpreter liberty to write off certain Biblical words or phrases as weaknesses in the language.
Ross lists didactic hermeneutic as RTB’s fifth principle.[34] By didactic he means instructive.[35] He declares that one only finds such instruction in the prosaic and poetic texts of Scripture with neither prose nor poetry having priority over the other.[36] Didactic texts rule over all other genres. Narrative texts are not considered didactic and therefore must “be consistent with and interpreted in the light of the didactic parts of the Bible.”[37] This kind of genre override plays neatly into concordists’ hands when it comes to the straightforward narrative creation account in Genesis. They simply override the clear narrative account with poetic texts making the poetic language more literal than the narrative language.[38] Ross unapologetically explains RTB’s position concerning the creation narrative in Genesis: “Concerning creation theology, Reasons to Believe’s position is that didactic creation texts hold the keys to correct interpretation of the narrative creation accounts.”[39]
An example of Ross’s use of this didactic hermeneutic is when he interprets the poetic language of Isaiah 45:12 where God is said to have “stretched out the heavens” to mean that God used the big bang to create the universe.[40] Following the secular big bang model, he and his partners in RTB’s ministry believe the sun was created on day one of creation instead of on day four.[41] RTB scholars cannot find support for the big bang from a literal 24-hour, six-day creation narrative, so in order to support their theory they read the big bang into a poetic passage and disregard the plain reading of Genesis.
RTB’s sixth principle is called multi-purpose hermeneutic.[42] This is perhaps one of RTB’s most troubling hermeneutic principles. Ross states:
The multi-purpose hermeneutic recognizes the Bible’s brevity demands that virtually every chapter and verse serve myriad communicative purposes. Therefore, Reasons to Believe’s scholars are never satisfied with gleaning just one message or conclusion from a biblical text. In our biblical studies we expect to uncover many different themes, messages, exhortations, and conclusions from a single chapter, even from a single paragraph.[43]
This multi-purpose hermeneutic stands in opposition to one of the fundamental principles of grammatical-historical interpretation- the principle of single meaning. Thomas describes single meaning by saying, “Traditional hermeneutics limit each passage to one interpretation and one only.”[44] Furthermore, in an oft-quoted passage, Milton Terry says the following: “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that words and sentences can have but one signification in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”[45] RTB’s multi-purpose hermeneutic welcomes conjecture.
Ross continues his explanation of RTB’s hermeneutical principles in part five of his series. Here he starts with principle number seven, double-duty hermeneutic.[46] This principle posits that sometimes in Scripture there are double fulfillments intended. Ross rightly says, “A careful study of the passage’s context provides clues”[47] to determining if a double fulfillment is meant. He finds himself in agreement with J. Dwight Pentecost who calls this the “law of double reference.”[48] Most grammatical-historical proponents would generally agree with this principle as well as RTB’s principles number eight and nine. Number eight is the all-generations hermeneutic[49] and means that the Bible is relevant to all generations. Number nine, the progressive hermeneutic,[50] follows the grammatical-historical principle known as progressive revelation.
Principle number ten is called all-people-groups hermeneutic.[51] This principle states, “Any interpretation of the Bible that would make it impossible or extremely difficult for a particular people group to respond positively to its messages is likely incorrect.”[52] One conclusion to be drawn from such a misguided statement is that this principle was custom designed by RTB to justify abandoning a plain interpretation of Genesis 1 so as to make the Bible more acceptable to the secular scientific community. Ross’s negative remarks concerning presuppositionalists support this conclusion. He says, “Evidentialists blame presuppositionalism for Christianity’s reputation in secular circles as anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. Some go so far as to label presuppositionalism as the greatest barrier to evangelism and missions.”[53]
Unfortunately, RTB errs even further. Ross states, “Correct interpretations will not be inherently repugnant to anyone seeking God’s truth. Nor will correct interpretations exclude entire people groups from for [sic] salvation or positions of leadership and teaching within church ministry.”[54] The problems with this statement abound. It is a call to change the meaning of Scripture to suit the sensitivities of man. The message of the Bible is a stumbling block to the lost. An interpretation is not necessarily wrong just because people are offended by it. As to excluding entire people groups from ministry or leadership in the church, some passages of Scripture seem to be designed specifically for that purpose. Titus 1:6-9 and I Timothy 3:1-12 specifically exclude women, alcoholics, money lovers, and new Christians from the office of elder.
Evangelistic hermeneutic is RTB’s eleventh principle.[55] Here Ross suggests that the salvation of man is a primary purpose of Scripture and general revelation.[56] The chief purpose of Scripture above all others is not salvation, but rather the glory of God, of which salvation is only one aspect, albeit an important one. Cone says, “…the doxological purpose consistently understood and applied is the central tenet upon which a truly Biblical theology must be built, for it provides the obvious foundation for acknowledgement of God-centered and God-defined reality.[57] RTB’s evangelistic hermeneutic fails to recognize the priority of the doxological purpose of revelation, resulting in the following conclusion: “Therefore, if a particular interpretation of either the Bible or the natural realm fails to have a significant evangelistic impact on one or more segments of society, that interpretation is probably false.”[58] There are at least two problems in this statement. First, it implies that general revelation can bring someone to a saving relationship to Christ because it fails to limit the scope of general revelation. Second, it does not account for the barrier imposed by man’s fallen state that keeps him from certainty regarding his interpretation of the natural realm. Thomas speaks directly to these errors: “Before general revelation can be meaningful, a providential act of God is necessary to remove a person’s blindness to the truth of general revelation.”[59] The Scripture says that faith comes by hearing God’s Word (Romans 10:17). Interpreting general revelation cannot by evangelistic because it reveals nothing of Jesus’ atoning death. In Scripture, general revelation is said to do two things: 1) bring glory to God, and 2) condemn those who reject it (Romans 1:18-21). Paul Enns refers to general revelation: “This revelation gives mankind an awareness of God but is of itself inadequate to provide salvation.”[60] It goes without saying that if general revelation could be evangelistic, then special revelation would be unnecessary.
In addition to general revelation, Ross also speaks of interpreting Scripture through an evangelistic grid. He says that any interpretation that doesn’t “have a significant evangelistic impact” is probably an incorrect interpretation.[61] Some errors become apparent upon assessing this statement: 1) the subjectivity of the words significant and impact, and 2) the example of Jeremiah and others who faithfully expounded God’s Word and yet apparently had little evangelistic impact.
Ross goes on to say, “An extension of the evangelistic hermeneutic states that when comparing the validity of competing interpretations, the one with a dramatically greater evangelistic impact is likely most correct.”[62] As if noticing the inherent wrongness of such a statement he offers the following: “The critical proviso here is that the greater impact not be due to compromise or weakening of the gospel message or diminishing of the Bible’s moral standards.”[63] Notice that in Ross’s view, determining the validity of competing interpretations has nothing to do with trying to ascertain the actual meaning of the text by proper exegesis. Instead, he suggests that the actual meaning is not as important as the overriding evangelistic impact.
RTB’s principle number twelve is called humility hermeneutic and states: “Any interpretation of Scripture or nature that engenders human pride rather than humility, is likely incorrect. Conversely, interpretations that reinforce our need to continue learning are more likely to be right.”[64] To counter this claim it should be noted that the consistent application of sound hermeneutical principles leads to a degree of certainty in exegesis. The goal of interpretation is to understand. RTB’s humility hermeneutic prides itself in ambiguity. Though no one can claim perfect understanding of any text, Ross seems to imply unwarranted ambiguity here. Thomas says concerning ambiguity:
Rather than viewing such instances as ambiguous, the interpreter should apply various exegetical considerations in determining which of the possible meanings the writer and/or speaker intended. Defending an interpreter who cannot decide between two possibilities on the ground of ambiguity directly violates the time-honored principle of single meaning.[65]
As a reminder, Ross has already jettisoned the principle of single meaning with RTB’s principle number six, the multi-purpose hermeneutic.[66]
Principle number thirteen is called transcendent-immanent hermeneutic.[67] This principle basically states that God is independent of His creation and yet is intimately involved in every aspect of His creation.
RTB’s fourteenth principle is called life-handbook hermeneutic.[68] Ross says, “Correct interpretations of the Bible and nature will be those that motivate and prepare people for the life-training God wants them to gain.”[69] Besides being nonsensical, this principle, like previous ones, shows that Ross is not concerned with exegesis. Who knows what life-training God wants for them? This is subjectivity hermeneutic.
Curiosity hermeneutic is principle number fifteen.[70] It states, “The best interpretations will be those that more intensely stimulate curiosity.”[71] Again, meaning is not the goal. Again, like previous principles, this one is based on subjectivity. Again, ambiguity is preferred to certainty.
Ross closes his series with RTB’s sixteenth principle called research hermeneutic.[72] This principle says, “The best interpretations of God’s two books will be those that most successfully and efficiently deliver productive theological and scientific research.”[73] This principle calls for submitting the text to external data whether theological or scientific. The problem of doing so is that interpretation becomes a result of eisegesis. Apparently eisegesis is of little concern to Ross. Recall his earlier statement regarding eisegesis:
…there will always be the risk of reading more into the biblical text than the text actually warrants. However, it is better to overreach once in awhile and humbly pull back than to never explore the frontiers of biblical revelation and discover what new things God wants us to learn, understand, and apply.[74]
Dr. Ross truly is “exploring the frontiers of biblical revelation.” Unfortunately, rather than discovering things God has objectively communicated, his methods lead him to invent new things God never intended to say. Major flaws in RTB’s hermeneutical principles are apparent; flaws such as eisegesis, subjectivity, forced ambiguity, and the denial of single meaning. It appears that the majority of RTB’s hermeneutical principles may have been invented in an attempt to lend some sort of biblical legitimacy to a billions-of-years belief system that runs contrary to sound biblical exegesis. In effect, exegesis is derailed because RTB’s hermeneutical principles are of little value to keep it on track.
Endnotes
[1] Sandra Dimas, “Pastor’s Views on Creation and Evolution: The Results Are In”, Reasons to Believe, posted May 24, 2013, http://www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/pastors’-views-on-creation-and-evolution-the-results-are-in (Accessed July 25, 2013), par. 10.
[1] Sandra Dimas, “Pastor’s Views on Creation and Evolution: The Results Are In”, Reasons to Believe, posted May 24, 2013, http://www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/pastors’-views-on-creation-and-evolution-the-results-are-in (Accessed July 25, 2013), par. 10.
[2] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 1: Apologetics Methods”, Reasons to Believe, posted April 18, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpreting-creation-part-1-apologetics-methods (accessed July 22, 2013), par. 1.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., par. 5.
[5] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 1: Apologetics Methods”, par. 5.
[6] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 2: Science-Faith Models”, Reasons to Believe, posted April 25, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpreting-creation-part-2-science-faith-models (accessed July 22, 2013), par. 16.
[7] Ibid., par. 24.
[8] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 2: Science-Faith Models”, par. 23.
[9] Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: the New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2002), 120.
[10] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 2: Science-Faith Models”, par. 22.
[11] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, Reasons to Believe, posted May 9, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpreting-creation-part-4-hermeneutical-principles (accessed July 22, 2013), par. 20.
[12] Ibid., par. 25.
[13] Ibid., also Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, Reasons to Believe, posted May 16, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpreting-creation-part-5-hermeneutical-principles (accessed July 22, 2013)
[14] Thomas, 125.
[15] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 4.
[16] Ibid.
[17] For a good discussion on the Belgic Confession see the article “Does the Belgic Confession Teach ‘Not the Bible Alone’?” by Dr. N. H. Gootjes, http://www.spindleworks.com/library/gootjes/1990.htm (accessed July 22, 2013)
[18] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 6.
[19] Ibid., par. 9.
[20] Ibid., par. 5.
[21] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 10.
[22] Ibid., par. 12.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., par. 17.
[25] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Creation of the First Stars”, Reasons to Believe, posted Jan. 11, 2010, http://www.reasons.org/articles/creation-of-the-first-stars (accessed July 22, 2013)
[26] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 13.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Author unknown, “Dinosaurs”, Reasons to Believe, http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/dino (accessed July 22, 2013)
[29] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 14.
[30] Ibid., par. 15.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Thomas, 210-215.
[33] Ibid., 210.
[34] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 17.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., par. 18.
[37] Ibid., par. 19.
[38] Lane Coffey and Darrick Dean, “Introduction to the Creation-Date Debate”, Reasons to Believe, posted Feb. 17, 2009, http://www.reasons.org/articles/introduction-to-the-creation-date-debate (accessed July 22, 2013)
[39] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 19.
[40] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang- the Bible Taught It First”, Reasons to Believe, posted July 1, 2000, http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-bang---the-bible-taught-it-first (accessed July 22, 2013)
[41] Dr. Fazale Rana, “Setting the Stage for Creation”, Reasons to Believe, posted Sept. 2, 2010, http://www.reasons.org/articles/setting-the-stage-for-creation (accessed July 22, 2013)
[42] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 20.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Thomas, 144.
[45] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: a Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2 of Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, George R. Crooks and John F. Hurst, eds., new ed., rev. (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1890), 103.
[46] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, Reasons to Believe, posted May 16, 2011, http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpreting-creation-part-5-hermeneutical-principles (accessed July 22, 2013), par. 4.
[47] Ibid., par. 5.
[48] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: a Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 46.
[49] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 7.
[50] Ibid., par. 8.
[51] Ibid., par. 10.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 1: Apologetics Methods”, par. 7.
[54] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 11.
[55] Ibid., par. 12.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Cone, 16-17.
[58] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 12.
[59] Thomas, 120.
[60] Paul Enns, the Moody Handbook of Theology, rev. and exp. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 158-160.
[61] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 12.
[62] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 13.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid., par. 14.
[65] Thomas, 230-231.
[66] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 20.
[67] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 15.
[68] Ibid., par. 17.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid., par. 18.
[71] Ibid., par. 19.
[72] Ibid., par. 20.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Dr. Hugh Ross, “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”, par. 25.