Discerning Truth: Dialog on the Age of the Earth - Part 2

Hey folks, Jason Lyle here with the Biblical Science Institute. Welcome to our podcast Discerning Truth.

We've been covering a dialogue that I did with the Old Earth creationist Hugh Ross a few weeks back, and I've been analyzing myself and Dr.

Ross and taking a look at some of the things that we said during this dialogue, maybe some of the things that I could have said better.

And so I thought we would continue with that today and take a look at what are the differences theologically, biblically, between these two positions.

So let's have a look. When I was, I grew up in church. I grew up since I was, I was born.

My earliest memory has been in church and I've read a Genesis countless times. Now I have to say, without taking a position one way or the other,

I do have to admit that without being influenced by others as well, because my church really never talked about these points in any detail.

When I did read the creation account, it did seem that what's being referred to there are just days as an average person would understand that.

How would you speak to that, Dr. Ross? It does, I mean, I know that I've heard your story where when you've read it, you knew automatically, no, there's more going on here.

It's not a 24 hour day necessarily, but a lot of people who read it, it seems that, hey, yeah, it kind of seems straightforward.

How can you speak to the straight, the apparent straightforwardness of it all? Well, you know, looking at the fact that we have the first six days bracketed by evening and a morning, and likewise the

Hebrew words there of multiple literal definitions. Not really. The words evening and morning always in scripture mean basically evening and morning.

I mean, there might be subtle differences, but none of them allow for long periods of time. If we consult, for example, Young's Analytical Concordance, and we look up the word for evening, which is ereb, we find that it means evening.

How about that? Now the other definition that I see here, there's only one, the others are just different forms of evening.

The only one that's different is day, and it says when it's combined with boker, which is morning.

So evening and morning, according to this lexicon, indicate an ordinary day, or just when it's used with Yom, it indicates a day.

And so there's no doubt that the evening is an ordinary day. What about morning? The word for morning is boker, and it means morning.

That's the overwhelming majority meaning. It can mean early in the day. It can mean day. So yeah, none of those would allow for millions of years.

In fact, the evening and the morning together constitute an ordinary day, and that's basically the definition of day that God is giving us in Genesis 1 -5.

Vahi ereb, vahi boker, yom echad. Evening and morning. They were one day.

That's what they constitute. So, I mean, he likes to make these statements, but just not something you can back up when you go to the literature.

Looking at the fact that we have the first six days bracketed by evening and a morning, and likewise the

Hebrew words there of multiple literal definitions, but I knew at a minimum it was actually declaring each of these creation days as a definite start point and a definite end point.

So it seems like Hugh is wanting to take the words evening and morning to just mean beginning and ending, but that's not what they mean.

They're not used that way. They're never used that way in Scripture. It's just sort of a generic beginning or a There are different words for that.

Reshith is the word for beginning, and if God wanted to indicate that this was a period of time that had a beginning and an ending, that's the word he would have used.

Not ereb and boker, which mean evening and morning. Here is my question. I said something to the effect that when you read

Genesis 1, I know that you read it and knew that this isn't speaking about literal 24 -hour days.

See, just wanted to point out that Eli understands what the word literal means, and really we all do.

We understand that's the ordinary meaning, and he used it properly in this context. Yes.

Well, I mean, I was not raised in a Christian home, but at age 16, because of my astronomy,

I was persuaded that there had to be a God, and I actually began a search of the world's different holy books.

So when I opened up the Bible, I was quite prepared to say, hey, you know, this isn't God's word.

In fact, I didn't think God was communicating to us through writing. But when I looked at the text,

I was expecting that these days would be 24 hours, but that there would be an evening and a morning for the seventh day.

The fact that I didn't see an evening in the morning for the seventh day says, OK, these first six days have got a definite start point and a definite end point, but we don't see that for day seven.

Now, I point out, of course, that Hughes' error here is called the argument from silence. He's saying that something,

I don't see something recorded, therefore it didn't happen. And but something I should have pointed out and I didn't.

Of course, he's saying that, you know, the evening and morning that represents a beginning and an ending. Well, that's not that's not within the range of those words.

But even if we accepted that, he's saying, well, see, there's no there's no morning and evening for the seventh day. So that means it hasn't ended yet.

Well, technically, that would mean it hasn't begun yet either, because there's no morning for it. Right. There's no there is no evening and morning.

So if that means it hasn't ended, it also means it hasn't begun. And so that argument makes no sense whatsoever.

And found passages that declared we're still in God's seventh day. I would challenge you or anyone else to find any passage that says we're still in the seventh day.

There are passages that indicate that God's rest continues and we can enter into that rest. But there's none that say the seventh day continues.

Rest can continue beyond the day of rest, obviously. And also, as I looked at Genesis chapter two,

I noticed that there was a passage of time between God creating Adam and God creating

Eve. I mean, Adam went through three careers before Eve shows up. If you're wondering, where does the

Bible say that Adam had three careers before Eve was created? It doesn't.

If you're wondering what you Ross is talking about there, the only reason I do is because I've read some of his other materials.

But he claims that Adam had a whole lot of things that he did before Eve was created.

He says, for example, one of his careers was that he had to work the garden. And now does the Bible say that Adam worked to the garden for a long period of time before he was created?

Well, no, it doesn't. It doesn't even say he worked the garden at all. It does say that God put Adam in the garden to work it, to keep it.

But it doesn't say whether he actually started doing it on that day or whether God just gave him the instruction. This is one of the things you're going to do.

The other thing Adam had to do was he had to name the animals. I don't know why Hugh thinks that's a career, but he apparently thinks that would take a long period of time.

And so there's no way he could have done that within a day. But in fact, I can name all the animals in five seconds.

Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals. There you go. That's all the animals. And Adam didn't have to name fish or amphibians.

They're not beasts of the field and not all of the reptiles, not all of the mammals. For example, the blue whale, he didn't have to name that because God instructed

Adam to name the beasts of the field. There's different terms in Hebrew.

There's beasts of the earth, there's beasts of the field. I'm not going to get into what the differences are. But the point is, Adam had to name a subset of the animals.

And we don't know how generically he had to name them. Could it have been as brief as what I said?

Probably not. It was probably more expansive than that. But the point is, it didn't take a long period of time.

It might have taken a couple of hours, depending on how many he named specifically and how specifically he named them.

But it doesn't take a long period of time. And I can't even remember what the third career that Adam supposedly had was.

But in any case, the Bible makes it very clear that Eve was made on the sixth day and the same day as Adam.

Genesis one makes that clear. And there's no doubt that Adam could have done in the period of time what God says he did in that period of time.

It's an important hermeneutical principle that the explicit constrains the implicit.

We don't say, well, I don't think that Adam could have done all that in the time the Bible says. Therefore, the

Bible's time is not right. We need to expand it a little bit. You could make the same argument that Jesus turning the water into wine must have taken a long period of time, at least a few weeks, because we know it takes a while to make good wine and so on.

But, you know, the implication there is that Jesus made it instantaneously or nearly so.

And if you say, I don't know how he did it, that's OK. You're not God. You don't have to. Now, a question,

I guess, for Dr. Lyle, you mentioned, Dr. Ross, the seventh day seems and again, even when

I was reading the scriptures at this point, they did seem like 24 hour days. I mean, when

I was reading it, but even back then, the seventh day did seem unique.

How would you understand that, Dr. Lyle? Well, first of all, it is an argument from silence to argue that there's no evening and morning on the seventh day merely because they're not mentioned.

Just because something isn't mentioned in scripture doesn't mean it never happened. The Bible never mentions Adam going to the bathroom.

But I think we can assume that he probably did from time to time. It's in the Apocrypha, isn't it? You get my drift.

I'm just making a claim to the obvious. But in any case. So, of course, there was an evening and morning on the seventh day.

They're not mentioned. Why? The seventh day is different. It's special. It's the day that God blessed and hallowed. It's not a day of creation.

It's a day of rest. And so it is different qualitatively. And God is allowed to select it out and make it qualitative.

And by the way, it seems a little bit, I don't know, inconsistent to me to say, well, the seventh day could be long because it doesn't have that evening in the morning.

But the other days do, which would implicitly imply that they that they are ordinary days. They are bound by an evening in the morning.

And with regard to what Hebrews says about God's rest, God's rest is continuing. It doesn't mean the day continues.

If I said I worked all day Wednesday, all day Thursday, all day Friday, and then I took a rest on Saturday and I'm still resting today.

That doesn't mean that today is Saturday. My rest can continue beyond the day. But the reason we know that the days in Genesis are ordinary is because God specifies what they mean.

They are defined in terms of having one evening and one morning. That's what makes one day.

So Genesis one is very clear about that. And all the days of creation do have that evening and morning.

It's just not mentioned for the seventh day, but the numbers there and having a number with the day in a narrative sequence like that is indicative of ordinary days.

So you would say it's safe to assume that because days one through six had evening, morning, evening, morning, evening, morning, evening, morning, that it's safe to assume, well, there's no reason to think the seventh day didn't have that just because it's not mentioned.

And you probably are thinking and maybe Dr. Ross can respond. You're probably thinking that the old earth interpretation that wants to leave this possibility open is kind of looking for a kind of a possible interpretive loophole to allow for a longer period of time.

Is that what you think, Dr. Lyle? And maybe Dr. Ross could respond to why that's not the case. I do think that and and I'll say this is a vice that's common to all

Christians. I'm not immune from this. We all have a tendency to have this worldview that we take to the Bible and then try to interpret the

Bible according to that worldview. And it takes a great deal of work to to not do that. And God gave us the church so that we could challenge each other and say, look, brother, here's how

I read the scripture. How do you read it so that we can challenge each other to make sure that we're not doing that? And I would suggest with all respect to my brother,

Hugh, that because he had a Big Bang philosophy before he ever read the Bible, that he imported that into the

Bible. And I think it's very hard to to not do that. But it's something we all need to work as Christians to challenge each other to not do to read the

Bible exegetically rather than exegetically. So is that what you're doing, Dr. Ross? Are you trying to squeeze

Big Bang cosmology into the Bible? You sneaky man. Is that what you're trying to do? Well, I didn't see

Big Bang cosmology in the Bible, but not in Genesis, other than the fact that it speaks about the fact that there's a beginning to the universe.

OK, one of the components of Big Bang cosmology. But I was looking at the text before I was a believer, and so I didn't have any vested commitment in this.

I mean, if it was 24 hours or a long period of time, I could go either way. But Hugh did have an invested interest in the

Big Bang. He was a fan. And so, I mean, let's just be honest, when you have a belief system like that and then you come to the

Bible and there is power in God's word, you recognize it as God's word. And there is a tendency to read your worldview into the

Bible. It's common to all of us, and I think we need to work very hard to try and get away from that.

But reading the text, it says it seems very clear these days are significant passages of time.

I mean, I looked at the evening and morning as simply a reference to the fact, OK, each day has a start point and an end point.

But that's not what the Hebrew words mean. It doesn't just mean a beginning and an ending. There's a different Hebrew word for beginning.

Reshith would be the Hebrew word for beginning. And that's not what that's not what's used for the days of creation.

They're used evening and morning, Erev and Boker. And those don't just mean a beginning and ending.

They mean evening and morning, always throughout scripture. And but we don't see an end point for creation day seven.

We don't find it anywhere in the Bible. We do see it hinted at in Revelation.

We come to the new creation. God's rest will end. He will create again. I've always wondered if Hugh thinks it will take

God billions of years to make the new heavens and the new earth. And the only reason I didn't ask him there is

I didn't want to interrupt him. I want to be polite and so on. But I think there's a little bit of an inconsistency there. And again, as a young scientist,

I said, OK, I think that explains why we see this demarcation between people in the physical sciences and those in the life sciences.

They're looking at different periods of time. In reality, all scientists are looking at the same period of time now because that's the only period of time we have access to.

Some people think, well, if you dig up a fossil, you're digging up a piece of the past. Actually, you're digging up a piece of the present. Otherwise you wouldn't have it.

Past is gone. Now, I'm not saying we can't use scientific tools to make a guess about the past.

But the fact is, operational science takes place in the present. And the only data we have access to is in the present.

And he's going to make an argument that astronomy is the exception. But it really isn't. Not when you understand the nature of space and time.

What do you think? And from both these, maybe Dr. Ross first and then Dr. Lyle, what role should science play when we're looking into these issues, especially with the length of the days and how we interpret

Genesis? What's the relationship there as you see it, Dr. Ross? Well, again, I came at the text before I was a believer.

It's like, OK, what I see in the universe is a God where everything is harmonious.

Everything fits together. I don't see contradictions. I see an appeal to elegance and beauty.

And so I said of all these different holy books I'm looking at, I was looking at the

Vedas, the Koran, the Buddhist commentaries, Baha 'i, et cetera.

I said, which of these actually matches the revelation I see in the record of nature?

Which one gets the history right? Which one gets the science right? Which one gets the geography right?

And so after two years studying the Bible, I signed my name on the back of a Gideon Bible saying this is the word of God.

And it gave my life to Jesus Christ. So, Dr. Lyle, is there anything you want to say to what

Dr. Ross has just shared there with regards to the relationship between science and the

Bible and coming to this question? I think it's very interesting the way, Hugh, that you that you came to scripture because it basically it's in your mind, science supported it.

And my approach is a little different because in my view, we don't take the

Bible and then and say this is this is very likely the word of God or maybe it is the word of God because it lines up with all this scientific evidence.

I would say the Bible is the foundation by which I have confidence in science. So that's that's the difference rather than science being the standard by which

I know the Bible is true. I would say the Bible is the standard by which I can have some confidence in the scientific method and perhaps even some of the conclusions that scientists draw, although although those are fallible.

And so this, of course, is getting into apologetic method, and I as a presuppositionalist,

I have a very high view of God's word. I see it as the foundation for all other beliefs. And that is a distinguishing characteristic to myself and in a lot of other well -intentioned

Christians who would say, no, we prove the Bible by something else. I would say, no, the Bible's what proves everything else.

With regard to your original question, Eli, I would say that I believe in the ministerial role of science in interpretation, but not a magisterial role, which is to say that if there are issues where the

Bible is genuinely silent, maybe some matters of history where the details are not recorded, it is appropriate for us to use science to make a guess, providing we don't elevate that guess to the level of scripture.

It's perfectly fine. But I would say it's not acceptable to use science or man's understanding,

I guess, of of the evidence, which is which is one definition of science to override the clear teaching of the scripture.

And so the Bible is my standard, my ultimate standard. I'm a presuppositionalist. And so then when I look at evidence,

I believe that we should interpret the evidence in light of the clear revelation that God's given us in scripture.

Well, Dr. Ross, if you would like to give a follow up, I did say we want to move on, but I would imagine perhaps you'd want to speak to something there.

Well, I do agree with Jason that we should never allow science to trump the Bible. I mean, that's actually built into the statements of the

International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. I think a lot of Christians, though, would say, but Dr.

Ross, that's what you're doing. You're reading into the text of scripture based on man's ideas about how the universe came about and so on, which isn't even really science.

But some people call it that. I think he was being sincere. I don't think he thinks he's doing that.

But again, that's something we all need to check ourselves. We need to challenge our brothers in Christ to say, hey,

I think I think you're reading this text. I think you're reading into it rather than reading out of it what God has placed in it.

And my position, I think, as you know, is that God has revealed himself through two books, the book of scripture and the book of nature.

Now, at this point, Hugh Ross begins committing what I call the two book fallacy, the elevation of man's understanding of the natural world to the same level as scripture.

There is no book of nature. It's not there. Nature is just nature. It's not comprised of propositional statements to the extent that there is a book of nature.

That's the Bible, you see, because the Bible tells us how the universe came to be and so on. And it's comprised of statements, propositional statements that are really quite easy to understand.

And you were commanded in the Bible to put everything to the test. Actually, the

Bible says you are not to put the Lord your God to the test. That's Deuteronomy 6 .16.

Jesus quotes it in Matthew 4 .7. You shall not put the Lord your God to the test. And so I think when we try to test

God's word by what we consider to be a superior standard, how is that not putting

God to the test? So God wants our faith to be built on testable evidence.

Does God want our faith to be based on testable evidence? Well, if by testable evidence we mean man's understanding of how the world works?

No, that's not biblical. We're to trust in the Lord with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding.

That's what the Bible says. Now, the Christian faith is not a blind faith. It is a faith that is self -attesting.

It's a faith that demonstrates itself to be true. But we have to demonstrate the

Christian faith on God's terms, not on our own. We don't go out and say, here's this absolute standard.

I have confidence in my understanding of the universe. And based on my understanding of the universe, the

Bible matches up. So it's probably God's word. That's not the right approach. God's word is true because it's

God's word. God's mind is the source of all truth. Something is true if it corresponds to what

God thinks. And we discover that by revelation. God has given some truth to us.

And he's done that in any number of ways. But it's not appropriate to test God by man's understanding of the external world.

Our faith does not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. So, yes,

I am an evidentialist, but I also see the value of presuppositionalism. Namely, that is a great tool to show us what is not true.

Evidentialism is a great tool for establishing what is true. Well, strictly speaking, if you're an evidentialist, you can't really know that anything is true.

Evidentialism is probability based. You're arguing for likelihoods. And even then, your standard by which you evaluate the evidence is itself something that's presupposed and yet unargued for in the evidentialist approach.

And so how do you know that's true? You can't really know anything in an evidentialist approach to epistemology.

And I think proper apologetics, we need to use both tools. And incidentally,

I think there are other apologetic approaches that likewise need to be taken into account. So I personally don't want to be pigeonholed into a particular apologetics approach, because I think

Scripture actually encourages us to combine five or six different apologetics models out there.

The view that that Hugh Ross has just advocated actually is pretty common within Christendom.

A lot of Christians think that you can sort of have an eclectic approach. You can borrow bits from the different apologetic methods.

But at their root, these different apologetic methods are contradictory. And so rather than taking the position that Hugh would take that, you know, you've got your tool belt and each of these apologetic methods is a different tool on your belt.

I would call presuppositional apologetics the belt that holds all your other different arguments.

And they have to. So, you know, I'm all for using evidence in argumentation, but I do it in a presuppositional way.

I try to make sure that I never deviate from biblical authority when I'm arguing for biblical authority.

And keep in mind, people need to hear the gospel in multiple different ways. So I think we should be encouraged to do that as apologists.

There is a difference between hearing the gospel different ways, which is fine as long as it's the gospel, and arguing for the truth of the

Bible by using a method that is fundamentally incompatible with the Bible. The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate source of knowledge.

All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, according to Colossians 2, 3. And so if we use a method that denies that, that says, oh, no, man can understand lots of things without biblical presuppositions, and we argue for the

Bible on that basis, then we're not really being consistent with the faith that we're arguing for. All right, well, thank you for that.

Now, my next question has to do with these two books. Do both of you hold to the two -book model, the book of nature, the book of scripture distinction?

Dr. Lyle, do you hold to that two -book notion? And if so, why don't you unpack that for us?

If not, likewise. I would say no, I would call it a fallacy to call nature a book because it's not propositional.

A book is a record of statements, statements that have been recorded. I do believe in dual revelation, of course.

There's no doubt God's revealed himself through nature. I think we all agree on that. But I would say that the

Bible is God's special revelation. And because it's his special revelation, because it's written in a human language, it has a clarity to it that nature does not have.

And so I would say that the statements that scientists make about nature are fallible. They're not on the same level of scripture.

And if those statements are contrary to the scripture, we need to reject those statements in favor of what the Bible says. So I'm all for dual revelation, but the

Bible indicates itself that special revelation has a superiority, especially when it comes to the gospel.

You don't get the gospel in general revelation. You look at the world. If you didn't have the Bible, you look at the world, you'd say, well, full of death and suffering,

God is an ogre if he exists at all. You read the Bible, you say, oh, wait a minute, it wasn't originally that way.

The Bible gives us the clarity of history to say, wait a minute, it's because of man's sin that death and all the suffering entered the world.

Now, here I was trying to get to some of the the rich theological differences between the young earth position and the old earth position, because, of course, in the old earth position,

God really kind of is an ogre who creates over billions of years of death and suffering, and that apparently brings him pleasure.

Whereas in the what we call biblical creation, six day creation, death is introduced when

Adam sins as the punishment for sin. And, of course, punishment should be unpleasant by its nature.

That's the point. And so there is this difference between is death a natural part of the world, as the old earth creationist holds, or is death the penalty for sin?

And if death is not the penalty for sin, then why did Jesus have to die on the cross? This is one of the most important issues theologically in terms of the implications of the age of the earth.

And so Adam's sin affected the world, and it's the Bible that tells us that. It's the Bible that gives us the lens through which we can correctly interpret the data in nature.

Not that we'll always do that perfectly, but it's the foundational basis on which we should be interpreting what we observe in nature.

Yeah. How much do you disagree with that, Dr. Ross, and how much do you agree with that? I'm sure there's some things in there that you would agree.

What are the key differences? This is probably the most important part of our dialogue, because, yes, there are parts I agree, parts where I disagree.

And I think where we disagree is really going to be quite helpful. I mean, I do agree with Jason that the

Bible is the only propositional revelation from God. I do accept

Sola Scriptura, but that doesn't negate the fact that God has also revealed himself through nature.

You know, I think what concerns me about Jason's statements is his idea that somehow the record of nature is tainted by human sin.

So it doesn't reliably reveal God's truth, whereas scripture does. The laws of physics are intact.

Scripture is clear in that there's been no change in the laws or constants of physics when

Adam fell. And so the record of nature is still just as reliable today as it was before Adam fell.

The difference is we now have fallen human beings trying to interpret the utterly trustworthy and reliable record of God revealed in nature, and likewise, the utterly trustworthy and reliable record in nature.

And so I look at them as being equally tainted by human sin. But what God has revealed is utterly trustworthy and reliable.

And where I probably also would disagree, it's not just that nature reveals the attributes of God and the existence of God.

It actually shows us the outline of how God tends to redeem us human beings unto himself.

I mean, look at the book of Job. I see that both Job and Elihu, drawing from what they saw in the record of nature, was able to get enough understanding of God's attributes, enough understanding of the law written on their heart.

You know, God has written his law in the heart of every human being, that they recognize their need for Redeemer and were convinced that God would provide that Redeemer.

But what you see in the Belgic Confession, Article 2, is that God indeed has revealed himself to us through two reliable books.

And it's Psalm 19, verse 4, that talks about how God has written his revelation to us upon the heavens.

They're not literal letters of the alphabet, but the fact that it uses that analogy tells us that this is something just as trustworthy and reliable as what we see in the pages of Scripture.

Is there another book besides the Bible that is equally authoritative to the

Bible? Now, I've heard that claim before. Mormons make that claim. There's the

Bible and then there's the Book of Mormon, which they consider to be equally authoritative. Muslims make that claim.

There's the Bible, or at least portions of it that they would accept as inspired. And then there's the Koran, this other book besides the

Bible that is equally authoritative and in practice more authoritative than the Scriptures. I reject that view.

I believe in sola scriptura. I believe that the Bible is the only book that God has inspired.

Has God revealed himself in nature? Of course, there's no doubt about that. But it's not a book.

And that's the point. The Bible, because it is written propositions, has a unique clarity to it that nature does not possess.

God has revealed in nature, he's revealed himself, some of his attributes, his law in our heart. But we can very easily push that down, suppress it, not retain it in our minds as the

Bible indicates in Romans 1. You can't do that with the Bible. You can't change it. It's there. People have tried, but you can't get rid of it.

And so the Bible is uniquely God's propositional revelation to human beings. And it's the only propositional revelation that we have access to today.

Furthermore, general revelation does not give us God's plan of redemption. You won't find that mentioned anywhere in the

Bible, that general revelation has that capacity. It tells us God's law. It tells us we don't live up to God's law.

It does not tell us how to be saved, contrary to what he just said. And I'll hit that in my response.

But God's plan of redemption is uniquely revealed in scripture.

That's one of the things that makes God's special revelation so special. And also, it's a means by which we can bring people to faith in Christ, actually show them, look, everything the

Bible says about history, nature and geography is accurate, even that which was centuries beyond the authors.

This is how we know these Bible authors were inspired. And so we can appeal to God's revelation in nature to bring him to the revelation of scripture.

Frankly, that's how I get a lot of people to read the Bible. I would say that I've never said that general revelation is tainted.

I just said it's not perspicuous beyond the existence of God and God's moral law written on our hearts, because the

Bible says that God has done that. But think of even the moral law written on our hearts. The Bible talks about your conscious becoming seared.

You can get to the point where you're no longer you're suppressing that truth and unrighteousness, which is what the

Bible says in Romans one. So I'm saying that the Bible has a clarity to it because it's propositional.

It has a clarity to it that you cannot get just from nature. And Psalm 19 actually compares and contrasts the two revelations of God.

It begins with God's natural revelation in nature. And the advantage of that is it's universal.

Everybody is aware of God's general revelation. Not everyone's aware of his special revelation. But then it moves on to God's special revelation.

And boy, that's that's extra special. That restores the soul. And I like the way it ends, too, because it refers to God, my rock and my redeemer.

And so it's only the special revelation of God that can ultimately bring us knowledge of salvation.

And so I think a lot of Job's statements. I don't think they were derived from nature. When Job said, I know that my redeemer lives and in the end you will stand on the earth.

That's not something he drew from observing nature. That's something that God revealed to him as a special revelation that is now recorded in the

Bible, which is the only remaining special revelation that we have. Oh, good,

Dr. Ross. Good. Sure. I mean, the Bible is 66 books and this idea of clarity, what it truthfully reveals, each book reveals different points with greater clarity than the other books.

And likewise, I think that's true of the record of nature. I mean, I'm going to go to Romans to try to get the specifics on how

I need to deal with a sin in my life and come to Christ. But I'm going to go to physics to figure out how

I should study microwaves. And so there's a clarity in the record of nature that we don't see in Scripture.

There's a clarity in Scripture that we don't see in nature. They deal with different subject matter.

That's not the Bible's purpose. The Bible's purpose is to teach us about the history that is necessary for understanding

God's plan of redemption. That's why I go to the Bible to understand how microwaves work. But if the

Bible spoke on microwaves, it would be right and would be clearer than anything else we could get in nature, because it took a long time for human beings to figure out how microwaves work.

So it's not something that's just immediately obvious. It's not something that is propositional, something that is perspicuous, something that is immediately clear.

It took a great deal of experimentation to do that. And I'm all for science. I know, Hugh, we're on the same page there.

We like science. But I would say that there's a difference between science and general revelation.

There's a difference between general revelation and special revelation. Let's make sure we don't confuse those different issues. The Bible is exceptionally clear in telling us the history of the universe and telling us the important things that we need to know in order to be redeemed, basically.

And it has a clarity beyond anything you could find in nature on those issues. On issues where the

Bible doesn't speak, of course, it's fine to use science to make a good guess. And sometimes we find out we're wrong and new data comes along.

That's the nature of the beast. That's the nature of science. It's a fallible tool, but it's a good one that God gave us.

And it should be used not to override the clear teachings of the scripture, but to provide insights in other areas.

Now, after this point, the dialogue kind of shifted gears and we began talking about more of the scientific aspects, which is fine.

It's kind of a shame we didn't get to go into some of the important theological implications that follow from a belief either in the biblical timescale or the secular timescale, in particular, death being the penalty for sin and what does that entail.

And I was ready to go into a lot of that in terms of, oh, it's just human death. Well, no, it involves animals too and so on.

But that doctrine is, of course, foundational to Christianity. Is death the penalty for sin?

Is it physical death? Is it just spiritual death? And if it's just spiritual death, why did Jesus physically have to die on the cross to redeem us and so on and so forth?

We didn't get into that. That's OK. There's only so much time, I suppose. But this is a natural stopping point for today.

So we'll, Lord willing, we'll pick it up next time with some of the scientific issues. I hope this has been helpful to you.