A Matter of Days, ch. 6-10

Chapter 6 wants to argue that the current debate is due to wrong interpretations of Scripture. Ross claims that it is "by no coincidence does the creation-day controversy rage most fiercely among English-speaking Christians." What concerns me about this chapter is how he simplifies science too much to make his point (see article: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01).

Chapter 7 works through some key words of the Old Testament such as Yom, Ereb, and Boqer. The point is to establish that these words can be used as something more than 24-hour days. Ross comes to some conclusions based on the natural processes regarding creation. He doesn't seem to consider whether God could have done it otherwise (as he later suggests about Rev. 21).

Chapter 8 seeks to establish an old-universe view in theology. Ross make the points that God's character is revealed to us and that His revelation is dual in nature (Bible and Science). He picks up on the concept of Sabbath to demonstrate that God has rested from his creative power in this age, a point he will support in a later chapter.

Chapter 9 takes up the objection that the existence of death (of plants and animals) before the Fall is impossible. Ross makes a fairly weak argument against this on p. 98. What is becoming consistently frustrating for me about this book is his argumentation is weak. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with his conclusions. But, he makes quick and broad conclusions without thinking through the weight of his objectors' views and without struggling through alternatives to what he is saying. What is most distressing is that he uses his own scientific knowledge to come to conclusions about God's motivation in doing certain things (like having plants die before the fall, or have animals be carnivorous before the fall) and then appeals to 'my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts' (Is. 55:9).

Chapter 10 says Revelation 21 points back and doesn't point back to the creation account. He makes the claim that the 'new creation' will be completely and totally new. In this, I think he falls into the same semantic trap that the YUCs make by making too much of the word 'new'. He even goes so far to conclude (he seems to think strongly) that there cannot be stars in the new creation. The passage says there is no need, not that they don't exist. From my understanding, God will restore THIS cosmos so that it will be REnewed, not new and qualitatively different.