Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions-Of-Years), as Popularized by Astronomer Hu

by Jonathan Sarfati

Many otherwise sound evangelical leaders, thinking that the only real enemy is Darwinism, are being seduced by the promise of progressive creationism. Its most prominent voice, astronomer Dr. Hugh... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0890514119
• ISBN13: 9780890514115
• Release Date: March 2011
• Publisher: Master Books
• Length: 411 Pages
• Weight: 1.27 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 6.0" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

Refutes theories embraced by some as 'fact'

Excellent refutation of 'arguments' like Damien's who have swallowed big bang cosmology and old earth as 'fact' contrary to Moses' plain statements, language and grammar in context.Any honest scientist will tell you that radiometric dating methods and big bang theory are far from established facts. While some evidence can be interpreted that way, Sarfati demonstrates conclusively that the Bible in its natural, normal sense CANNOT be interpreted to fit the big bang chronology. Much of the evidence can be just as fairly interpreted to negate billions of years. Starlight, for example, can be plausibly explained with Speed of Light at Infinity during Creation, not repeatable or observable under currently operative conditions.Hugh Ross and his disciples have the burden of proof to show the Bible means to convey billions, not thousands of years. So far, they have not established their case credibly or cogently after a preponderance of the evidence fairly evaluated.This book, along with the Bible and established/settled science (not unproven theories) shows the big bang to be a little bust!

Pseudo "unity" with unbiblical "science": Compromising??

This is the best book on the subject of how many Christians compromise with worldly scientific theories to interpret God's revelation. It's a dangerous position to be in. Instead of harmonizing the latest 'scientific' theories to God's Word, the Old Earthers are willing to change the Bible's clear meaning of 6 days and a recent Creation to accomodate to secular interpretation of scientific data.Most unfortunate to see critics who are oblivious to attacks on the Bible and the church from WITHIN by Old Earthers like Dr. Ross.When Christians start compromising with secular science the way Ross does in contradiction to the Bible's clear testimony, that is an attack on Scripture. The Word of God should never be subject to human scientific adjudication as to what to believe.Remember, friends. God Himself was there at Creation. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses exactly how and what to write to us. 6 days means 6 days,not Ross' contrived 6 eons or 6 ages or 4.6 billion years, etc. If that's what Moses really meant to convey to the Hebrews and to all Church History up until Darwin's time, he sure went about it in an ambiguous way!Remember, friends. Secular scientists and compromising Christians were NOT there at Creation. Too many believers are second-guessing the Holy Spirit's clear testimony and putting words and re-definitions revisionistically into God's mouth.If the Bible says 6 days = Young Earth and 'science' or Ross says 6 eons/ages = Old Earth, dear readers, whom are you going to believe? The Holy Spirit through Moses or astrophysicist Ross and those willing to change the natural meaning of Genesis?It's required of Christians not only to contend with attacks from outside the Faith, but also from the misguided, sincere-yet sincerely-deceived WITHIN the Faith as well. Genesis must be safeguarded from BOTH attacks. Unfortunately, Ross and his disciples are unwitting combatants AGAINST the Bible's very words in the name of scientific respectability and people's offense at Genesis conflicting with Old Earthism.This book is a fair, balanced, Scriptural defense of Genesis against attacks by well-meaning Christians who go too far to avoid scientific discomfort. Better scientific discomfort than Bible discomfort! Read John MacArthur's Battle for the Beginning to understand Satan's attack on Genesis: "Did God really say 6 days means 6 days?"

Young Earth is Biblical; Old Earth is mythical (see 2Peter)

It is clear the prior reviewer has not read this book or its supporting material carefully. The mind was made up as anti- Young Earth (normal 6 days as Genesis naturally reads).The author here demonstrates how powerful the Biblical and Scientific evidence (of settled, established Science, not the fabrications and contrived theories of Dr. Ross, et al) is for taking Genesis 1-11, especially Gen 1-2, in a straightforward, plain understanding as 6 ordinary days.While it is clear many Christians struggle to reconcile Genesis with what they learned in school or from those claiming scientific authority, the Bible is well able to defend itself.Much non-Darwinian data supports Young Earth, which is upsetting to some who can't handle contrary evidence and the resulting 'scientific discomfort'.There is NO WAY Moses could have meant his 6 days were anything but - you guessed it - 6 days! The 2 million Hebrews he was writing Genesis for would never have come up with all the outlandish theories we have today, embraced by respectable theologians and scholars of all people!I suspect when Moses wrote 'God', he meant God. When he wrote 'beginning', he meant beginning. 'Created' meant created.'Heaven and earth' meant - you guessed it.Look at all the nouns, verbs, adjectives Moses used. Why, friends, was Moses literal with all his vocabulary except yom (Hebrew for day)???When explaining Genesis to a child, teenager or non-scientific person, what would they ordinarily gather Moses means? 6 days =6 days.It would be great to see Old Earthers try all their interpretive gymnastics about why 'day' means almost anything but day to the rest of Genesis 3-11. Try Chapter 4 where Cain says 'Today'. Or all the references to days in the Flood narrative. Or Chapter 9 where 'Seedtime & Harvest, Day & Night will never cease'. What does Moses mean by yom in these places? Would his original Hebrew audience have tracked with all our notions of what Moses means by Yom throughout Genesis? Or did Moses have just one, standard, dictionary definition that he used consistently?Please, friends, let Moses tell us what he plainly means. Don't rely on Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, modern science or revisionist Old Earthers like Hugh Ross (whose grasp of Hebrew is problematic at best and treats nature like the 67th book of the Bible. Ross' degree/training is astronomy/astrophysics, NOT Bible interpretation/grammar).All this book asks is that we prayerfully read Genesis for ourselves without modern scientific filtering. Let Moses speak for himself, plainly and naturally as if you were Joshua or Miriam or Caleb hearing Moses read the Creation account to the people.When you're done with this book, try John MacArthur's BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING.

Dr. Ross has a lot to answer for...

Messages Messages Help The book is excellent. Well documented and comprehesive!I really enjoyed reading it. Basically, Ross has a LOT of answering for his theological blunders and his "bogus" claims regarding the Hebrew. (Thankfully, he is his own worst enemy regarding his own credibly, especially when he openshis mouth on Biblical Hebrew. --Dr. Ross, my personal recommendation is don't speak concerning the Hebrew, you just get it all back-words! However, I must thank you for speaking on the Hebrew because it destroys your "ETHOS"!)Folks, it seems that he is speaking or writing regarding the Hebrew he take much liberty and has even at one time told people to correct the text based on his "expert" opinion. He told them to omit a key word from the inspired text that would put his personal views about the Flood in question - Read it for yourselves on Pg. 254 - 255.(RC)I am sure there will be a response from the OECist camp on this book because if they simply ignore it their "Fragile Foundation" is sure to crumble with their own credibly. The scholarship of Dr. Sarfati and his comprehensive attack will be a formatible task for even RTB and Co. to deal with, and they MUST deal with it. I doubt they will surrender and say that they were wrong and they have been shown to be in error. -- Spurgeon did say it is better to acknowledge when one is wrong because in so doing you are only admitting to be a bit wiser today! However Pride will keep most people from doing that!Dr. Ross (e.g. his book "Genesis Question" page: 192 ) encouraged and invited this sort of critique in his teachings and books therefore "Refuting Compromise" is a good thing to be read by all OECists and YECists. That would mean that even Dr. Ross would encourage all of you to get your copy and read it for yourselves!

Powerful,thorough confutation of Genesis misinterpretations

The author is to be congratulated! This is the finest synthesis of all the Biblical, linguistic, historic, grammatic, hermeneutic and established science evidence to rebut all the Genesis theories of interpretation that depart from the plain,straightforward, natural intent of Moses in the text itself.The interested reader only has to ask: What did Moses himself intend to convey in Gen. 1-3 to his audience? What would a child or uneducated person think as to Moses' intention? What did his audience from 1500BC until only recently plainly gather from Moses' depiction of a 6-day Creation? When Moses mentions the River that flowed from Eden and separated into 4 tributaries, what did he mean by sequencing them: 'the name of the 1st was Pishon, the 2nd Gihon, the 3rd Tigris, the 4th Euphrates'? Do they stop being literal, normal rivers because they are sequenced in ordinal fashion? If they are still real, literal rivers, why would Moses' sequencing of ordinal days in the previous Chapter de-literalize the days? Why do scholars and skeptics reinterpret Genesis' days as figurative, literary device, non-literal,etc. but not any OTHER references in the text: earth, sky, water, beasts, sun, moon, created, good, light, night, hover, seas? This book is excellent in detail, in the whole and written with a charitable yet fact-marshalling spirit. Parties on both sides will find much of value to challenge received presuppositions.