Replies

"Well, Ross didn't say much of anything in the debate you linked to, so I'll suspend judgement on his arguments. All I have to go on is what Kaiser said, and frankly, his arguments were lousy. He's a prime example of how NOT to argue against YECS."

Ross will be heard from more in the other parts of the debates. Kaiser is a well-respected defendeder of the literal Bible, whereas the best Ken Ham could do is make things up or refer to other YECs.

"That's a bit of a stretch, it seems to me, but if you find it convincing, more power to you. I honestly don't see how it matters for salvation."

It's not a stretch, it's a matter of fact. And it's the YECs who time and time again have made the days of Genesis a matter of salvation. The explicitly say so.

"Okay, this I've got to see. Ross didn't say anything about this in the link you provided. Would you mind enlightening me a bit?"

I thought you were well-educated in all this? Obviously not. How do you people persume to talk about the Bible and don't even know fundamental things about it? Ross details at great length these issues in the book "The Genesis Question."

"Maybe, but birds didn't come before land animals, and the Bible says they did."

Wrong again. In Genesis 1:20, the word translated as "bird" is never used to describe birds elsewhere in the Bible. It's used to describe insects. In Genesis 1:21, the hebrew used refers to all sorts of higher animals, including birds.

Now that you're fundamental argument is gone, try studying the text in more detail, not in the superficial manner that YECs do.

Wrong again. In Genesis 1:20, the word translated as "bird" is never used to describe birds elsewhere in the Bible.,p> Sorry, but you're the one who's wrong on this. Genesis 1:20 uses the Hebrew word "owph," and it is a general term for all winged creatures that includes birds as well as insects. And yes, it is used in some other parts of the Bible to describe birds, though it's not the most common term.

Here's my source:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/5/1138060759-1624.html

Hebrew Scholars at ASA also seem to agree with this definition of the word.

Hugh Ross is really grasping at straws if he claims it just refers to insects.

You may want to believe him, if you like, and it's not important for your salvation. However, don't you think it's a bit strange that just about all other Hebrew scholars have a contrary opinion? If the word really means just insects, don't you think it's a bit strange that not a single English version of the Bible translates it as such?