Dave Hunt and Hugh Ross

Q. What do you think of Dave Hunt’s Daniel’s prophesies? I have read many articles on “prove the Bible is God’s inspired words”, both historically and scientifically. I have found that people don’t appreciate historical proofs very well. Do you know of any better scientific articles than those of astrophysicists Hugh Ross’?

A. With respect to Dave Hunt’s interpretation of Daniel’s prophecies, that is a very broad question. Hunt wrote many books on prophecy, some of which involved Daniel & would require many pages to respond. Can you narrow it down to specific topics more manageable in my humble blog? In general Hunt is evangelical dispensational, but rejects Calvinism. My own position is evangelical, non-dispensational, & primarily Reformed. Beyond that I would rather comment on specific subjects than make broad-sweep statements.

As to Hugh Ross, he is an old-earth creationist. He advocates progressive creation, which holds that the universe began with the Big Bang controlled by God. An alternative creationism model is young-earth. If you are interested you can read up on papers from:

• Institute of Creation Research http://www.icr.org/ (Henry Morris)
• Answers in Genesis https://answersingenesis.org/ (Ken Ham)

People don’t appreciate historical proofs because they may think that they are not scientific. Science deals with making hypotheses, doing experiments, observing the results to see whether they support or reject their theory, & revising assumptions & testing again to see whether they are valid. That’s good for the present, upon which you predict future outcome provided your theory holds. But what do you do with the past when you cannot perform experiments on them?

What happened occurred in time past, & we cannot go back in time to observe the events as they happened. Science is out of its realm. What remains is historical evidence, either physical objects or written records. The former falls under the domain of archeology, while the latter is within the study of history. Many have a tendency to value science above history. Actually both have their place, dealing with the present & the past respectively. We need to know each one’s limitations.

When was Abraham born?

Q. The young earth view of 6,000 years says Abraham was born around 2000 BC, how did they get this ?

A. They based the age of the earth on chronologies in the Bible. Different authors have written on this approach, with some variations in the results depending on which manuscript was used, but they are all in the range of thousands of years, not billions. The most famous is Archbishop Ussher, who wrote The Annals of the World in 1650.

He started with the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11, which established the period of time:
• from Creation to birth of Noah (Gen 5) to be 1,056 years;
• from the birth of Noah to the time Abram entered Canaan (Gen 11) to be 1,027 years.

ussher 1

He then used several other passages given in the chart below to establish the time from Abram’s entry into Canaan to the final deportation of the Jews to be 1,337 years. From secular history and archeology he knew the final Jewish exile to be 584 BC. So he back calculated the age of the earth since creation to be:
1,056 + 1,027 + 1,337 + 584 BC = 4004 BC

ussher 4

Since from Gen 5 and 11 Abram was born 2,008 years after Adam, people deduce that he must be born in:
4004 BC – 2,008 = 1996 BC, or 2000 BC in round terms. (QED)