Feedback on "The Genesis Question"

Everett Headley

Anyone pickup or already read The Genesis Question?  Its the daily deal today.

Dave Hooton

"Science had convinced me that the God of the universe was neither capricious nor careless. People, on the other hand, even the most “objective” scientists I had met or read, were prone to at least some weaknesses and inconsistency and to making some errors, particularly the kind of “errors” arising from limited knowledge and understanding. And, when it came to predicting the future, human imperfection and imprecision seemed abundantly (and forgivably) obvious.
On these premises I began—and ended—my investigation of the world’s sacred writings. While I found words of interest and beauty and truth in each one, each reflected the limited (now known to be erroneous) scientific knowledge of its time and place—each one except one: the Bible. This particular book stood apart, and dramatically so.
From the first page I could see distinctions. The quantity and detail of scientific content far exceeded what I found in the other books. To my surprise, the scientific method was as clearly evident in Genesis 1 as it is in modern research. Most impressive of all, the four initial conditions and the sequence of major creation events—not just one or two, but more than a dozen—all matched the established scientific record.

Ross, H. (2001). The Genesis question: scientific advances and the accuracy of Genesis (p. 9). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Hugh Ross went on a scientific investigation. Lee Strobel went on a journalistic investigation. Both found God by subjecting the bible to the methods/processes of their chosen careers. Both make compelling cases for the "believability" of the bible; Ross here confining his study to the first 11 chapters of Genesis. It is an apologetics book written by a scientist, so if you don't expect any deep theology it is a good read.