What do you think?
Rate this book
(Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible
A Biblical scholar reveals archaeological and linguistic data showing how young-earth creationists often misinterpret the Bible.
400 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 20, 2020
57 people are currently reading
147 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 3, 2021
I read this book as one who was skeptical of Creation Museum types. Imputing modern scientific notions into the text and trying to use sparse mentions of beings like the Leviathan to read dinosaurs into the text already seemed far-fetched to me. Ben demonstrates clearly that it was, indeed, far-fetched.
I am an evangelical pastor (though many Reformed Presbyterians do not like that designation), so the book was challenging for me on multiple fronts. Mostly, it showed me that I have a deficit in terms of understanding the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible.
Though at some points I depart from agreement with Ben's argument, this was a very valuable read for me.
*I should disclose the Ben S. is friend of mine from college. He does not hold the same view of Scripture as I do.
I am an evangelical pastor (though many Reformed Presbyterians do not like that designation), so the book was challenging for me on multiple fronts. Mostly, it showed me that I have a deficit in terms of understanding the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible.
Though at some points I depart from agreement with Ben's argument, this was a very valuable read for me.
*I should disclose the Ben S. is friend of mine from college. He does not hold the same view of Scripture as I do.
February 6, 2023
Understanding the cultural context into which Scripture was written is important for understanding its meaning. This book examines the ancient context into which Genesis was written, and it's extremely helpful!
January 8, 2021
Ben Stanhope does an excellent job of pointing out the exegetical fallacies of Young Earth Creationism in general and of the claims of The Creation Museum in particular. Young Earth Creationists views of The Bible cannot stand up to real, actual biblical scholarship, and Stanhope does an excellent job demonstrating this.
The book is divided up by three sections. Section 1 titled “Proposed Claims of Extinct Animals in the Bible”, examines the creatures in scripture called The Leviathan, Behemoth, and Unicorns. Examining the Bible in its original language and context, and examining the other creation myths of the Ancient Near East, Stanhope shows that the Leviathan is a mythological sea monster that served as a symbol of chaos and disorder. Like Enuma Ellish' Tiamut and The Baal Cycle's Tanun, Yahweh is depicted as crushing the heads of this massive sea monster as an act of creation. This is because ancients believed that something didn't exist until it had function in an ordered system. Chaos must be subdued. Marduk defeats Tiamut in the Enuma Ellish before he rips her body in half and uses part of it to make the land and the other part to make the sky. However, while Psalm 74 (verse 14) and other passages (i.e Psalm 104, Psalm 89:5-12, as well as Job 38:8-11 and Isaiah 51:9-10) speak of this creature, and how God defeated it, triumphed over it, plays with it, etc. Genesis 1 is silent on this creature's very existence. Genesis 1 simply mentions "the deep" (Genesis 1:2) and God's Spirit hovering over its surface. Stanhope argues that the writer of Genesis did this as a polemic against the gods of the other creation narratives, basically saying "God is so supreme, He doesn't even need to have the battle. He can get right down to business." Behemoth wasn't a dinosaur either. He was more of a "Super Bull", and his tail was....well.....not a tail. I'll let you read the book for yourself to find out what it was. ( ͡º ͜ʖ ͡º )
Section 2, “Reading Genesis Like an Ancient Israelite”, examines Ancient Hebrew concepts and how they compare and contrast with neighboring cultures. Section 2 begins with chapter 5 of the book titled "Does Genesis 1:1 describe an actual beginning?" Here, Stanhope goes into the grammar and syntax of the first verse of the creation account, compares it with how other creation myths open, and interacts with the latest scholarship on this issue, and makes a powerful case that Genesis 1:1 should not be read as an independent clause (i.e a complete sentence in its own right as most English translations render it). Rather, Genesis 1:1 should be read as a dependent clause, with Genesis 1:2 being the circumstantial clause, and Genesis 1:3 being the main clause.
In other words, Stanhope argues based on the lexical evidence that Genesis 1:1-3 should be read "When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep with the spirit of God hovering over the Face of the waters. And God said 'let there be light'..."
Stanhope interacts with his critics who maintain that Genesis 1:1 SHOULD be read as an independent clause rather than a dependent clause and provides compelling reasons why their objections fail. He also notes that he isn't a lone voice in arguing for this translation. He cites many prominent scholars;
Mark S. Smith from NYU and Princeton, Ellen van Wolde from Radboud University, Robert Holmstedt at the University of Toronto, Michael S. Heiser at Logos Bible Software, John Hobbins at Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Francis Andersen at Fuller Seminary, Bruce Waltke at Knox Seminary, William P. Brown at Columbia Theological Seminary, Miles Van Pelt at Reformed Theological Seminary, Benjamin Sommer at Jewish Theological Seminary, Jack Sasson at Vanderbilt University, Richard E. Averbeck at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Christine Hayes at Yale, or Jon Levenson at Harvard.
I think Stanhope is correct, and I have employed the fact that Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause in my case for the functional origins interpretation in my 43 page paper "Genesis 1: Functional Origins, Temple Inauguration, and Anti-Pagan Polemics" as well blog posts which can be found on my website www.cerebralfaith.net
With the verse rendered "When God created the heavens and the earth..." or "In the initial period in which God created the heavens and the earth", this presupposes that material is already present. It is not describing some Big Bang origin of all matter, energy, space, and time ex nihilo as many creationists (both of the old earth and young earth variety believe). This is an odd feature of the text if Genesis 1 is meant to be an account of the material origins of the world and everything in it. Wouldn't a material origins account explain the origins of material? And with the world being covered in sea "the deep" in Genesis 1:2, which, as already explained, was a symbol of chaos and disorder in Ancient Near Eastern thinking. This provides another piece in the cumulative case for the functional origins view of Genesis 1.
Before moving on to discuss the nature of the creation days and what actually happened during them, he takes an excursis into Israelite cosmology. He discusses both the evidence in the text, as well as evidence in external Ancient Near Eastern texts that the people of that day believed the Earth was a flat disc covered by a solid dome that held back primordial waters, and the dome was held up by "pillars". And contrary to what concordists will tell you, this isn't a construct conjured up by scholars cherry-picking verses out of The Bible to construct a silly view of the Earth to make the biblical authors look stupid. There are literally ancient paintings and carvings from different cultures that depict this view of the world. I have to think that people who deny that The Bible contains "dome cosmology" like Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig just aren't aware of these. "A picture is worth a thousand words" after all. This is all covered in chapters 6, 7, and 8. Now, this does not mean that The Bible is in error nor does it mean that we ought to become flat earthers. What God did in inspiring the text was "accommodation" which Stanhope fleshes out in more detail near the end of the book.
After going on a tour of ANE cosmic thinking, Stanhope returns to the days of Genesis. He defends "The Cosmic Temple Inaguration" interpretation. I was pleased to see him defend this view as it's the view of Genesis 1 that I adopt. He also argues that a lot of the purpose of the text was to polemicize the religious beliefs of Israel's neighbors (which is something I also affirm). I wasn't sure how Ben Stanhope would view Genesis, but I'm glad to have found another biblical scholar who accepts the cosmic temple view. It seems it's gaining traction. John Walton and J. Richard Middleton are also defenders of this view.
I first learned about The Cosmic Temple view from John Walton's book The Lost World Of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and The Origins Debate and I owe it to Walton for convincing me of the view (well, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy gets some credit as well). This view says that God took 6 days to inagurate the universe as His temple. On the 7th day, God came to take up residence in His temple "He rested", just as gods did in the Ancient Near East when the ceremonial opening of their temples were completed. Stanhope gives a lot of compelling arguments both from within the biblical text itself as well as from external sources that this is what the author of Genesis 1 was trying to convey.
Section 3, “A Path Forward”, discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible and the value of scholarly study when trying to understand the Bible (or anything else) faithfully. What Stanhope says in this portion of the book is something Christians desperately need to get through their heads. I've gotten on my soap box about this on social media on more than one occasion. I found myself giving hardy amens throughout this entire section. Way too many Christians have this idea that all they need to do is just crack open their Bible on an afternoon, read it, and hope The Holy Spirit supernaturally zaps their minds with insight. Stanhope argues from scripture that The Holy Spirit never promised to do this, and points out how absurd it would be if we took this attitude in other areas. In other words, he uses reductio ad absurdum arguments. The Holy Spirit is not your own personal commentary. You need to do your homework in understanding the details of the text. Exegesis and the practice of hermenuetics is something Christians should not frown upon. I believe this attitude is why we have so many other modern heresies and cults that we do. Stanhope's words in this portion of the book is something many in the pews need to hear, and I just pray it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
The Appendices critique the psuedo-scholarship of The Creation Museum's artifacts supposedly proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together. He pokes so many holes in The Creation Museum's psuedo-archeology that it made me hungry for Swiss Cheese!
Overall, I think this is a fantastic book poking holes in YEC. It does so using just the biblical text in its cultural context. Ben Stanhope doesn't once talk about science. He's not a scientist and doesn't claim to be. Stanhope merely exposes how fundamentalists like Ken Ham and his ilk twist and abuse the word of God to promote their anti-science agendas.
The book is divided up by three sections. Section 1 titled “Proposed Claims of Extinct Animals in the Bible”, examines the creatures in scripture called The Leviathan, Behemoth, and Unicorns. Examining the Bible in its original language and context, and examining the other creation myths of the Ancient Near East, Stanhope shows that the Leviathan is a mythological sea monster that served as a symbol of chaos and disorder. Like Enuma Ellish' Tiamut and The Baal Cycle's Tanun, Yahweh is depicted as crushing the heads of this massive sea monster as an act of creation. This is because ancients believed that something didn't exist until it had function in an ordered system. Chaos must be subdued. Marduk defeats Tiamut in the Enuma Ellish before he rips her body in half and uses part of it to make the land and the other part to make the sky. However, while Psalm 74 (verse 14) and other passages (i.e Psalm 104, Psalm 89:5-12, as well as Job 38:8-11 and Isaiah 51:9-10) speak of this creature, and how God defeated it, triumphed over it, plays with it, etc. Genesis 1 is silent on this creature's very existence. Genesis 1 simply mentions "the deep" (Genesis 1:2) and God's Spirit hovering over its surface. Stanhope argues that the writer of Genesis did this as a polemic against the gods of the other creation narratives, basically saying "God is so supreme, He doesn't even need to have the battle. He can get right down to business." Behemoth wasn't a dinosaur either. He was more of a "Super Bull", and his tail was....well.....not a tail. I'll let you read the book for yourself to find out what it was. ( ͡º ͜ʖ ͡º )
Section 2, “Reading Genesis Like an Ancient Israelite”, examines Ancient Hebrew concepts and how they compare and contrast with neighboring cultures. Section 2 begins with chapter 5 of the book titled "Does Genesis 1:1 describe an actual beginning?" Here, Stanhope goes into the grammar and syntax of the first verse of the creation account, compares it with how other creation myths open, and interacts with the latest scholarship on this issue, and makes a powerful case that Genesis 1:1 should not be read as an independent clause (i.e a complete sentence in its own right as most English translations render it). Rather, Genesis 1:1 should be read as a dependent clause, with Genesis 1:2 being the circumstantial clause, and Genesis 1:3 being the main clause.
In other words, Stanhope argues based on the lexical evidence that Genesis 1:1-3 should be read "When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep with the spirit of God hovering over the Face of the waters. And God said 'let there be light'..."
Stanhope interacts with his critics who maintain that Genesis 1:1 SHOULD be read as an independent clause rather than a dependent clause and provides compelling reasons why their objections fail. He also notes that he isn't a lone voice in arguing for this translation. He cites many prominent scholars;
Mark S. Smith from NYU and Princeton, Ellen van Wolde from Radboud University, Robert Holmstedt at the University of Toronto, Michael S. Heiser at Logos Bible Software, John Hobbins at Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Francis Andersen at Fuller Seminary, Bruce Waltke at Knox Seminary, William P. Brown at Columbia Theological Seminary, Miles Van Pelt at Reformed Theological Seminary, Benjamin Sommer at Jewish Theological Seminary, Jack Sasson at Vanderbilt University, Richard E. Averbeck at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Christine Hayes at Yale, or Jon Levenson at Harvard.
I think Stanhope is correct, and I have employed the fact that Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause in my case for the functional origins interpretation in my 43 page paper "Genesis 1: Functional Origins, Temple Inauguration, and Anti-Pagan Polemics" as well blog posts which can be found on my website www.cerebralfaith.net
With the verse rendered "When God created the heavens and the earth..." or "In the initial period in which God created the heavens and the earth", this presupposes that material is already present. It is not describing some Big Bang origin of all matter, energy, space, and time ex nihilo as many creationists (both of the old earth and young earth variety believe). This is an odd feature of the text if Genesis 1 is meant to be an account of the material origins of the world and everything in it. Wouldn't a material origins account explain the origins of material? And with the world being covered in sea "the deep" in Genesis 1:2, which, as already explained, was a symbol of chaos and disorder in Ancient Near Eastern thinking. This provides another piece in the cumulative case for the functional origins view of Genesis 1.
Before moving on to discuss the nature of the creation days and what actually happened during them, he takes an excursis into Israelite cosmology. He discusses both the evidence in the text, as well as evidence in external Ancient Near Eastern texts that the people of that day believed the Earth was a flat disc covered by a solid dome that held back primordial waters, and the dome was held up by "pillars". And contrary to what concordists will tell you, this isn't a construct conjured up by scholars cherry-picking verses out of The Bible to construct a silly view of the Earth to make the biblical authors look stupid. There are literally ancient paintings and carvings from different cultures that depict this view of the world. I have to think that people who deny that The Bible contains "dome cosmology" like Hugh Ross and William Lane Craig just aren't aware of these. "A picture is worth a thousand words" after all. This is all covered in chapters 6, 7, and 8. Now, this does not mean that The Bible is in error nor does it mean that we ought to become flat earthers. What God did in inspiring the text was "accommodation" which Stanhope fleshes out in more detail near the end of the book.
After going on a tour of ANE cosmic thinking, Stanhope returns to the days of Genesis. He defends "The Cosmic Temple Inaguration" interpretation. I was pleased to see him defend this view as it's the view of Genesis 1 that I adopt. He also argues that a lot of the purpose of the text was to polemicize the religious beliefs of Israel's neighbors (which is something I also affirm). I wasn't sure how Ben Stanhope would view Genesis, but I'm glad to have found another biblical scholar who accepts the cosmic temple view. It seems it's gaining traction. John Walton and J. Richard Middleton are also defenders of this view.
I first learned about The Cosmic Temple view from John Walton's book The Lost World Of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and The Origins Debate and I owe it to Walton for convincing me of the view (well, Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy gets some credit as well). This view says that God took 6 days to inagurate the universe as His temple. On the 7th day, God came to take up residence in His temple "He rested", just as gods did in the Ancient Near East when the ceremonial opening of their temples were completed. Stanhope gives a lot of compelling arguments both from within the biblical text itself as well as from external sources that this is what the author of Genesis 1 was trying to convey.
Section 3, “A Path Forward”, discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible and the value of scholarly study when trying to understand the Bible (or anything else) faithfully. What Stanhope says in this portion of the book is something Christians desperately need to get through their heads. I've gotten on my soap box about this on social media on more than one occasion. I found myself giving hardy amens throughout this entire section. Way too many Christians have this idea that all they need to do is just crack open their Bible on an afternoon, read it, and hope The Holy Spirit supernaturally zaps their minds with insight. Stanhope argues from scripture that The Holy Spirit never promised to do this, and points out how absurd it would be if we took this attitude in other areas. In other words, he uses reductio ad absurdum arguments. The Holy Spirit is not your own personal commentary. You need to do your homework in understanding the details of the text. Exegesis and the practice of hermenuetics is something Christians should not frown upon. I believe this attitude is why we have so many other modern heresies and cults that we do. Stanhope's words in this portion of the book is something many in the pews need to hear, and I just pray it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
The Appendices critique the psuedo-scholarship of The Creation Museum's artifacts supposedly proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together. He pokes so many holes in The Creation Museum's psuedo-archeology that it made me hungry for Swiss Cheese!
Overall, I think this is a fantastic book poking holes in YEC. It does so using just the biblical text in its cultural context. Ben Stanhope doesn't once talk about science. He's not a scientist and doesn't claim to be. Stanhope merely exposes how fundamentalists like Ken Ham and his ilk twist and abuse the word of God to promote their anti-science agendas.
August 9, 2022
Can't recommend this book enough
July 20, 2025
Extremely informative without being too combative. Stanhope does a great job of uncovering the many flaws in the Answers in Genesis interpretation of scripture. There are SO many inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and frankly, untruths being taught at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. After finishing this book, I’m left convinced that the folks over at AIG are aware of the flaws in what they teach, but continue to push their narrative anyway.
This book really is not based in science at all, but instead uses the text of scripture itself, ancient cultural context, and common sense to expose the flaws of the AIG model.
I recommend this book for anyone unsatisfied with young-earth interpretation. I also recommend this book for young-earthers and those subscribed to the AIG interpretation. Read with an open mind that God’s Word may be larger and more meaningful than you have been led to believe.
This book really is not based in science at all, but instead uses the text of scripture itself, ancient cultural context, and common sense to expose the flaws of the AIG model.
I recommend this book for anyone unsatisfied with young-earth interpretation. I also recommend this book for young-earthers and those subscribed to the AIG interpretation. Read with an open mind that God’s Word may be larger and more meaningful than you have been led to believe.
September 15, 2023
What a refreshing, meaty, funny, illuminating book! It isn't a theology book. He makes no claims to exegete his findings. He is a Hebrew scholar and well studied in Ancient Near East culture and literature - he takes on Scripture through that lens. It's up to the reader to take this information and apply.
Ben Stanhope, although a scholar, writes in a way that lay people can still understand and breaks down canned Answers in Genesis arguments systematically, loaded with a lot of research footnoted on the bottom of each page (which I appreciate, seeing at a glance rather than having to dig through the back).
The only critique I have is on chapter nine: The Meaning of the Seven Days of Creation. There was valuable content in it, which I appreciate, but in my studies, Scripture to Scripture analysis has been most instructive which I read in "Beyond Creation Science" by Timothy Martin, regarding the first chapters of Genesis.
Still, my bottom line: I can't recommend this book highly enough.
Ben Stanhope, although a scholar, writes in a way that lay people can still understand and breaks down canned Answers in Genesis arguments systematically, loaded with a lot of research footnoted on the bottom of each page (which I appreciate, seeing at a glance rather than having to dig through the back).
The only critique I have is on chapter nine: The Meaning of the Seven Days of Creation. There was valuable content in it, which I appreciate, but in my studies, Scripture to Scripture analysis has been most instructive which I read in "Beyond Creation Science" by Timothy Martin, regarding the first chapters of Genesis.
Still, my bottom line: I can't recommend this book highly enough.
December 28, 2020
Review title: Compares approaches to understanding the Bible; understanding the text in context is best.
Ben Stanhope investigates and evaluates a couple of approaches to understanding the Bible, especially the beginning of Genesis. The book is well written and very informative. It’s divided into 3 sections.
Section 1, “Proposed Claims of Extinct Animals in the Bible”, examines Leviathan, Behemoth, Unicorns, and flying serpents to see if these should be understood as various dinosaurs or something else. In no case does it seem like a dinosaur is the most faithful way to understand these references.
Section 2, “Reading Genesis Like an Ancient Israelite”, examines Ancient Hebrew concepts and how they compare and contrast with neighboring cultures. It was especially interesting to learn about the Ugarit language that shares some common words with ancient Hebrew. This section is particularly well researched and supported by numerous footnotes.
Section 3, “A Path Forward”, discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible and the value of scholarly study when trying to understand the Bible (or anything else) faithfully.
Appendices A, B, and C delve into some supplementary information like false artifacts, hoaxes, and misrepresentations publicized by young-earth creationist organizations.
I highly recommend this book for those who desire to understand the Bible well, especially for Christians who value and cherish Scripture. I also recommend this for parents, pastors, youth leaders, university students, and those who recognize that the perceived conflict between science and the Bible has driven many away from Christianity. Much of this perceived conflict can be resolved by understanding the cultural background and thus understanding better what the Bible is teaching.
Ben Stanhope investigates and evaluates a couple of approaches to understanding the Bible, especially the beginning of Genesis. The book is well written and very informative. It’s divided into 3 sections.
Section 1, “Proposed Claims of Extinct Animals in the Bible”, examines Leviathan, Behemoth, Unicorns, and flying serpents to see if these should be understood as various dinosaurs or something else. In no case does it seem like a dinosaur is the most faithful way to understand these references.
Section 2, “Reading Genesis Like an Ancient Israelite”, examines Ancient Hebrew concepts and how they compare and contrast with neighboring cultures. It was especially interesting to learn about the Ugarit language that shares some common words with ancient Hebrew. This section is particularly well researched and supported by numerous footnotes.
Section 3, “A Path Forward”, discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible and the value of scholarly study when trying to understand the Bible (or anything else) faithfully.
Appendices A, B, and C delve into some supplementary information like false artifacts, hoaxes, and misrepresentations publicized by young-earth creationist organizations.
I highly recommend this book for those who desire to understand the Bible well, especially for Christians who value and cherish Scripture. I also recommend this for parents, pastors, youth leaders, university students, and those who recognize that the perceived conflict between science and the Bible has driven many away from Christianity. Much of this perceived conflict can be resolved by understanding the cultural background and thus understanding better what the Bible is teaching.
May 20, 2022
Autor zajmuje się polemiką z kreacjonistami "Młodej Ziemi", czyli z tematem u nas egzotycznym. Jeszcze, wciąż egzotycznym, obawiam się, bo na taką polemikę nie jesteśmy (My=Polacy) jeszcze gotowi. (Autor jest przygotowany, bo sam się z okolic "ewangelikalnych" wywodzi i tego uczono go w młodości.)
Generalnie autor pisze rzeczy dość proste i oczywiste, w dość wąskim zakresie -- ale ładnie zbiera pewne rzeczy razem, bardzo chętnie np. zapożyczam sobie ilustrację jahwistycznej kosmologii:
https://i.ibb.co/WnzbVhZ/Zrzut-ekranu...
PS.
A ja tylko odnotuje moje rosnące zdumienie, jak bardzo w takim kreacjonizmie, ale też w historiach o UFO, na przykład, istotny jest wpływ popkultury. W końcu dlaczego kreacjoniści pokazują ludzi i dinozaury, a nie ludzi i megatherium? Skąd u nich to równanie, że smok z dawnego podania, to akurat dinozaur, a nie, powiedzmy, mastodont? Jak dla mnie to wszystko echo popkulturowej popularności dinozaurów...
Generalnie autor pisze rzeczy dość proste i oczywiste, w dość wąskim zakresie -- ale ładnie zbiera pewne rzeczy razem, bardzo chętnie np. zapożyczam sobie ilustrację jahwistycznej kosmologii:
https://i.ibb.co/WnzbVhZ/Zrzut-ekranu...
PS.
A ja tylko odnotuje moje rosnące zdumienie, jak bardzo w takim kreacjonizmie, ale też w historiach o UFO, na przykład, istotny jest wpływ popkultury. W końcu dlaczego kreacjoniści pokazują ludzi i dinozaury, a nie ludzi i megatherium? Skąd u nich to równanie, że smok z dawnego podania, to akurat dinozaur, a nie, powiedzmy, mastodont? Jak dla mnie to wszystko echo popkulturowej popularności dinozaurów...
May 8, 2023
I was engaged and excited the whole way through. A must-read for anyone interested in the ancient near eastern culture that the Old Testament is birthed out of. Using the backdrop of Ken Ham’s creation museum, Stanhope explores what most YEC scholars get wrong about the cosmology and traditions of the ancient Israelites. While the concepts and content Stanhope draws on are very dense, he presents them in a very approachable and digestible way for those not as familiar with Hebraic literature. A fantastic read for anyone grappling with how to converse with those trying to approach the Bible through a YEC lens.
February 9, 2021
Great book!
Stanhope does a wonderful job explaining different cosmogonies and how the Creation Museum even misunderstands its own Scripture through eisegesis. I really liked how he emphasises the importance of studying and leaving not only the cultures of the ANE , but also the languages as well rather then simply dismissing current scholarship
Stanhope does a wonderful job explaining different cosmogonies and how the Creation Museum even misunderstands its own Scripture through eisegesis. I really liked how he emphasises the importance of studying and leaving not only the cultures of the ANE , but also the languages as well rather then simply dismissing current scholarship
October 23, 2022
Great book overall, does what it says it is attempting to do. I would sincerely suggest reading the appendices at the end, I actually thought they might have been even more interesting (and telling) than the rest of the book.
February 8, 2023
Excellent
It was a well researched and informative book that helps to sign light on difficult but interesting passages in the Hebrew Bible. I really appreciated Ben's honesty and hard work.
It was a well researched and informative book that helps to sign light on difficult but interesting passages in the Hebrew Bible. I really appreciated Ben's honesty and hard work.
May 3, 2024
A great work of scholarship that reveals that the Creation Museum, Ark Encounter, & Young Earth Creationist in general have built a “cult-like” following based on a misreading of the Genesis narrative.
A must-read for anyone who wants to understand exactly how they get things so wrong.
A must-read for anyone who wants to understand exactly how they get things so wrong.
May 31, 2021
Superbly argued and written with great flare and spice. This man has a bone to pick!
R.I.P Young Earth Creationism.
R.I.P Young Earth Creationism.
October 20, 2022
One of the best books I have read lately. I can't recommend it enough.
March 2, 2021
Very good overview of the state of scholarship. Provides clear references and sources for follow on research.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews