My Response to a Young-Earth Critique of Navigating Genesis

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; and from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

(Genesis 2:10–14, NIV)

In my book Navigating Genesis, I explained how the four great rivers described in Genesis 2 all joined together in the Garden of Eden, then split apart and emptied into the Indian Ocean. My explanation has drawn public rebukes from young-earth proponents, specifically those associated with the organization Answers in Genesis (AiG). This article is an answer to their challenges.

The Challenge

In an article on AiG’s website, prominent young-earth leader Danny Faulkner argued that Genesis 2:10–14 “clearly states that the four rivers parted from a single source in Eden, not that the four rivers flowed together in Eden. Here Ross has freely reversed the statement of Genesis 2:10 to fit his selection for Eden’s location being in the Persian Gulf.”1 Faulkner concluded, “My early accusations and those here against Ross are damning.”2

Faulkner’s AiG colleagues Ken Ham and Elizabeth Mitchell made similar scathing comments in their own reviews of Navigating Genesis. Mitchell concluded her article with,

His distortions of the Bible are dangerous because some Christian leaders and laypersons—whether through ignorance, laziness, or faithlessness—fail to look at what God actually says in His Word and will accept Dr. Ross’ fairy tale explanations that twist God’s Words into a caricature in which even the reason Jesus Christ came into the world is obscured.3

These are strong words. Is it really a twist of the Bible’s words to conclude that four rivers both came together and split apart within the Garden of Eden? Let’s take a look at the evidence and reasoning behind my interpretation.

My Response

In a formal debate, Terry Mortenson, another AiG associate, insisted that the reference to headwaters in Genesis 2:10 implies that the source of all four rivers flowed out from the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word for “headwaters” is pārad. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament identifies pārad as a verb, not a noun, and defines it as “divide, separate.”4

Translator Jay Green’s Interlinear Bible shows that the literal Hebrew of Genesis 2:10 is closely reflected by the King James Version.5

  • Literal Hebrew: “And a river went out from Eden to water the garden, and from there it was divided and became into four heads.”
  • King James: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.”

The Hebrew root word for “heads” is rō’sh, which Theological Wordbook defines as, “head; top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum.”6 William White, a specialist in biblical languages and contributor to Theological Wordbook, wrote that the use of rō’sh in Genesis 2:10 refers to “parts or portions of things.”7

river-in-turkey-1In the view of the AiG scholars, Noah’s flood completely restructured Earth’s entire landscape. Thus, they argue, we can’t know the pre-flood locations of Eden or any of the geographical regions (such as Havilah or Cush) or rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10–14. My question is, if this were the case, why would the Holy Spirit inspire Moses to provide such detailed geographical information? There really is no purpose for Genesis 2:11–14 other than to give readers indications of these rivers’ and Garden’s locations.

As I explained in Navigating Genesis, the geographical locations of Asshur (Assyria), Cush (the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia), and Havilah (Hijaz mountains of Saudi Arabia) are not mysteries. The Bible mentions Asshur and Cush many times and Genesis 2:11–12 supplies identifying details about the land of Havilah. These three locations are separated from one another by many hundreds of miles; therefore, the source for all four rivers cannot reside in the same location. It makes sense, then, to claim that the four rivers flowed into Eden from three widely separated geographical regions, joined together to become one river within the Garden of Eden, and thence divided into separate rivers to empty into the Indian Ocean.

Note that the New International Version’s (NIV) translation of Genesis 2:10 states that Eden’s river had four headwaters. This wording does not insist that all the headstreams were located in Eden. It is just as possible (indeed, more probable) that each river source could have resided in regions well beyond Eden. Such an interpretation also is consistent with the King James Version and the literal Hebrew text, though their wording implies that the “four heads” were downstream, rather than upstream, from Eden. (In the NIV the headwaters could be either upstream or downstream from Eden.)

Readers may wonder why I did not spell out all this detailed explanation about the rivers of Eden in Navigating Genesis. In all honesty, I did not think it was necessary. The implications of Genesis 2:10–14 seemed obvious to me. However, Faulkner’s charge that I “freely reversed the statement of Genesis 2:10” made this defense necessary.

It also illustrates an important principle in resolving disputes about the interpretation of biblical texts. We must always look at the larger context of a Bible verse, which includes checking out how other scriptural texts use similar words and phrases. Genesis 2:11–14 clarifies the meaning of Genesis 2:10. The references to Eden, Asshur, and Cush throughout Genesis and the rest of the Bible provide additional insights and confirmations.

It disappoints me that AiG’s scholars felt it necessary to use such strong language against my view of Genesis. Nevertheless, I continue to hope that the age of the earth controversies that are so damaging to the church’s mission can be resolved amicably if we apply sound hermeneutics in a spirit of Christian charity.


  1. Danny Faulkner, “A Review of Hugh Ross’ Latest Book, Navigating Genesis,” Answers in Genesis, posted April 15, 2015,
  2. Ibid.
  3. Elizabeth Mitchell, “Examining Hugh Ross’s Navigating Genesis,” Answers in Genesis, posted October 8, 2014,
  4. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 2:733.
  5. Jay Green, trans., The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, vol. 1, Genesis–Ruth (Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1982), 5.
  6. Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 2:825.
  7. William White, in Harris, Archer, and Waltke, Theological Wordbook, 2:825.

4 thoughts on “My Response to a Young-Earth Critique of Navigating Genesis

  1. I am not sure why AiG feels the need to do this. I understand that they feel threatened by Dr. Ross and his position, but they seem to ignore the admonition in 1 Peter 3:15 about gentleness.
    In my father’s church the debate between YE and OE tore the church apart because issues about salvation were implied, and one person even communicated statements saying that someone with an Old Earth view was no better than an “evolutionist”, whatever that is. While the debate is strong, I do not feel that we need to be adversarial. I believe in an old creation. Does that make me any less a Christian?

    1. Indeed not, John. I would even go so far as to say that a belief in evolution does not mean you are less of a Christian; it simply means that you understand that God has a way of doing things that are beyond what we may have the capacity to understand at certain points in history. When Genesis was written, the concept of evolution or creation over billions of years was incomprehensible based on the level of knowledge those people had yet acquired. Why would the Story include details that would merely confuse the people of the age? I believe that those who rely on scripture to explain the minutiae of scientific processes are missing the point of scripture. Perhaps I am less of a Christian myself?

  2. Hugh, it has been my unfortunate experience that the more fundamentalist interpreters (not all, but generally speaking) tend to be more difficult to debate with because they tend to be very closed-minded. I believe that this is not the result of their strict, “straightforward”, and literal interpretation of the words in scripture, but rather the reverse (their interpretation is the result of their own inflexibility). To me, it is very difficult to interpret scripture in a literal way with a flexible mind because there are too many inconsistencies (e.g. man and woman could not have been created out of mud AND woman created from man’s rib. It can only be one or the other) and inaccuracies for such an approach to make sense. A literal reading and belief in inerrancy requires one to deliberately overlook these things or find distorted ways to explain them away, which necessitates a mind that cannot believe itself to be incorrect in any fashion. This type of mind tends toward the binary reasoning of “either it’s all right or all wrong”, and it cannot accept ANYTHING that might be wrong without it rocking the foundation of its faith. As such, when the mind’s owner defends his or her position, it results in a defense of his or her entire faith, and emotion becomes the driver of the debate on that side of it. For this reason, I believe (and have found) it to be rare for any resolution, much less an amicable one to nearly any debate with a fundamentalist, even as it pertains to non-salvation issues. We can talk about the trouble with inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration, but I leave that to the rest of this site, which thus far has done a pretty bang-up job. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s