of Christianity as just a pack of irrelevant nonsense, if they are told that one must reject essentially all of science in order to accept Christ. There is an offense of the Cross - but this isn't it. If the day-age interpretation of Genesis is correct, then rather than the offence of the Cross, this is just a fence around the Cross, placed there by Christians too stubborn to distinguish tithes and cummin from "the weightier things of the law"; and Ross fears its effect will be to keep sinners from crossing over into life. ("Too stubborn" is my phrasing; I think Ross would find a kinder way to say it.) In my own judgment, the insistence on discarding the theory of evolution is another such fence. Most of those who can't get past the "six literal days" fence won't be able to get past that one either. But many may; and this makes Ross's contribution a valuable one. One final word of my own. Those who insist that the Bible "plainly" speaks of 24-hour days in Genesis (and for that matter, those who insist that it "plainly" speaks of age-long days, or that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are "plainly" to be taken as literal history) are not merely reading what's in front of them. They are accepting what other men have told them about how the Bible "must" be read. Whenever you hear someone say: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," what they are