The Genesis Flood, Tidal Wave of Change

morris_whitcombThe Genesis Flood is 50 years old today! The following article is reprinted with permission from the Baptist Bulletin July, 2010.

Birth of the modern creationist movement

The book that powered the modern creation movement was skipped over by several Christian publishers. When Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb sent their manuscript to one prominent publisher, they were told it was much too long. Perhaps the authors would consider cutting it down by half?

Only then did the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. of Phillipsburg, N.J., take up the project, releasing the book on Feb. 11, 1961. Now nearly 50 years later, it continues to impact Bible students around the world and across the generations.

Against the backdrop of the mid-20th century infatuation with naturalism and scientific truth, the authors articulated a dissenting position. At the time, a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood was scarcely being taught, other than by a few conservative Lutherans and Seventh-day Adventist theologians. Even within fundamentalism the prevailing views were the gap theory (the view that there can be a gap containing millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) and the day-age theory (the view that each day of the creation week may represent vast ages of time).

“Sept. 3, 1953, was my first personal encounter with Henry Morris,” says John Whitcomb, who was in his third year teaching at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Ind., when he heard Morris present a paper on “The Deluge Theory of Geology” to the American Scientific Affiliation.

By that time, Morris was already a hero to Whitcomb, who had read Morris’s first book, That You Might Believe (Good News Publishing Co., 1946), after receiving a copy from Morris’s former pastor, Dick Seume. Though Whitcomb was raised an evolutionist and was teaching the standard gap theory, he was quite taken with Morris’s presentation on Flood geology.

“I feel that your conclusions are Scripturally valid, and therefore must be sustained by a fair examination of geologic evidence in time to come,” Whitcomb said in a letter to Morris, revealing a significant change of heart.

“I have adopted your views,” he told Morris, “and am presenting them to my class as preferable alternatives to the gap theory and the day-age theory.”

“He replied on Sept. 22,” Whitcomb says, looking back, “and that began a correspondence of over 200 letters as I prepared a doctoral dissertation on the Biblical doctrine of the Flood and we worked out the details of a coauthored volume.”

Indeed, a discussion of historic proportions was beginning to take shape when Morris wrote to Whitcomb on Dec. 5, 1953: “I am surely glad to learn you are planning to write your doctor’s dissertation on this subject. If I can be of any help in this, please let me know. I believe I mentioned to you that I am trying to write a book on the subject. Perhaps we can be of mutual help to each other from time to time.”

Whitcomb decided to survey professors in evangelical schools, asking them to describe their beliefs on Creation and the Flood. He reported the results in a letter to Morris, expressing disappointment in a lack of consensus from scholars who were “confused, very confused on these basic matters.”

Image of The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications
by Henry M. Morris, John C. Whitcomb
P & R Publishing 1960
Paperback, 518 pp.

Whitcomb also discovered some theologians had no time to waste on the issue. Bernard Ramm, whom conservatives respected for his Protestant Biblical Interpretation, had released The Christian View of Science and Scripture in 1954, in which he rejected a literal six-day interpretation of Genesis as being inconsistent with scientific evidence. In another letter to Morris, Whitcomb privately called it “a rallying point for the New Deism.” But there was no turning back for those who became known as the New Evangelicals. In 1956, Christian Life Magazine published “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” and called for a new movement with “a friendly attitude toward science.”

By 1957, Whitcomb had completed his doctoral thesis, and Morris agreed to make The Genesis Flood a joint project between them. Interestingly, the pair met personally on only two more occasions as they laboriously prepared their manuscripts and compared notes from a distance.

Whitcomb and Morris never expected their position to be warmly embraced by the uniformitarian geologists of the day. “We realize, of course, that modern scholarship will be impatient with [our] approach,” the authors said in their introduction. “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge.” And the presuppositions? “We accept as basic the doctrine of the verbal inerrancy of Scripture,” the authors said.

This starting point immediately alienated secular scientists who read the book—but it soon won over a generation of pastors and theologians who were tired of trying to accommodate their theology to the changing whims of science. This consistent implementation of Scripture was at the philosophical heart of the new book. As the authors put it, “We believe that a system founded squarely on full confidence in the Scriptures will be found ultimately to be much more satisfying than any other, in its power to correlate scientific data and to resolve problems and other apparent conflicts.”

Despite the initial warnings by publishers who refused the manuscript, the book was an immediate sales success. Since 1961, The Genesis Flood has gone through 48 printings and has been translated into German, Korean, Serbian, and Spanish. More than 300,000 copies are in print. (“For this, we offer profound praise to our God,” Whitcomb says.)

The book’s theological—and cultural—significance may even outweigh its status as a publishing success. Within two years after publication, like-minded scientists began meeting informally in a group that would become known as the Creation Research Society, organized around a doctrinal statement that embraced Morris and Whitcomb’s presuppositions about Scripture.

“The Lord used that book to start the modern creation movement; there is no doubt about it,” says Ken Ham, president and cofounder of Answers in Genesis, in AiG’s DVD The History and Impact of “The Genesis Flood.”

Since then, a vast array of creationist resources have been produced by publishers such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Just one example is the two-volume set by geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood (Institute for Creation Research, 2010), which is billed—with Dr. Whitcomb’s blessing—as an update to The Genesis Flood.

Whitcomb and Morris certainly built their thinking and ministries on the right foundation—that Christ is the creator of all things and His Word is the only text by which one can properly interpret His world, from history’s beginning to its end. Contemporary believers, with such a legacy behind them, have assurance that comes from building their lives on Scripture alone.

In this day of vast apostasy and turning from the Word of God, the message of The Genesis Flood is needed now more than ever. Christians have the opportunity to build higher upon this great foundation of understanding Biblical truth.

Looking to the future of the Creation movement, Whitcomb offers the following analysis: “Special revelation from God in the Bible is the solid foundation of the modern Creation movement. Christ, our Creator and Savior, emphasized the literal truth of Genesis concerning creation events (Matthew 19:4) and the worldwide flood in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39). Our God, of course, cannot lie or deceive us concerning the vital issue of ultimate origins. Creation took place in six days, not millions of years. Trillions of plants and animals were fossilized by the hydrodynamic forces of the Flood, not before human beings were created. This frame of reference is the dynamic of creation science, and the divinely provided key to unlock the marvels of Earth origins.”

Additional Resources


Paul J. Scharf (MDiv, Faith Baptist Theological Seminary) has served as a pastor, Bible teacher, and journalist. He became John C. Whitcomb’s ministry assistant in 2003. Scharf, a freelance writer for Regular Baptist Press, has previously written biographical articles about Dr. Whitcomb for the Gospel Herald and Sunday School Times and for an anthology written in Whitcomb’s honor, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Master Books, 2008).

9183 reads

There are 35 Comments

Paul Henebury's picture

Paul,

Thank you for such an edifying reminder about two men who were not ashamed to put the Bible before the pontifications of "science." With the defection of evangelical scholars to theistic evolutionism that is occurring this article is a shot in the arm.

Your brother,

Paul H.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Gen. Flood, along with some other books by Morris, had a huge impact on my dad and, as a result, on me. For several years he was my Sunday School teacher as well as my dad and we all got a strong creation emphasis from him. Genesis Flood had an honored place on the bookshelf.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Thanks, Paul, for the kind words, and thanks Aaron for running the article!
Thanks to God the Creator for raising up this book -- beginning 50 years ago today!

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

PLewis's picture

I remember studying the Genesis flood my Sophmore year of high school. It was pretty tough for my mid teen mind - BUT I was so thrilled to see a scholarly work re-enforcing all I had been taught regarding Creationism. (I had gone through public school through 8th grade - and my Mom would constantly point out evolutionary teaching to me as I did homework.)

It is so exciting to think how these men motivated others to stand up and develop ministries dedicated to Creationism.

Gerry Carlson's picture

Thank you for recording the excellent historical facts about a truly seminal work in the history of fundamentalism/evangelicalism. I still have my hardbound copy that I obtained while a seminary student in the 60s. Later in the 80s I had the privilege of meeting for a day with Henry Morris and a small group of leaders from the American Association of Christian Schools (of which I was Executive Director) and the Trans-National Association of Christian Schools (TRACS) in Dallas for some talks about accreditation. Dr. Morris was really the founder of, or at least the driving force behind the founding of TRACS. He was a fascinating person. Very genial and down to earth, but a single focused driving force for the Creationist Movement.

Gerry Carlson

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Gen. Flood, along with some other books by Morris, had a huge impact on my dad and, as a result, on me. For several years he was my Sunday School teacher as well as my dad and we all got a strong creation emphasis from him. Genesis Flood had an honored place on the bookshelf.

Along with Scientific Creationism. And the arrival of ICR's Acts and Facts in the mailbox was always highly anticipated.

Ted Bigelow's picture

I became a Christian in the Spring of 1980 in my junior year at a Catholic university. Having always been taught evolution, I never had consdiered another idea.

I immediately encountered some problems - what about Genesis 1? And Genesis 6? What about the geological record? All of these and more were abundantly answered when I got a hold of The Genesis Flood within the first month or so as a believer. It was my primer in creationism.

Thanks to all who labored for the Lord's blessing, not man's.

Bob Hayton's picture

Thanks too should go to George McCready Price. In Morris' 1984 book, History of Modern Creationism, he says when he found Price's 1923 book The New Geology, "...it was a life-changing experience for me."

Price was a Seventh Day Adventist, and his ideas were clearly behind The Genesis Flood. But he wasn't credited, perhaps for fear of the book losing its wide appeal if it was connected to an Adventist. Some use the "plagiarism" word, but I don't know about that. I just think it's eerily similar to what David Otis Fuller did in using Benjamin Wilkinson's earlier work in his 1970 book Which Bible, but not crediting him as the Adventist, he was.

Anyway, the fact that creation science (young earth) view basically stems from Morris and Whitcomb's work should give us a bit of a pause before finding all who disagree with some of creation science/young earth's tenets as being beyond the pale of orthodoxy.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:
Anyway, the fact that creation science (young earth) view basically stems from Morris and Whitcomb's work should give us a bit of a pause before finding all who disagree with some of creation science/young earth's tenets as being beyond the pale of orthodoxy.

I don't understand this statement. Why would we have reason to pause?

Besides, I would argue modern creation science might stem from this source, but the historic position of the church's literal interpretation of creation predates these men - and frankly predates the church for that matter since it was accepted by the Jews in the OT.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Bob Hayton's picture

Well, the gap theory and the day-age theory were in vogue long before young earth creationism. There are creationist views which don't denigrate literal interpretation of Gen. 1-3, but don't necessarily line up with all of Morris and Whitcomb's points.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:
Well, the gap theory and the day-age theory were in vogue long before young earth creationism.

With all due respect, Bob, that is frankly an absurd statement.
As to the church's historical positions on creationism, this is covered in Coming to Grips with Genesis. See also The Great Turning Point by Dr. Terry Mortenson.
Personally, having been raised a conservative Lutheran, I was in my mid-teens before I realized there were such creatures as professing conservative Christians who held to a non-literal view of Genesis -- and I had never yet heard of Dr. Whitcomb or Dr. Morris!

Bob Hayton wrote:
Some use the "plagiarism" word, but I don't know about that.

Is this fair? You have floated a baseless, sourceless charge of plagiarism, saying you "don't know about" it.
Hmmmm...... Then maybe it would have been better left unsaid...

You yourself included a reference to Morris crediting Price, answering your own concern.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Ted Bigelow's picture

Bob, you seem desirous to undercut the value of young earth creationism by associating The Genesis Flood with Seventh Day Adventism (post 9)and being a new view (post 11).

Then you leave the idea hanging that there are creationist views that are literal to the text of Genesis 1-3, but don't line up with Whitcomb and Morris.

Care to elaborate?

Bob Hayton's picture

Ted Bigelow wrote:
Bob, you seem desirous to undercut the value of young earth creationism by associating The Genesis Flood with... being a new view (post 11).

From the original post here:

Quote:
"The book that powered the modern creation movement...."

"At the time, a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation and the Flood was scarcely being taught, other than by a few conservative Lutherans and Seventh-day Adventist theologians. Even within fundamentalism the prevailing views were the gap theory (the view that there can be a gap containing millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2) and the day-age theory (the view that each day of the creation week may represent vast ages of time)."

"'The Lord used that book to start the modern creation movement; there is no doubt about it,' says Ken Ham, president and cofounder of Answers in Genesis..."

The modern young-earth creationism is a "new view". The movement traces its real start to The Genesis Flood. I understand that holding to a literal six-days goes back before then. But the stress on six-days and the young age of the earth, and other particulars of the cohesive modern movement called "creation science", is by their own admission relatively new.

As for the plagiarism comment, I'm just saying that others have brought that up. Yes more than 20 years after the fact, Morris credits Price. But he didn't at all in The Genesis Flood, and the correspondence to Price's ideas would require at the least a citation or acknowledgment, one would think.

On a post about how pivotal The Genesis Flood was, I'm pointing out that given it's importance, we should at least be aware that the views in that book were relatively new at the time, and were dependent on Price (no matter whether he wasn't directly given credit in The Genesis Flood).

For me personally, this gives me pause in evaluating the claims of The Genesis Flood. Other Christian geologists one hundred years before that book, based on the evidence, modified their position on the age of the earth and other matters (I'm thinking of William Buckland).

I'm not ready to reject young earth creationism. But my preference for it is more tenuous given these points which I felt might be worth bringing up.

I plan on reading Coming to Grips with Genesis, by the way. I plan on studying out the church's historic position on these matters further. But from what I have read and studied, it doesn't seem as unanimous when it comes to this issue as some would have us think.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Bob Hayton wrote:
I plan on reading Coming to Grips with Genesis, by the way. I plan on studying out the church's historic position on these matters further. But from what I have read and studied, it doesn't seem as unanimous when it comes to this issue as some would have us think.

I hope you do.
Regarding the primary issue you raise, I think you are confusing two related but distinct ideas.
Although "the stress on six-days and the young age of the earth" is, in fact, the historic position of the church (which does not necessarily make it correct) -- although in this case, as Chip pointed out, it goes all the way back to the beginnings of Israel -- this view had gone almost completely "out of vogue" by 1961 within evangelicalism and fundamentalism (which does not necessarily make it incorrect).
(As an aside, Terry Mortenson, who is probably the foremost expert in the world on the history of creationism from a YEC perspective, has noted that every article on creation in The Fundamentals was, by our standards, flawed [great idea there for a D.Min. thesis for someone... ].)
Thus, in 1961 YEC was, in one sense, something brand new that would have an overwhelming impact on the Christian world in the years to come.
In another sense, it was the most un-original idea ever proposed. For goodness sake -- Concordia Seminary professor Alfred Rehwinkel had written about The Flood 10 years before Drs. Whitcomb and Morris!! But he was talking to Missouri Synod Lutherans, who already had this teaching. His book, alone, would never have had the impact that TGF did.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Charlie's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Besides, I would argue modern creation science might stem from this source, but the historic position of the church's literal interpretation of creation predates these men - and frankly predates the church for that matter since it was accepted by the Jews in the OT.

How do you know what OT Jews believed about creation? Do we have extant commentaries on Genesis? http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H9 ]Philo's doctrine of creation represents the six days more as cosmological order than as time. Many of the church Fathers also interpreted the six days as representing logical or ontological rather than chronological order - Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine. Others (Basil?, Ambrose, Bede) took a normal-day approach.

So, there isn't a united Christian testimony. There isn't "the historic position." On the other hand, I entirely agree that the literal position far predates modern creation science and ought to be taken seriously by evangelical theologians. After all, it was "scientifically unacceptable" in its own day as well. I'm not qualified to judge whether creation science is good or bad science, and I don't put a lot of stock in its specific claims, but I'm glad it's out there. It shows that we haven't abdicated science, and we haven't embraced "double truth," the idea that some things are true according to faith but false according to other forms of knowledge.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Joel Tetreau's picture

OK,

I am a young earth guy. 6 Literal days.

However, I think Bob is right at least on one level. My view (6 literal days) is indeed the "new guy" on the block. I'm not worried at all that an adventist discovered the exegetical realities of a literal genesis in the creation account. Hey....Catholic scholars have also affirmed areas of Christological orthodoxy before Baptists roamed the earth! Also, in fairness to Bob - it's his right to speculate on the relationship between "The Genesis Flood" and the Adventist guy (I think the guy's name was Price). He did not accuse, he simply raised the question. Reality - I'm fairly confident the overwealming majority of fundamentalist leaders in the beginning of the movement did not hold the 6 literal days. If it wasn't a fundamental and/or a universal of the faith then, how can it be now? (Fun question). Prior to that, other evangelical and protestant leaders (including Baptists) were clearly holding an old earth view. I continue to say....as much as I'd like to, in all honesty, I don't think we can say "young earth" is a fundamental of the faith.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Jeff Brown's picture

John Whitcomb was in fact influenced by the writings of McReady Price. Henry Morris however, urged Whitcomb to distance himself from Price on scientific grounds. Whitcomb did. This is not to say Price had no influence in Whitcomb's original idea. However, Whitcomb and Morris did not follow his conclusions. This is all to be found in Ronald Numbers, The Creationists. Numbers is no friend of Creationism.

To suggest that getting ideas from an SDA'er for the Genesis Flood is like getting an SDA'ers ideas about KJV only doctrine, is a little like saying that everyone who ever shook hands with Stalin became an accomplice to communism. Ben Carson, the greatest mind in Pediatric surgery today is an SDA'er. Would you be ashamed to pick up in his ideas? In fact, Henry Morris was never shy about associations with SDA academic people (because they were historically 6-day creationists long before the Genesis Flood was written). To repeat, Morris and Whitcomb did not shy away from citing Price because he belonged to the SDA movement, but because they felt his scientific conclusions were lacking scientific knowledge. Please, let's leave out the accusations about hiding association with SDA people. For Morris this was never true.

Jeff Brown

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Joel Tetreau wrote:
I think Bob is right at least on one level. My view (6 literal days) is indeed the "new guy" on the block...Reality - I'm fairly confident the overwealming majority of fundamentalist leaders in the beginning of the movement did not hold the 6 literal days. If it wasn't a fundamental and/or a universal of the faith then, how can it be now? (Fun question). Prior to that, other evangelical and protestant leaders (including Baptists) were clearly holding an old earth view. I continue to say....as much as I'd like to, in all honesty, I don't think we can say "young earth" is a fundamental of the faith.

Joel,

While this may be an accurate summary of how FUNDAMENTALISTS have handled the subject of origins, it is simply inaccurate with regard to the broad sweep of historic, orthodox Christianity.
BTW, I thought that was the whole idea of why we had FUNDAMENTALISM to begin with -- to re-capture the essence of historic Christianity! I didn't know that the founding fathers of the movement got to re-start the clock and tell us what counted and what did not as far as the FUNDAMENTALS of the faith.
Truth be told and sad to say, the early fundamentalists were largely children of their times with regard to the question of Biblical origins -- i.e., William Jennings Bryan's missteps at the Scopes Trial, which plunged much of fundamentalism into decades of darkness with regard to origins questions. That is why we needed to have the modern creation movement!
As I stated earlier, a study of The Fundamentals reveals that these founding fathers held to profound errors on matters of origins. I would personally put very little weight on anything they said on the matter -- especially now after five decades specifically of the modern creation movement and all of the Biblical and scientific research that has been accomplished!
Again, for a complete and scholarly treatment of this subject, see The Great Turning Point by Dr. Terry Mortenson. He gives the foundation for understanding all that was happening during the 18th and 19th centuries and how the church reacted to the developing old earth theories, which later greatly impacted fundamentalism.

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Jeff Brown's picture

Please excuse my somewhat knee-jerk response. In my post about how Whitcomb and Morris dealt with the ideas of George McCready Price (first correction: spelling), I relied on memory from over ten years ago. Going back and re-reading that portion of The Creationists, Henry Morris urged Whitcomb not to publish a book heavily citing Price, since other scientists regarded him as a "crackpot" (Morris's term), and he had done himself a disservice by giving sarcastic answers to his opponents. Whitcomb was convinced by Price's ideas, but did not want to note in his book that Price was a Seventh Day Adventist. In fact, theistic evolutionists had already used the guilt by association rhetoric against Price, insinuating that his ideas were twisted because he was a Seventh Day Adventist.

Price was given a copy of the manuscript before it was published. He was not at all upset that though the Genesis Flood took up his concept that the geological strata represent the effects of the flood, he was rarely cited in the book. He praised the book highly. O.T. Allis, on the other hand, who was a fan of Price's ideas, was infuriated that he got so little citation in Whitcomb and Morris's book. In fact, the idea that geological strata represent the Genesis Flood's destruction was argued by a number of geologists in the 19th century. So the it was not originally Price's. Whitcomb and Morris had an idea that they believed in. They were smart enough to realize that if they cited one of its proponents heavily, it would kill their book. I would not look at that as disingenious.

The idea has stood on its own, since after its publication a number of men who hold to Flood Geology have gotten their Ph.D.s in Geology from very credible institutions, and have since done a lot of credible research. Now compare this to the KJV only movement. Could someone name us one scholar in NT Greek or NT Textual Criticism, trained at an instution other than KJV only, that is producing scholarly writings on the subject? The comparison is, indeed, superficial.

Jeff Brown

Jeff Brown's picture

Well, no, they did not. Studies relating to the Church fathers who held to both literal days in Genesis (whatever term one uses here will be questioned), and an earth less than 6000 years old are quite numerous. The assertion comes up again and again that most Church fathers did not believe in literal days of Genesis. There are many studies demonstrating this is not true. A well-done analysis, easily understandible for the average reader, is done by Robert Bradshaw:http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm.

The idea that the earth was created in six literal days, is only several thousand years old, and was overwhelmed by a world wide flood in the days of Noah was held by Luther, Calvin, Franzios Turretin, John Wesley, and Keil and Delitzsch, just to name a few very influential theologians.

Whitcomb and Morris did not bring a new view of Creationism to the world. They simply revived an old one. Theirs was quite a feat, as 6-day Creationism had been given up by most scholars after the publication of Lyell's Principles of Geology and Darwin's Origin of the Species.

Jeff Brown

Bob Hayton's picture

Jeff Brown wrote:
Please excuse my somewhat knee-jerk response. In my post about how Whitcomb and Morris dealt with the ideas of George McCready Price (first correction: spelling), I relied on memory from over ten years ago. Going back and re-reading that portion of The Creationists, Henry Morris urged Whitcomb not to publish a book heavily citing Price, since other scientists regarded him as a "crackpot" (Morris's term), and he had done himself a disservice by giving sarcastic answers to his opponents. Whitcomb was convinced by Price's ideas, but did not want to note in his book that Price was a Seventh Day Adventist. In fact, theistic evolutionists had already used the guilt by association rhetoric against Price, insinuating that his ideas were twisted because he was a Seventh Day Adventist.

Price was given a copy of the manuscript before it was published. He was not at all upset that though the Genesis Flood took up his concept that the geological strata represent the effects of the flood, he was rarely cited in the book. He praised the book highly. O.T. Allis, on the other hand, who was a fan of Price's ideas, was infuriated that he got so little citation in Whitcomb and Morris's book. In fact, the idea that geological strata represent the Genesis Flood's destruction was argued by a number of geologists in the 19th century. So the it was not originally Price's. Whitcomb and Morris had an idea that they believed in. They were smart enough to realize that if they cited one of its proponents heavily, it would kill their book. I would not look at that as disingenious.

The idea has stood on its own, since after its publication a number of men who hold to Flood Geology have gotten their Ph.D.s in Geology from very credible institutions, and have since done a lot of credible research. Now compare this to the KJV only movement. Could someone name us one scholar in NT Greek or NT Textual Criticism, trained at an instution other than KJV only, that is producing scholarly writings on the subject? The comparison is, indeed, superficial.

Thanks Jeff. This does put the lie to the plagiarism bit. If Price was happy with the manuscript before it was published then it certainly wasn't plagiarism. Do you happen to have the page number in that book which you cited? I'd actually like to send that info along to someone who has published the plagiarism lie.

Thanks again, I had no means to know if there was truth to it or not.

Re: KJV Onlyism, all you have is E.F. Hills, trained in textual criticism at Princeton to compare. And he would have been more friendly to the Majority Text one would think, had it been available in his day (as he pointed out a few small errors in the TR and the KJV both).

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Jeff Brown's picture

Glad to, Bob. See Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, U. of Calif. Press, 1993 (190-192, 197-199).

You are right about Hillis, who was definitely an expert in the field of Textual Criticism. So my challenge has been answered rather quickly! (though Hills' conclusions about the TR preceeded the KJV only movement set in motion by David Otis Fuller, who used Wilkinson).

Jeff Brown

Bob Hayton's picture

One can argue that Hills is in the line of Burgon and others who were defending the KJV against newer versions prior to and independent of Wilkinson. I still think that Wilkinson -- J.J. Ray -- David Otis Fuller / Peter Ruckman is how the modern KJV only movement really got started, however.

Thanks for the page numbers too.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

On the idea that young earth creationism is somewhat suspect due to its newness, I think we have to put it in the context of the newness of what it answers as well.
That is, evolutionary science is relatively new and it was a good while after that before people started taking it seriously in the USA. Even longer before American theologians began to think about how the newer views of geological science fit with the Bible.

So my point is that young-earth creationism is only slightly newer than old-earth geology.

Letham's book (as summarized in the post Greg linked to) looks biased and agenda-driven to me.
For example...

Quote:
3) Until the mid-sixteenth century the interpreters we cited were all abreast of the philosophy and science of their day, and often made use of it in biblical interpretation. That we reject many of their scientific beliefs is because of our own scientific knowledge. That we place implicit faith in the laws of gravity is due to what we know scientifically, rather than from the Bible. So far I, for one, have found this reliable! ...

This is kind of silly. People believed in "gravity" long before there was a word for it or any science about it. Most people don't believe in it "due to what we know scientifically" but because they don't think about it at all. It just is.
If his observations here are any indication, it looks like Letham tends to draw inferences from modern ways of thinking and look at history in their light anachronistically. ... but I say "if." I haven't read his book. Sounds like a worthwhile read.

He also doesn't seem to take into account that science today isn't what science was back then. That is, today, it tends to freighted with naturalistic convictions.

Bob Hayton's picture

Greg Long wrote:
I thought today's post by Justin Taylor is relevant to this discussion:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/14/how-did-the-... How did the church interpret the days of creation before Darwin?


Very interesting post and definitely relevant.

Aaron brings up a good point that evolutionary science is new so it makes sense that reactions and responses to it would be new as well. Good points to ponder all around.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Greg Long's picture

Yes, Aaron, I certainly don't buy everything Lethem is selling, just from the summary. Some of the comments to Justin Taylor's post bring needed balance.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Didn't get to the comment section yet.
You know, it would be fascinating to see a thorough review of Lethem's book from a thoughtful YEC guy. Even more fascinating: get a couple of guys together like Lethem and maybe Terry Mortenson (spelling?) and watch them go at it... with a skillful moderator.
Fantasizing a little.

Paul J. Scharf's picture

Aaron,

Terry Mortenson has done lots of debates. Maybe SI could host it?!

(Make it part of Men For Christ or some event like that.......) Smile

Church Ministries Representative for the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.