"AS I SEE
IT"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 4, Number 5, May 2001
["As I See It" is a monthly electronic
magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. Its purpose is to address
important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and
other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors,
missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study
and teach the Word of God. The editor's perspective is that of an independent
Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.
AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at:
DKUTILEK@juno.com. You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address.
All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but
may be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met:
1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must
be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution
only. Permission to distribute in any other form must be secured in writing
beforehand. Permission for reproduction in Christian print periodicals will
generally be given.]
"Expecting Great Things From God," Spurgeon-Style
"Why, we have not half the
confidence in God about our religious efforts that we ought to have. We go to
work with a faint heart, and tremblingly hope that perhaps we shall succeed.
Look how amazed we are when we find a soul converted here and there, and what a
noise we make over a solitary convert, like a hen that has laid a single egg and
must tell all the parish about it. If we had more confidence in God, we should
expect converts by the hundred, and we should have them."
Charles H. Spurgeon,
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit,
vol. 25, 1879, p.667.
----------
BOOK NOTICE
I am pleased to report the publication of a new book, ONE BIBLE ONLY?, edited by
Dr. Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder. This book of 238 pages carries the
subtitle: "Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible." Seven
past or present faculty members of Central Baptist Seminary of Plymouth,
Minnesota contributed to this volume. It was my privilege to write the chapter
on the history of the modern King James Only movement. Kregel is the publisher,
and the book may be obtained from the usual book suppliers. The retail price is
listed as $13.99.
---Doug Kutilek
----------
"The Son of God" or "A son of the gods" Revisited
In AISI 3:11 (November, 2000), we addressed the issue of how a phrase in Daniel
3:25 should be translated into English, whether "the Son of God" (as
in the KJV and NKJB [text]) or "a son of the gods" (as in the ASV,
NASB, NIV and NKJB [margin]). Just today I discovered yet another bit of
information to add to what I wrote there. I demonstrated in that article that
the translation "a son of the gods" was not a sell-out by the ASV et
al. to 19th century higher critical attacks on the Bible, but was an
interpretation of the Biblical text by devote scholars at least as early as the
Reformation (both Luther and Calvin understood it that way, as did Adam Clarke
three centuries later).
Today, almost on a lark, I checked the Reina-Valera Spanish version on this
point. The Reina-Valera is the standard Protestant translation used in Latin
America to this day, in various editions and revisions. I checked both the 1602
and 1960 editions at Daniel 3:25, and discovered that it reads, "y el
aspecto del cuarto es semejante a hijo de los dioses"--"and the
appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."
And then, with my interest sparked, I also checked the centuries-old Portuguese
version of John Ferreira d'Almeida. D'Almeida translated the NT entire
(published 1681), and the OT as far as Ezekiel. The translation of Daniel in
this version was the work of one C. T. Walther. This was published in an edition
of the Major Prophets in 1751, and, apparently, of the whole Bible in 1753, and
ever since (see T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule, Historical Catalogue of Printed
Editions of the Holy Scripture, vol. II, part III, pp. 1232-1236). Daniel 3:25
reads, "e o aspecto do quarto e semelahante ao filho dos deuses"
which, literally rendered into English is "and the appearance of the fourth
is like a son of the gods."
These add to the evidence that the translation of the ASV etc. is not a
capitulation to recent higher critical views, but was a settled opinion of
devote scholars and translators, based on the original Aramaic text, hundreds of
years before the ASV saw the light of day, indeed, even before the KJV was ever
published.
---Doug Kutilek
----------
KJVO-ISM GONE TO SEED: THE "REY JAIME" VERSION
One of the surest methods of discovering and exposing theological error is to
press a doctrine to its fullest extent, following to the end its logical
deductions, and then examining where your journey has taken you. If it results
in complete absurdity, then the doctrine is obviously and inherently flawed.
This has been done in regard to "King James Only-ism," not by its
adversaries, but by some of its proponents.
KJVO partisans insist that the KJV is the only valid translation of the Bible in
English, and that it is indeed their "final authority," superceding
and surpassing in authority even the original Greek and Hebrew texts from which
it was made. Pressing this conclusion to its ultimate end, some KJVOers have
logically and reasonably concluded (granting their basic premise for the sake of
discussion) that not only is the KJV the "final authority" in English,
it should also be such in all other languages as well. As a consequence, they
conclude, no non-English version has any authority where it differs from the
KJV, and since ALL foreign language versions differ in lesser or greater degrees
from the KJV, the task at hand is to provide KJV-based and KJV-conforming
translations in various languages. In other words, the original Hebrew and Greek
language texts are not valid bases for translations of the Bible into Spanish,
French, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese, and the thousands of other languages
spoken on earth. Only the KJV is such a valid basis. This they logically and
reasonably conclude, granting a priori their basic premise of the infallibility
of the KJV. (We must note in passing, that the great pioneers in modern missions
Bible translating, namely William Carey and Adoniram Judson, and others of
similar stripe, based their versions on the Greek and Hebrew, not on the KJV
English. Misguided dupes, I suppose).
As a consequence, some unnamed individual or individuals (and I have been unable
to discover his/their identity), took upon themselves to translate the KJV New
Testament into Spanish--this in spite of the fact that there exists in Spanish a
Bible version that has been blessed for centuries by God to the conversion and
edification of millions. I speak of the venerable Reina-Valera version (1602),
which pre-dates the KJV, and was in fact consulted by the KJV translators as
they went about their work! (see the next to last page of "The Translators
to the Readers" in the original edition of the KJV; it should be noted as
well that in that same preface to their work, indeed on the same and the
preceding page, the KJV translators declare that they worked directly from the
Hebrew and Greek originals, not basing their translation on any existing
translation--exactly the opposite of the policy of the translators of this new
KJV-conforming Spanish version. If the KJV is perfect, shouldn't those making
"KJV equivalent" versions follow the same translation policies?).
The Reina-Valera, based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV, has been
linguistically up-dated several times, most notable among them 1909 and 1960. In
its 1960 revision, the R-V is the standard version used by most evangelical and
fundamentalist missionaries and national churches in the Spanish-speaking world.
Returning to the subject of the Spanish "KJV"--The title page of this
undated translation of a translation reads: "El Nuevo Testamento de Nuestro
Senor y Salvador Jesus Cristo" ("The New Testament of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ, " words translated directly from the title page of the
1611 KJV New Testament), which is followed by the words: "Biblia autorizada
del Rey Jaime 1611" ("Authorized Bible of King James 1611").
Below this is a literal translation of most of the explanatory gloss provided on
the 1611 KJV NT title page: "Traducida del original Griego y diligentemente
comparado y revisado con las traducciones anteriores por mandato especial de su
majestad" ("Translated out of the Original Greek: and with the former
Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's special
Commandment"). Only the introductory word "Newly" is left out of
the formula. How absurd all of this is!--This new Spanish version was NOT
"translated out of original Greek" but out of the "original
English"! And King "Jaime" has been moldering in the grave for
the better part of four centuries--he made no such command regarding this
Spanish version! And this version dates from the late 20th century, not the
early 17th century. And what former translations were diligently compared and
revised? "Oh judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost
their reason!"
On the backside of the title page inter alia, are quoted in Spanish two passages
from the OT, Psalm 12:6-7; and Proverbs 30:5. I assume that these were made
directly from "the original English" since they do not conform to the
1602 or 1960 R-V wording. The Psalm 12 quote is particularly notable where it
differs from the R-V. On the basis of gender agreement, it is clear in the old
Reina-Valera version that the promise of preservation in verse 7 ("los
guardaras") refers back to "the poor" ("los pobres")
and "needy" ("los menesterosos") of v. 5, not "the
words" ("las palabras") of v. 6. And in this regard, the
Reina-Valera agrees with the Hebrew text (see the commentaries of Delitzsch or
Gill, loc. cit., for the particulars). The translation in this new version
alters "los guardaras" to "las guardaras" to make the
referent of the promise of preservation the "words" of v. 6, in
harmony with the standard KJVO mis-interpretation of this verse, but contrary to
the original Hebrew text inspired by the Holy Spirit.
At the bottom of the backside of the title page, we are informed that this
printing was done on the authority of Pilgrim Baptist Church in Abingdon,
Virginia (no doubt there is a hint of Landmarkism in there). Correspondence sent
to the address given was not answered.
How the translation of the KJV English into Spanish is actually carried out is a
wonder to behold; we are compelled by limitations of time and space to note only
some of the more "amazing" results:
--Where the KJV has "Holy Ghost" (e.g., Matthew 1:20) this version has
"Fantasma Santo." "Fantasma" is the Spanish word meaning
"apparition, phantom, spectre, ghost." It is derived ultimately from
the Greek word phantasma, which is not the word used for the Holy Spirit, that
word being pneuma, whether translated "Spirit" or "Ghost" in
the KJV (the KJV by using two separate words to translate pneuma when referring
to the Holy Spirit creates in English a distinction not found in the Greek). The
Greek word phantasma does occur twice in the NT, Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49,
wherein the disciples mistook Jesus walking on the water for a ghost/spook. I
guess the thinking in regard to "Fantasma Santo" is that since the KJV
makes a distinction between "Holy Spirit" and Holy Ghost,"--even
though there is no such distinction in the Greek--so the Spanish KJV should
also! Yet they fail, in contrast, to distinguish "eternal life" and
"everlasting life" in John 3:15,16 [in Greek they are identical; Jack
Hyles once preached a sermon trying to distinguish one from the other; it was
nothing short of preposterous]. And in I John 2:24, where the KJV in this one
verse uses three different English words, namely abide, remain, and continue, to
translate the same Greek word, meno, the Rey Jaime uses only two different
Spanish words, permanecer and continuar. If the KJV is really their "final
authority, they should have found a third Spanish word to use.
--At 2 Timothy 3:16, the "Rey Jaime" version literally translates the
KJV's "given by inspiration of God" by "dada por inspiracion de
Dios." Of course, here the KJV is a five-word paraphrase of the single
Greek word, theopneustos, which the NIV more literally and accurately translates
as "God-breathed;" Reina-Valera here has, adequately though not quite
literally, "inspirada divinamente" ("divinely inspired").
The translation principle followed in this place in the Rey Jaime is apparently,
"where the KJV paraphrases, the Spanish version must literally translate
the KJV's paraphrase."
--Matthew 27:44 in the "Rey Jaime" version has "Tambien los
ladrones . . . lo mismo echaban en sus dientes," which is a literal
rendering of the KJV's , "the thieves also . . .cast the same in his
teeth." Here, the KJV's phrase "cast . . . in his teeth" is a
very free paraphrase (at best) of two Greek words, oneidizon autoi" which
literally mean "[they] were reproaching him." I have no explanation
for this paraphrase in the KJV (it is also found in some earlier English
versions). It certainly is not literal, yet the Rey Jaime literally translates
it into Spanish. I wonder just how obscure this must be to the Spanish reader.
--At Matthew 1:23, the Reina-Valera version reads, "la virgen"
("the virgin"); the new Rey Jaime, conforming to the KJV, reads
instead, "una virgen" ("a virgin"). What is notable here is
that the Greek text of Matthew 1:23, and the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 from
which Matthew quotes both have the definite article, so the R-V translation
"la virgen/ the virgin" conforms precisely to the inerrant original
text in both Testaments, while the Rey Jaime (and KJV) do not.
Not only do the translators of the Rey Jaime assume the inerrancy of the KJV,
they also assume their own inerrancy as interpreters of the KJV. This is evident
from several passages:
--At Mark 2:23, the KJV mentions the picking of "corn" on the Sabbath.
In 1611 British English, "corn" meant "grain" (of whatever
sort, but usually wheat, rye or barley), not specifically what we in America
today call "corn" (think "Iowa in July"). As Americans who
misunderstood the KJV's use of "corn" as though it was the 20th
century American meaning of the word, the Rey Jaime translators give "maiz"
("corn," that is Indian corn; the Latin name being Zea mays). What is
especially egregious about this mistranslation based on personal ignorance is
that they have introduced into their version what is an actual historical error.
You see, what we Americans call "corn" is a native American plant and
was completely unknown in the Old World in general, and in Palestine in
particular, until some while after A.D. 1492 when Columbus made his first voyage
to the New World. To insert this plant into a first-century Palestine narrative
is as much a historical error as if we found Paul driving to Damascus in a Chevy
or Peter watching "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" on TV while
on the rooftop of the house in Joppa.
--The KJV's archaic "prevent" as in "we. . . shall not prevent
them," in I Thessalonians 4:15, is widely recognized, even among many
KJVOers as meaning, precede, or, go before. Apparently this fact is not as
widely known as we had assumed, for the Rey Jaime gives "no nos impediremos
a los" ("we will not impede, prevent"--in the modern sense--
"them"). Such crass stupidity as is displayed here is criminal. They
are, after all, pretending to be translating the Word of God. Those who
undertake such a task should at least labor to discover what it actually means
before attempting to translate it.
--2 Thessalonians 2:7, KJV, reads in part, "He who now letteth, will
let." "Let" is recognized as having meant in 1611, "to
hinder, restrain" (as the Greek original has it) rather than our modern
sense of "to allow." Yet with a depth of ignorance that absolutely
takes your breath away, the Rey Jaime's "unlearned men" give the
reader "el que ahora se deja se dejara"--"he who now allows, will
allow."
--The treatment of Acts 28:13 is if anything even worse. The KJV's obscure
"we fetched [original KJV, "fet"] a compass" is literally
given by our blunderers as "buscamos un compas" which means "we
looked for a compass" (yes, the instrument for finding magnetic north). The
Greek here is a common verb, meaning "to go around, to come around"
and has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of instrument. The KJV's
rendering is apparently an archaic idiom which adequately expressed in its day
the meaning of the Greek, but certainly does not mean what the mis-translators
of the Rey Jaime version suppose it to mean. Is this not to handle the word of
God deceitfully?
What need have we of other witnesses?
Let us hear the end of the matter: never was any Bible translation so badly
conceived or so badly--dare I say wickedly?--carried out. Such a performance can
only make the Bible a laughing stock, and expose the perpetrators of such a
monstrosity to fully deserved ridicule and derision. Such a production neither
benefits man nor glorifies God. To offer this as an improvement on the
Reina-Valera, or even a substitute for it is sheer folly. The R-V, because it
followed the Greek instead of the English, makes none of the blunders discussed,
nor dozens more which could have been noted.
Yet, such a deplorable production is the logical outcome of imputing to the KJV
an inerrancy it does not possess, of denying to the original Greek and Hebrew
the inerrancy and authority they do inherently possess (and virtually vilifying
them in the process), and of presuming on the correctness of one's understanding
of centuries-old English without the correcting and guiding hand of the original
text. Traced to its ultimate logical outcome, KJVOism leads to absurdity. I
therefore reject it as a colossal error and fraud.
---Doug Kutilek
----------
NOTES ON SEVERAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO
ENGLISH VERSIONS
And while we are discussing the improper use of English versions as the pattern
or standard of translations, let me note some examples not involving the KJV.
Some years ago, I made a detailed study of various Bible versions and
translations into Romanian. Among those I examined was a New Testament called
(being translated) "The New Testament to be Understood by All." This
1984 rendition was published by Living Bibles International, and as you might
suspect, is a more or less literal translation of the Living Bible paraphrase.
As I stated in an earlier issue of AISI ("A Word About Paraphrases of
Scripture," 3:3), I do not condemn either the making or using of
paraphrases as Bible study tools (though I do find them inadequate for close and
regular Bible reading). However, a paraphrase should be anchored in the original
language Bible texts, not a version. The Living Bible is based on the American
Standard Version, which, very literal though it may be, is an insufficient
foundation for a paraphrase; how much more so is a translation of a paraphrase
of a translation, as this Romanian NT is, detached from its proper base. Yet,
for all that, if a Romanian reader had nothing but this NT, three steps removed
from the original as it is, he could still see the light of the Gospel clearly
and find peace and forgiveness in Christ, and could feed his soul sufficiently
to grow much in grace.
Such second and third hand versions are not rare historically. The Old Latin
translation of the Old Testament, used for centuries by Latin-speaking believers
in the Western Roman Empire, was made, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek
translation of the OT, the Septuagint. Similarly, all the vernacular Bible
translations made in Western Europe during the Middle Ages--whether into
Anglo-Saxon, Provencal (here I speak of the Scriptures of the Waldensians),
German, French, Spanish, Italian and Wycliffe's English version--were all made
from the Latin Vulgate version of Jerome, not from the Greek or Hebrew. While
this is not an ideal situation, it proved adequate to keep alive the light of
the Gospel in Western Europe until the Reformation brought a return to the Greek
and Hebrew originals as the basis for translation.
A trend has developed in the last decade in the making of modern language
versions to pattern them after the New International Version. Let me preface my
remarks by saying that when I read the Bible in English, I usually do so in the
NIV, and have done so for more than 20 years. I will acknowledge it as an
adequate and suitable Bible for public reading and personal study with, I
readily declare, some maddeningly imprecise renderings in spots, some
unnecessary paraphrase, and a few outright blunders in translation. (My
"ideal" English version would be something between the NASB and the
NIV, with some differences from both. However, so far, nobody has "died and
left me in charge" of anything!)
But as I was saying, some foreign language versions, naturally enough those
sponsored by the International Bible Society, copyright holder on the NIV, show
a too close conformity on the NIV. Among these is a Spanish translation, Nueva
Version Internacional, which in its preface acknowledges its conformity to the
NIV, though claiming the original Greek as its base. An example (of many) of
this too close reliance on the NIV is 1 Thessalonians 1:3. The NIV reads in
part: "your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love and your
endurance inspired by hope." Here the words "produced by,"
"prompted by," and "inspired by" are the translators'
paraphrastic insertions, which in Greek are simply a series of genitive cases,
which are literally translated in the KJV, ASV, etc. by a series of "ofs."
I will allow that some kind of explanatory translation of the force of the
genitive case is allowed here, but using three different though synonymous
inserted phrases as the NIV does, strikes me as overdoing it.
Well, the Spanish NVI has picked up exactly the practice of the NIV in this
place, reading "obra realizada por su fe, el trabajo motivado por su amor,
y la constancia sostenida por su esperanza" ("the work performed
because of your faith, the labor motivated by your love, and the constancy
sustained by your hope.") Surely it is not necessary to ape the NIV to
produce a readable modern language version in Spanish, yet that is exactly what
is done here, and often elsewhere in this version.
I will note in passing an objectionable footnote in both the NIV and NVI. At
Romans 9:5, while the text correctly makes Christ the antecedent of
"God," ("Christ who is God over all, forever praised"/"Cristo,
quien es Dios sobre todas las cosas. Alabado sea por siempre!"). The
marginal notes in each give alternate renderings (two in the NIV, and one in the
NVI) which separate "Christ" from "God." While these are,
strictly speaking, grammatically possible according to the Greek--though much
less likely than the translation in the text--a careful study of the pattern of
the numerous doxologies in Paul's letters shows that Paul undoubtedly intended
to ascribe Deity to Christ here. Therefore these notes are misleading and
unnecessarily cast doubt on whether Paul here ascribes Deity to Christ, and
should be eliminated.
Returning to Romanian language translations--in 1996, the International Bible
Society published "Noul Testament: O Traducere in Limba Contemporana"
("The New Testament: a translation in contemporary language.") This
was first announced in the early 1990s, and the few translators then associated
with the work were students at a Bible institute in Oradea, Romania. It was
clear to me that they were not linguistically qualified to work directly from
the Greek text. When the complete NT appeared, I wrote to both the International
Bible Society and the Romanian Missionary Society (co-sponsors of the work) to
obtain a complete list of translators. I received not a single word of
information--not even a letter of acknowledgement--from either.
The only name mentioned in the introduction is Josef Ton, a man with legitimate
scholarly credentials, but he does not claim to have made the translation by
himself. He mentions numerous collaborators in the work, and indeed notes that
this is but a preliminary effort at producing a Romanian translation into
contemporary language.
At 1 Thessalonians 1:3, the shadow of the English NIV and its paraphrasis is
evident: "de felul cum v-ati pus credinta la lucru, de truda voastra
motivata de dragoste si de rabdarea voastra inspirata de speranta"
("the manner in which you put faith to work, of your toil motivated by
love, and of your perseverance inspired by hope"). Two of the three
paraphrasitic elements in the NIV reappear in Romanian garb.
(In 2000, Josef Ton published a revised edition of the standard Cornilescu
translation of the NT; it evidently has no relationship to the 1996 edition, and
is much more formally equivalent. Several Romanian preachers have highly
commended it in my presence).
My point in all this is not to condemn these partially NIV-dependent
versions--all were done by theologically conservative translators and can be
recommended for use. But I do wish to utter a word of caution: just as the KJV
is not a suitable basis for a translation of the Bible into some language other
than English (unless the translator had no other alternative, particularly due
to his own incompetence in using Greek and Hebrew; better a second hand
translation than none at all), so also, neither is the NIV a proper basis for
making modern language versions in Spanish, Romanian, or any other language.
This is not to say that a Bible translator should not consult translations in
other languages. Jerome consulted not only the Hebrew text of the OT, but also
the Septuagint Greek version. Luther translated from the Hebrew and Greek, but
with the Latin Vulgate also close at hand. Tyndale translated from the Greek,
but also referred to Jerome's Latin--and likely Erasmus' Latin version as
well--and Luther's German. The KJV translators expressly mention versions in
more than half a dozen languages which they consulted. Were I today making a
Bible translation into some language, I would consult Bible versions both
ancient and modern in every language in which I had sufficient competence. The
caution here is that no version is sufficient by itself to serve as the basis
and pattern for any other translation, unless no other alternative is possible.
And rarely today is no other alternative possible. Therefore, consult, but do
not rigidly conform, either to the KJV or NIV, or any other translation.
---Doug Kutilek
----------
LETTERS
Doug...thanks for the article on "God forbid" [AISI 4:4]...every time
that I point this out to those who are condemning other translations for the use
of dynamic equivalency, there is a painful silence...keep up the good work!
j. s.
----------
BOOK REVIEWS
DOWN IN WATER STREET by Samuel H. Hadley. New York: Fleming R. Revell. 1902. 242
pp., hardback.
The first "rescue mission" ever established in this country, or in any
country for that matter, was the mission on Water Street in New York City. The
founder was Ireland-born Jerry McAuley (1837-1884), who was converted from a
life of thievery and drunkenness while in Sing Sing prison. After his release,
he struggled to gain the victory over alcohol, with numerous setbacks and
failures, and a reversion to life as a thief. He was ultimately reclaimed for
good from his old ways in 1868, and four years later, 1872, began the Water
Street Mission to rescue men like himself who were far gone in sin, drunkenness
and crime, and who needed to hear of the love of God and the mercy and grace
offered by Him to sinners.
McAuley led the mission until his death from disease in 1884. The leadership
fell to Samuel H. Hadley, author of the book. The volume is chiefly short
accounts of the lives, both before and after Christ, of men enslaved to alcohol
and tobacco, who had thrown away home, and health, and family and fortune for
drink. The transforming grace of Christ--mediated through the love and concern
of "satisfied customers" (other sinners who had experienced God's
forgiveness)--resulted in thousands of conversions in the mission's first three
decades, and the spawning of similar missions in other parts of New York City,
and in other cities across the nation.
The book is similar in content to THE PACIFIC GARDEN MISSION by Carl F. H.
Henry, reviewed in AISI 4:3, about a rescue mission in Chicago, though this is
the better of the two books, though not substantially superior.
I cannot help reflecting on certain matters: God values the gutter drunk as much
as He values the "respectable" sinner. Christ died to save both. God
wants both to come to repentance, rather than perish. We seem to have a habit in
fundamentalist Christianity of continually moving our churches out of "bad
neighborhoods" to the suburbs. But aren't those bad neighborhoods made up
of sinners who need Christ as much as the "better class of sinners" we
locate among in the suburbs? I think we are sadly neglecting an important duty
in this regard, and are turning a blind eye to our responsibilities. Not all are
guilty but many, likely most, are.
---Doug Kutilek
----------
NOAH'S ARK: A FEASIBILITY STUDY by John Woodmorappe. Santee, Cal.: Institute for
Creation Research, 1995. 306 pp., paperback. $19.00
Critics of the Bible have long sought to discredit a literal reading of
Scripture, especially the early chapters of Genesis, by claiming that events
recorded there simply could not have happened as described because of numerous
"impossibilities." Probably the Great Flood of Genesis 6-9 has been
singled out for the greatest amount of attack.
John Woodmorappe has compiled the attacks of the critics and has systematically
answered them, showing that many of them are based on imputing to Genesis things
which it does not claim. Other claims are exposed as based on the gross
ignorance on the part of the critic of the facts at issue (and are often nothing
more than mere quibbling or fault-finding). Yet others, which at first blush
seem to have some plausibility, are shown by extensive appeal to published
scientific and other literature to be groundless.
Among the critics' claims: the ark wouldn't hold all the animals that would have
been necessary; the ark wouldn't hold enough food and water for a year for the
animals; the ark had insufficient ventilation and illumination for the animals;
eight people couldn't feed, water, clean-up after and otherwise care for the
thousands of animals on the ark; the necessary specialized diet for some animals
couldn't have been provided; the ark wouldn't have been seaworthy; the
post-flood world couldn't provide sufficient food for the animals; the animals
could not have successfully reproduced in the post-flood world; etc., etc.
Woodmorappe shows from very extensive quotation of a vast array of articles,
books and other documents--the bibliography fills 77 pages, and includes over
1,500 items from the past two centuries (I have no idea how he even located some
of the really obscure stuff he quotes)--that all of the critics' claims are
devoid of factual basis. All the necessary factors for the survival of all the
animals, and crew, on the ark and afterward could have been met without any
appeal to direct miraculous intervention (and Genesis speaks of no such
miracles, beyond the coming of the Flood itself). .
Almost every claim I have ever heard voiced against the Genesis account of the
Flood and a number of other criticisms I hadn't thought of are presented and
responded to in a highly persuasive manner. The author did not address the
matter of post-Flood geographic dispersal of the animals, but little else is
missed. Most of the book is readily intelligible to the non-specialist, though I
will admit to being mentally out to sea when reading his discussion of genetics
and the post-Flood world.
The Genesis account of the Flood, is, in truth, eminently reasonable. Mr.
Woodmorappe has done us a great service in producing this book that must have
cost him vast and extended labor. It is and should long remain the standard work
on the subject.
---Doug Kutilek