Book Reviews -- By: Anonymous
GJ 2:3 (Fall 61) p. 37
The Genesis Flood. By John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris. Philadelphia: Presbyterion & Reformed, 1961, XXV, 518 pp. $8.95.
This is an important book. Primarily it is a study of the Flood and its Biblical and geological implications. The first four chapters are largely theological and the last three chapters (almost two thirds of the book) largely geological. Of the authors Dr. Whitcomb’s competence in theology of the Old Testament is well known and Dr. Morris’ scientific training and accomplishments are of high standard. The view point of the book is definite. It is an apologetic for a worldwide flood in Noah’s day and an argument that this flood accomplished much of the work of geology. The book agrees therefore with much of the work of G. M. Price, Byron C. Nelson, and others.
The reviewer is in full agreement with the first part of the book—the exegetical. A universal flood seems to be demanded by the Bible—at least a flood that affected all areas where men lived which means practically everywhere. It is perhaps not theoretically impossible that an occasional animal on an occasional raft or mountain peak outlived the storm. But the text ably proves that the Flood was universal in the ordinary sense.
A few comments on the first part are in place. The use of tehom in Gen 7:11 to refer to “underground reservoirs” (p. 9) is questionable. This is a common picture which parallels Biblical cosmology with Babylonian in an unnecessary way. The Biblical references, even Ps 78:15, quoted on p. 242, need only refer to oceans and perhaps lakes. Fountains of the great deep need mean only ocean floor volcanoes.
The calculation of the antediluvian population on p. 26 is questionable. It is based on pure assumption and can prove nothing. The patriarchs may have had families averaging 20 children or 2.2 children for all we know. The conclusion is reasonable that men were widely spread before the flood, but the population growth may have been greatly inhibited by disease, disaster or violence. But this is a small point. The author’s general argument is quite convincing.
The second portion of the book is the more significant because the more unusual. It amasses no end of evidence to show that the current theories of historical geology are inconsistent with themselves or with important and well-known facts. A proviso is given on p. 213 that the authors do not feel their views invalidate all geological study, much of which is on an experimental and verifiable basis, but only that the usual historical geology has been intermixed with erroneous views.
First an illuminating history o...
Click here to subscribe