Re: Scofield Bible (was Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis)

From: M.B.Roberts (
Date: Sun Apr 01 2001 - 18:27:22 EDT

  • Next message: M.B.Roberts: "Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis"

    Scofield Bible

    a) 4004 BC refers not to the original creation but the re-creation after the
    Gap in Gen 1,1 .
    b) He does allow a day-age but prefers 6 24 hr days after the Gap

    c) "The first creative act refers to the dateless past and gives scope for
    all the geologic ages."

    d) Scofield is silent about the Flood - simply no comment.I had never
    checked this before and find the silence deafening. Presumably a limited
    flood was ok as itr was to most fundamentalists in 1910 (but dont tell AiG
    or HM)

    Please note that the Gap Theory of Scofiedl was a crude rewrite of the Chaos
    Rstitution Theory which was the dominant orthodox viewpoint from 1600 to
    c1860 and held by Boyle, Ray, Whiston etc, Pantcelyn (writer of Guide me o
    thou great redeemer - he developed this in his epic poem Golwg ar Deyrnas -
    in Welsh !) and later developed by Chalmers or rather he nicked it and took
    the credit. Sorry I have a paper on this coming out in the Evangelical


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jonathan Clarke" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 9:44 AM
    Subject: Scofield Bible (was Re: Why?/Re: Answersingenesis)

    > Hi Gordon
    > Thanks for the more detailed reference to what the Scofield Bible actaully
    says. I
    > don't have one to hand. Interesting then that the original edition
    > Ussher's chronology, the gap theory and the day-age interpretation.
    Perhaps this
    > support of all three horses kept all three in the race up to the time when
    > superficially plausible YEC of Whitcomb and Morris came along. What does
    > Scofield Bible say about the flood?
    > Jon
    > gordon brown wrote:
    > > Jonathan,
    > >
    > > The footnotes of the original edition of the Scofield Bible published
    > > early in the twentieth century supported the gap theory, which allows
    > > an indeterminate period of time prior to the supposed ruin of creation
    > > to Satan. It also had a footnote saying that the word day did not have
    > > mean 24 hours. On the other hand, it also included Ussher's chronology.
    > > The revision published about fifty years later omitted the gap theory
    > > the chronology but retained the footnote about the meaning of day as I
    > > recall. Thus I don't think the effect of the Scofield Bible was to make
    > > people intolerant of the idea of an old earth.
    > >
    > > Gordon Brown
    > > Department of Mathematics
    > > University of Colorado
    > > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
    > >
    > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Jonathan Clarke wrote:
    > >
    > > > Good question Graham. I wonder if HM and JW have navels?
    > > >
    > > > My reading of writers on the pre HM period (Numbers, Moore, Ramm and
    > > > Livingstone) is that there was no institutional awareness that the age
    of the
    > > > earth was a fundamental issue amongst anyone except SDAs and Missouri
    > > > Lutherans. Most books on the subject would have argued either a "day
    age" or
    > > > "gap" perspective. Organic evolution was more widely seen to be an
    > > > however. There was a lot of grass roots support for YEC though,
    > > > because of the influence of the Scofield Bible, something that Numbers
    > > > not really take into account, dealing with the more formal writings of
    > > > leaders and thinkers. The grass roots support or sympathy for young
    > > > flood geology, and anti-evolutionary ideas prepared the ground for
    > > > and Morris.
    > > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 18:40:00 EDT