Dr. Henry Morris                                                                                        December 28, 2005
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon CA 92021

Dear Dr. Morris,

Greetings to you from Augusta GA. We have been receiving the Acts and Facts material from you folks for some time, and we find it a breath of fresh air and a wonderful defense in these perilous days of ever-darkening apostasy and ignorance. I am happy for all the good defense of creationism you people have maintained for years against the proponents of lies “whose mouths must be stopped.”

I am writing regarding your recent article in Back to Genesis entitled, “Replenishing the Earth.” In the article against the “gap theory” you spend most of your time defending your subject by correcting the word “replenish” in our Bible.

First of all, I would like to say that I don’t believe in the “gap theory” either; but, I believe that trying to defend creationism by correcting the Bible is like trying to sell a level, square, compass or ruler to an engineer with the same statement you made about your Bible – “I still believe it is the best we have.” Do you think an engineer would buy it if it’s not perfect? Neither do I believe an evolutionist will buy your defense of creationism when you boast of a Bible, a measuring rod (canon) that “may not be perfect, but it comes close.”

Dr. Morris, throughout your life, you have appealed to scientific laws as absolute facts based on their perfection, and now, will you defend creationism by apologizing for the Word of God which is not perfect? What good is all your lifetime of scientific research and positive scientific facts used in your debates and discussions if the Bible you hold in your hands has to be corrected, improved and replenished as to what is evidently lacking? Have you not strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel? There is no gap theory, only gaps in the Word of God? Is that good news? I think I should rather have a gap theory than a Bible full of gaps, wouldn’t you? Whose word should I take for it? Yours? Are you not doing the very thing the evolutionists do when they have the same “trust me” mentality? “The KJV … is – in my judgment, at least – still the most reliable accurate English translation.” What does your judgment matter?

Dr. Morris, you are a scientist! You know there are absolute perfect laws men rely on and appeal to every day – A perfect circle has 360 degrees; a perfect straight line has 180 degrees; a perfect right angle has 90 degrees; water freezes at 32 degrees every time perfectly and boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit every time perfectly, unless some factor is changed. Will you have a perfect science to judge things by, but an imperfect Bible which must be judged and corrected? And then, will you appeal to creationism because it is taught in the Bible? If your Bible is deficient, then your creationism beliefs cannot be so certain.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the definition of “replenish” as “1.To fill; to stock with numbers of abundance.” “2. To finish; to complete.” How is that a “misleading translation”? I find that the problem people have with words they don’t understand in the Bible is not from mistaken Scripture, but mistaken people. Words take on new meanings over the course of hundreds of years, but it isn’t the word’s fault, but the people who have mislearned and misused the word, or have learned it in an altered sense. The words “want” “conversation” “wine” in the Bible have different meanings in today’s vocabulary, but the fault is not with the words, but the people who are ignorant of their original meanings.

Now, Dr. Morris, please consider that you have resorted to the same thing that evolutionists do when they freely allow for evolution every time they cannot explain something readily. You don’t have to correct the Bible to condemn the gap theory, but if you are going to appeal to the authority of the Bible to expose the gap theory – once you breach that all-sufficient authority, you make it more plausible that the gap theory and everything else evolution maintains could be correct after all. How can you defend yourself on any verse of Scripture that might just be the opinion of translators of bygone centuries? Once a brick mason affirms he has a level that’s not true, he can’t have a wall that is. Once you allow for error in the Bible you hold in your hand, you jeopardize every belief you try to base on it. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Please allow me to postulate where I believe your error lies: You are trying to make the Bible a product of science, when God has removed all science from the picture and required that it be received by faith. You cannot scientifically prove the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew and the New Testament books in Greek, because you don’t have the scientific data necessary – the original manuscripts. You must assume, Dr. Morris -- and that is not science. Are you not doing like the evolutionists with their rocks and dating methods who also make assumptions? How do you know Moses, who was fluent in Egyptian, did not write one or all of the first five book originally in Egyptian? You cannot answer scientifically -- you must make an assumption based on the evidence you have. You are treating the Bible as a specimen of science and leaving yourself and other “Bible scholars” as the judges to determine its validity. That’s the very thing the evolutionists are doing with rocks. So, what’s wrong with them?

Dr. Morris, if your prevailing belief -- of getting back to the unseen originals by constructing the Bible with all the available scientific evidence, and using yourself as the judge, while rejecting the absolute Word of God that he has miraculously preserved in English and blessed these four hundred years – I say, if you are right to use scientific evidence to construct the Bible, why can’t evolutionists be right to use their scientific evidence to construct the origins of life? You creationists will give the answer that God made the world with the appearance of age, and that the evolutionists must use more than a rock to prove origins, but the Word. Now let me apply your own principles to show your inconsistencies: Why can’t I say that God has chosen to preserve his Word in a way that must be taken by Faith and not proved by science?

Science must have scholarship, but God has chosen throughout history to choose simple, ignorant, unlearned men to convey inspired Scriptures – those two ideas are at enmity with one another. Jude does not say that we are to contend for the faith once given to the scholars, but the faith once given to the saints. I trust my Bible because it speaks for itself, not because I am convinced of the credentials of the KJ translators. One is not obligated to check the history of a knife in order for it to cut – just use it and find out if it works. The KJB is not the product of science, but God. The KJB translators acknowledged their own weaknesses, so we cannot praise them for the product God gave them. He caused them to translate properly, ah perfectly! and history shows God’s blessing on the KJB, not as a mere translation, but as the very Word of God. Must you require scientific proof? I will give you the same line you give evolutionists who also require proof – “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:1-3). Let me add, “But without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (vs. 6). Perhaps God has left the textual “scholars” as many confusing manuscripts as He has left confusing rocks to the scientists? God delights in hiding from the wise and prudent and revealing unto babes – of course, that also goes contrary to scholarship and science.

Modern textual criticism is as evil as evolution, because it makes man the master and judge. Did God authorize all these modern Bible versions? Did He establish them, or promote them? Yet, you freely allude to “many other English versions” you have and make reference to. This is as confusing as all the various theories evolutionists have as well, each contradicting the other. They don’t just have one rule for evolution, and you don’t just have one Bible. Imagine a contractor actually bragging about building a house with rulers of different lengths for the foot? Would such a man really be trustworthy? How about boasting of erecting a tower with squares of various shades away from 90 degrees? That doesn’t even mention the fact that you warned of no existing dangerous Bible versions. Should we conclude that you approve them all if you do not condemn a single one?

If your belief of superiority of original languages was correct, then why is it not taught one time in the entire New Testament in reference to the originals of the Old Testament? Why didn’t Jesus teach his disciples to get back to the originals and construct the OT scientifically as closely as they could? Your scientific theory is impossible and un-Biblical – is it not?

In closing, I wish to add that when my dad used to defend the seven literal 24 hour days, he noted that in Hebrew, every time the word hamara was in the context of a number, it was always a 24 hour solar day. This is in distinction to the word aeon which always means a longer indefinite period of time.

Also, you noted at the end of your article “Even Satan did not sin until after the six days of creation, because at that time, everything was still ‘very good.’” Consider that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was created and pronounced “very good.” I think when the world is done and the judgment over, God will look back over all the work of his hands and say, “behold, it is very good!”

May God smile on you,


Timothy Fellows




NOTE: For the original article written by Dr. Morris, please contact the Institute for Creation Research, Back to Genesis.