Henry Morris KJV Study Bible

[Just_Ahead]

I have a copy of The Companion Bible, Enlarge Print -- one big study Bible -- sometimes I think I need a crane to move it from the book case to my study desk.

*****

Here is a link to an image of E.W. Bullinger's study desk. Click on the link and click again to open the image.

 

[Just_Ahead]

As I age, I find my Bible study and personal worship swinging back toward my conservative roots. And as this thread continues -- I feel drawn to the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible -- particularly the excerpts I have read online.

To be continued...

 

[rlvaughn]

I have a copy of The Companion Bible, Enlarge Print -- one big study Bible -- sometimes I think I need a crane to move it from the book case to my study desk.

Yes, it is definitely bulky and unhandy -- a good reason to look at it online I suppose. I have a problem resisting hard copies, though, of something I want to use for study. It has some good stuff in it. Do you think it fair to consider it a "YEC Bible"?

Here is a link to an image of E.W. Bullinger's study desk. Click on the link and click again to open the image.

Having the dog there probably makes all the difference!

As I age, I find my Bible study and personal worship swinging back toward my conservative roots. And as this thread continues -- I feel drawn to the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible -- particularly the excerpts I have read online.

You have caused me to become interested in seeing it as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

(1) “literal view of Genesis”
“Literal” is such a slippery term. It means different things to different people. Often “literal” simply means that the meaning is what the person already thinks it means...

"I shall now outline a method for the exegetical exposition of the Book of Genesis that is consonant with an orthodox, exegetical, and critical approach. By critical I mean that it satisfies the demands of literary-analytical investigation, with sound judgments on the nature, purpose, and composition of the text. By exegetical I mean that the basic investigation uses the Hebrew text and that the meaning is derived from the text. And by orthodox I mean that the integrity of the text as the inspired and authoritative Scripture is maintained." Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 37.
​

(2) “who see Moses as its Primary author”

In the broadest level, we may observe the difference in style between Genesis 1–11, 12–36, and 37–50, three very different sections. On a narrower level, we may observe differences in style between chapters themselves; the creation, for example, in Genesis 1:1–2:3 varies considerably from the style of Genesis 2:4–25. Sources were probably used in the writing of Genesis—sources that were brought by ancestors from Mesopotamia, sources and records of the ancestral families kept by the patriarchs, genealogical records, and the like. It is reasonable to suggest that Moses gathered ancient records and traditions, and it makes better sense for the message of the book in the Pentateuch. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 35.​

That Moses is the authority whose words are represented and that he was generating documents can be readily accepted. Moses was generating information (sermons, rulings, narratives) that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may well have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material. John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: 2013), 60–61.​

Rob

Literal means to take the 6 days as 24 hours, to accept God created Man as act of special creration, not evolution, and that is not a Myth, nor based upon other Mid eastern myth stories! And that the Holy Spirit inspired an infallible final account!

 

[Yeshua1]

I can answer that.
Its because places like AiG ignore literal mountains of evidence from countless scientific fields in order to adhere to their YEC philosophy.
For AiG's YECist position to be correct, every field of earth and life sciences we have would have to be incorrect.
Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology, Paleontology, Zoology, Comparative anatomy, Genetics, Anthropology, Climatology, Petroleum Geology, etc etc..
The list is endless.. When one organization is forced to abandon so many fields of independent research just to cling to their beliefs, then they aren't doing anything even remotely related to science.

The problem for you is that the scriptures and science support a much younger earth and Universe than "billions of years"

 

[Yeshua1]

You mean like people on your end conveniently ignore anything that disproves their position?

We look at the same facts, its just he filters thru atheistic evolution, while we do thru Jesus Himself!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think I remember inheriting a John R. Rice Study Bible from an uncle. I looked but could not find it. May be boxed up somewhere (I don't have enough shelf space for my books). @John of Japan is his grandson. Maybe he will notice this and comment on his grandfather's study Bible.

While looking for that, I noticed another Bible that I have that probably qualifies in this genre -- The Companion Bible with notes by E. W. Bullinger. It is old enough to be found as an e-book on Google Books. Bullinger puts the creation of Adam at 3996 BC, and also writes:


Perhaps The Ryrie Study Bible (I have NASB, but appears to be available in KJV as well) also fits. I looked in Genesis 1 and Ryrie mentions that some believe in a "gap" between verese one and two, but that does not fit the construction of the language. He further notes on verse 5 that "Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day..."

I haven't set my eyes in a Scofield Bible in some time, but if memory serves it has the odd construction of supporting a literal 6-day creation but denying a young-earth -- in that Scofield puts a gap between verses 1 and 2.

Just Ahead, hope this helps.

Reformed study bible support Young earth, while the Esv sb open ended on question...

 

[Yeshua1]

Well let's talk about the unreliability of dating methods to start.

Since there was a world wide flood, with resultant massive changes, how can any dating system be correct?

 

[Reformed1689]

Since there was a world wide flood, with resultant massive changes, how can any dating system be correct?

Well, conveniently, they deny the existence of such a flood despite there being evidence of that flood.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The problem for you is that the scriptures and science support a much younger earth and Universe than "billions of years"

Sorry, but YOUR interpretation of scripture may support a young earth, but SCIENCE certainly does NOT.
Geologists all the way back to the late 1700s figured out long before Darwin even wrote Origin of Species that the earth HAD to be a lot older than YEC's were claiming it was..
If "science" supported a young earth, then you'd be able to find geology organizations and journals that support it..
Yet NONE do.. No science organization, no peer reviewed journal and NO PhD University with a Geology dept accepts a young earth..
A young earth is simply IMPOSSIBLE in light of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Well, conveniently, they deny the existence of such a flood despite there being evidence of that flood.

There is NO evidence of a "global flood".. In fact all the evidence clearly shows that a global flood is a total and complete impossibility.
This is why no geology organization accepts it as valid.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Since there was a world wide flood, with resultant massive changes, how can any dating system be correct?

The evidence shows that there was NO "global" flood..
If there was a global flood within the last 6000 years (as YEC's claim), the polar ice caps wouldn't even exist.
They'd have broken up and melted away like ice in a glass of coke, if they were covered under a mountain of water for months at a time.
The fact that the polar ice caps even exists is clear proof that there was NO "global" flood.
There is simply NO way possible for those caps to either survive a global flood , or regrow the million years of layers they contain in a few 1000 years..
Simply put, YEC's are forced to once again dismiss the laws of physics in order to believe in a global flood.
(which sadly, they continually do at every turn)

 

[KeyserSoze]

We look at the same facts, its just he filters thru atheistic evolution, while we do thru Jesus Himself!

Calling evolution "atheistic" doesn't make it so..
Facts aren't atheistic.. and NO, you aren't looking at any facts.. You're distorting them.. and ignoring them..
Which is quite sad..

Here, this was written by the International Theological Commission at the Pontifical Academy of Science in the Vatican. Take a real close look at the end of the paragraph at the guy who authorized its publication.

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has given his permission for its publication.

Now, notice who published it..? Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.. Better known as Pope Benedict XVI.
And Popes don't tend to be atheists.. lol

 

[KeyserSoze]

Well let's talk about the unreliability of dating methods to start.

OK, lets talk about that..
What geology dept is making the claim that the dating methods are unreliable..?

 

[Reformed1689]

OK, lets talk about that..
What geology dept is making the claim that the dating methods are unreliable..?

Here, let me google that for you.... https://www.google.com/search?q=dating+methods+unreliable

 

[Reformed1689]

There is NO evidence of a "global flood".. In fact all the evidence clearly shows that a global flood is a total and complete impossibility.
This is why no geology organization accepts it as valid.

Have you seen the Grand Canyon? And again, you say no organization accepts it as valid. Do you live under a rock? (pun intended)

 

[rlvaughn]

Calling evolution "atheistic" doesn't make it so.

Do you believe in an eternal self-existent God, a God who came out of a Big Bang, no God at all, or perhaps something else? Thanks.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Do you believe in an eternal self-existent God, a God who came out of a Big Bang, no God at all, or perhaps something else? Thanks.

I believe in an eternal self-existent God.

 

[Just_Ahead]

As I await a copy of the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, I thought I would post a few links.

Institute for Creation Research is the name of the current organization publishing the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, which appears to be the 3rd edition of this study Bible.

1st edition
KJV Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD (World Publishing, 1996, 1728 pg.).

2nd edition
KJV New Defenders Study Bible, by Dr. Henry Morris, PhD (World Publishing, 2005, 2202 pg.)

3rd edition
The Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, Apologetic Study Bible with over 10,000 comprehensive study notes (Master Books, 2012, 2215 pg.)​

Institute for Creation Research

Who We Are

Core Principles

Research Staff

Defender Notes of Online Study Bible

ICR Discovery Center

ICR Store​

Institute for Creation Research -- Wikipedia article

Biography of Henry M. Morris: Father of Modern Creationism, and video, by Rebecca Morris Daughter (2017)

 

[rlvaughn]

Institute for Creation Research is the name of the current organization publishing the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible, which appears to be the 3rd edition of this study Bible.

Any idea what changes have been made from the 1st to the 3rd edition?