Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-04-02
Daily gir9iuian.
FOR 1ug s1RGISlAN.
Scripture and Geology-No. 8.

long to nilow Tor nll tho geuogtcAi formations rx-
cept the last; that it sol tlc last only the Bible
gives us any account, the rest having no connec-
tion whatever with tho moral history oi our rnce
There are Yet additional arguments boih from
Scripture and Geology, which may be adduccd IN
support If this h,roihe-is.
Thu second verse in Genesis. which hegins the
account ri the six days work. speaks Of tho earth
as being without form. md yoid'-Dr. Us Il may
be more strictly rendered from the Hebrew (tohu
earohol 'desolR'r and empty" Now II tho geo
logical periods nnlccedent to the last were dstin-
guished by separate arts Of creations; ii each had
its own peculiar nrnup ot ntnnals nnd plants,
which hnnlly di>nopeared to make way FIR nno,h.
or, and Thus with the elose of each period tho cx.
isiing ~ stem of things wns broken M To allow
for the teurgani1aton of matter aud tho appear
an'c "i new lmmS; then We might reasonably ex-
poet that the same physical changes would precedc
and introduce the mst creation. Ii this were tho
ease could tho cond l,on Of the earth NJ the time
have hrrn m"rc nltly described than IN the lnn-
goage Il thu inspired penman. "iesolate anl emi-
tyf' hid waste 10y some destructive natural agent,
and deprived of It's living occupants 10 will he
Observed that Moses represents the earth nj tho
time rs covered by water; it was not until tho
third day lhnt the dry land appeared. Geology
shows that there must have beon such u subnhr-
gence Immediately before tho surface formation.
and that whnte,cr animals then existed must have
been DESTROYED l., 1t. Wo smll not hn charged
with introducing ex rarte testimony II We quote
from nh intd"l w'tk in support IT tni@ statement.
Says the authuroi tae Nestges oi t,cation; The
idea Of such a wldr ,prcnd, aud rerhap- universal
subm" SION, uunvsl laty sugcc.ts ~,,.o consideia-
ti"ns ny To the chc' II might have upon animal
life |, seems likely lhnt this would lie. On such
an occasion, crfenare}g u not nurTSd'y dca,oycd.
Nor does the idea u lis unN or .il destruction seem
less plausible when We rcnnrk, that none y the
species # iuad annais herr,o tore d'Seorcred,
be ffrff1 al y,t{,S nj Ig
seems 10 have been ha@ chdnpsd. Sone geologsts
incline Il, think that there was a. this tim" ne,c
dereiopmeatot terrcst,ai aam0ihfe upoH the giobc,
AMI NJ Aga>sx. whose "pinlun ON such q
subject IL emInenily worthy of attention spenks
MI but decidedly tar such canclu~ion. -
West. Of Creation, Am. Ed, y. l06.) We have
itaicisca several pa. t4 Of tins quotation to show
with what decided rn ha-is even iuiidclty itself
has testified To thr views hero presented. and
which seem to ps perfectly to reconcile he Mosaic
and Geologic reror{4.
Could .c3ll.y far,si any evidence Of tho ex.
istenco Of mnu, or Of the species al animals aud
plants REGULAR to III. abode, ut period more ~
noie lhnn that as-Igle cd ly the Sacred ll-turInn,
then there would b. an e,iurut ciGiet. - ttr,
however, from this ny the ,nec. its ~ dcnoo il
all the other side; II not oaly furnishes trace
of their previous existence, but proves rpnclmsyely
that they could not have existel-thuti tho condition
OF things WINS not adapted to their existence. No
Ihct IL more tulN "-thpli5htI Dy GtboEital iNNch-
CATION than thIt--lat there was perfect corrcs-
pondence between the various orders o' organic life
at the different peri ds and the physical clrchm-
stances by which they were surrounded. Thus.
Alg;e. o. scn pnEis were the first t1ms Of yege-
taion, because nom uther could M that time,
have l"cn supported; 50 the animals were Of this
lower marine type. such H. the M9luscans nnd
others-the not being suite'l until II later Pc
riod even to su-nn fishes. No land animals
could have existed before tho cnrboniierous era,
on account Of the great amount oi carbonic acid
gas which must have pcryaled the atmosphere up
to thnt time, the sJrilus If which. as Mr.. Brog-
Mart suggests. when 10 form the vegetation whose
ruins bc,nl.e coal and the air being thus brought
to its present state land animals Immediately mp
peared' So we find ii corresponding adaptation
throughout, aud nowhere but Immediately upon
the present surface do we meet with state ot the
elements adap'ei to human existence says Hugh
Miller concerning the earliest terrestrial flora.
which makes IL appearance in the upper Second
ary. "li was fora un6tte,i, apparently. for the
support Of either gramniserouS bird or herbl'erous
qundrupcd.. Not until we enter the Tertiary pc
riod do we find fora amid which might have
proIitahly laborcl IA DIRE e.scr oI gardens, tler
Of field, or keeper Of hock- and herbs. While
the fruits, grusso-, nnd grains. which form the
food Of and o. .razing animals, ore Pecuiidr-
" plants Of the ha"taa period" (fest OF tho
Rocks p, ISL
Before closing this series of articles. we must
he permitted to remark that that INTERPRETATION
of Scripture which represents the six days Of ere
alton a six geological cycles pero'l@, has nj
ways seemed t" us 10 do too great violence to tho
sacred text. The term day IL. indeed used some
times hy the inspii cd writer's for indefinite pc
riod of time, but only in highly iigura,ive and
prophetic pf f-sages--neyer in literal history.
less accompanied with some explanation. Thus,
Numbers ole. 3Iv.. it is used for year, but this
nIo1 ,f 10 nj defined
"Aftcr the number Of days in which We searched
the land, even forty days. each day lyom) for
year (Shanah) shall We bear your inautics even
forty years" Soin Ezekiel, 4c. 6v. Thou shalt
bear the niquty of the house Of Judah forty
DAYS: | have appointed thee each day for year"
IL will bc seen that in these and other instances
where the term day is diverted from it's ordinary
Specification of twcnt y-four hours, its unusual i'm
mort il explained. Is it then to lie supposed that
Moses, in giving straightforward ma rative OF
the creation, would, without any explanation of
his meaning, speak of that rs occurring in six
days, which occupied six thousand years, or yet
longer period? Does not such Interpretation tend
to invaldate his credit M historian, and to throw
doubt upon other passa geso of Holy Writ Heexpress
es the common day plainly as it can be expressed
in language, and as if to prevent any ambiguity,
defines it bv n day of "morning and evening" The
literal and full meaning Of the Hebrew word yom.
rendered day is ''the time between two sunsets; :;
whence the Hebrews rated their day from sunset
to sunset. Moses speaks of "the evening and
the morning" as constituting the day, showing
that he used the term in its ordinary sense as it
was understood by his oountrymcn. Beside,
wherever the creation is referred to in the Bible,
the six days are spoken Of six common days. In
Exodus, the duty of man to. labor six days and
rest on the seventh, is enforced by the consdera.
ton that "in six DAYS God finished his work and
rested on the seventh" the parallel. however,
would be destroyed, it by the first six days we
were to understand six indefinite periods. We
regret that Hugh Miller should have given the