The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-05-12

WE give elsewhere another letter from
Professor Toy, from which it will be seen
that he reiterates his positions with re-
gard to the irreconcilability of the Gen
esis account of creation with the facts of
Geology We regret that he abstains
from noticing the many indisputable coin
cidences between the two records, to
which we called attention-the extraor-
binary correspondence, as even he must
allow, at least in most respects, between
them. We Of course do not admit that
there is any conflict between the records
in any respect, but we have said enough,
in our previous articles, on this subject.
We do not like the way in which Prof.
Toy proposes to try Moses: he says in
effect if the Geological record and the Mo
sale record agree in 10 points and differ in
one, then they are "irreconcilable, and
in such case would have us regard the
Genesis account as a mere Babylonish
legend. Now, if there are 10 particulars
in which they agree, it may be Gas has so
often happened with the Bible before)
that the difference in regard to point 20
is only apparent, and may be due to our
imperfect knowledge Biologists have
been learning very fast these twenty-five
years, and have had to revise their the
cries very often Sir Charles Lyell pub
lished eleven editions of his Principles Of
Geology, and it is very well known that
he was correcting the blunders of the
earlier editions in the more recent edi-
tions all tho time And just here, to
take one of the cases cited by Prof Toy,
what do scientists really k1,oao about the
creation of the solar system? Or, to take
another, what do biologists really kaoa0
about the earliest fora of the earth?
Lastly, it will be time enough to con-
slider the hypothetical case put by Dr.
Toy when it arises. So far no discrep-
aney is proved, while on the other hand
the points of agreement between the re-
cords is absolutely startling.
Prof. Toy proceeds then more at length
to prove that the Hebrews got their ac-
count of the creation from Babylonia.
The two accounts, he argues, evidently
come from a common source the Baby
lonians did not get it from the Hebrews 4:
therefore, as the Hebrews came out of
Babylonia," the Hebrews must have got
taY, ~ frO,o tba Pobvlop;ors
The Hebrews came out Of Babylonia
but Scientific race had previously en-
tered Babylonia possibly from Arabia),
and conquered the Accad or Scythic race
who seem to have preceded them. Why
should the ShemiteS, who pushed up the
rich valley of the Euphrates, not have
carried with them the story of creation {?
Why may they not have given it to the
Accadians (Turanians) as well as the
Accadians have given it to them? There
was too another element in the ancient
Babel the Hamitic
But let us suppose this case: all Of the
descendants of Noah had the story of Gre
alton, transmitted through him They
lid not receive it any one from another,
out all from the common source.
If the Shemites got this story on the
Euphrates, from whom did the Aryans
the Japhetic race Of Persia get it? They
'eem to have had it in very complete
.orm; whence did they get it?
From whom did the Hindus get their
egend Of the flood? and their legend OF
the Terrestrial Paradise? And how did
these get among the Aryan population OF
,he table land of Iran And whence did
he Chinese and the Polynesians obtain
heir traditions Of the deluge? and whence
lid the Chinese get their enchanted gar
lens, in the midst of the SUBMITS of the
Honanlun, where is the fountain Of i'm
mortality dividing off into four streams !?
These traditions are common to the
race, we find then even in America; did
hey all come from Babylonia?
But we have another point to make on
Prof Toy we have t,oo Babylonian cos
mogonies, differing materially the one
from the other. We have t1Oo Babylo-
Man legends Of the Flood diAerino ma