The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1885-02-06
THE FIRST CHAPTER OF
GENESIS.
IS 1T CORRECT GEoLooIcALLY?

For years this question has been sgitst-
aksptical the wsrld over. The skeptics
compare the simple language and state
rnsnts Of the English version OF the Bible
OF King James with the pompous, pr-ci,',
scientific phraseelogy and statement of
modern geology. pooh-pooh II and toss 1t
over board as unworthy Of serious con
sidsration. Occasionally somr great in
tellsctual light Of Christendom, often
better vsrsea in theology Than science.
will are q broadsidc in its defense all"
this will draw categorical. scientific al
tack from some materialisiic genilcmsn
of the scientific school, more a, home in
the field Of science than in that Ofexcge.is
or the dead Languages But The question
has been left in an exceedingly unsettled
enquircrs after truth. They are MT DIS
turbed by il. rs they are well aware iha,
Ihe authority Of Revelation is not depend
cnt upon the geological accuracy Of Gen.
esis lat, God has so grsndly stamped tie
impress Of his seal upon holy writ lisa,
the proof of its diviae origin as whole
amounts to q very positive demonstration,
quito independent of flaws in any consiii-
uent part IF any section Of the hsauti.
ful fabric can be found inaccurate or fsiss
let 1t 60" says tho Christian discard it as an
interpolation of man" These do not
constitute tho foundation of Biblical Reve.
lation. The Bible can spare many parts
without injury to its ethical OF spiritual
integrity. But If, on the other hand, any
such periisn can be shown to pssscss q
marvellous historical knowledge and wis
dem thousands Of years ahead Of the age
OF its origin We can advance . proof
which must appeal most powerfully to
those whe arc cropping blindly upon the
plane Of matsrialisn. This 10 what pro-
pose 10 do ct this writing. Pref. War
riag gives SEINE valuable and original sug-
gsstions, but thoy are tee mesgre in de-
tail and obscure in expression. ! shall
cndsavor to express the latest phase Of
scientific and Biblical truth in popular Ian
guase, - that all car clearly grasp the
phraseolSgy and idea Of the text.
In the first place We will consider the
exceedingly unscientinc language of'Gsn-
csis 1st" The sbsurdity Of Directing to
the narrative On this ground is manifest
when ws,consder the entire impossibiliiy
Of writer uader the Mosaic dispensatien,
when science was in its Infancy, express
ing himself in the scientific language Of
the 10Th century. Such narrative would
have produced absut as much impression
upon the mind Of man fer ages thereafter
asa Greek Thesis upon the intelligence Of
m infant. For instance how would il do
TO speak of light and darkness according
to the modern undulstory Or corpuseular
theories 10 people who supposed they were
attsnuated substances susceptible of sepa.
ration and division. Or to discuss the
sky as cosmical abyss to those who con-
slider IL to be blue veil Or 10 speak Of
the fixed sun to persons whe thought, like
the celored parssn, they could read the
falsity Of ysur statement every day Of
their lives, etc. Let q medern scientist
place himself in the position Of the sacred
historian. surrounded by races possessed
with absurd notions and plugged in seien-
tific darkness, and ask himself what
phrassoosy would be practical under the
ira al wyin hA ~
ent that ii would be necessary in order TO
save the writing from instantaneous re.
lection that ito language be accommodated
to the prevalent notions Of it's age. If We
can show that this was 50 carefully done
that the narrative agrees with the late
Testimony Of The rocks" in oil its details
that tho language was SO expressed as to
to conform to the understanding Of the age
while Il is susceptible, at the same time
of modern scientific rendering, all viii
admit that a important work has beer
accomplished.
1t is net customary with many Christian
geolsgists to take the stand now suggested
They usually agree with the Profs Hitch
cock that '"rhc Mosaic account is frag
nsntary " ~ gives only tho memorabilia
of creation but net a full and detailed
account. Hence If we expect 10 find ir
the scriptures something corresponding
to all the details Of geology and in tn,
sams order We shall be disappointed be
cause IL was not the object Of Moses 4
give us full account OF the creation ant
in scientific dress" 1t is not necessary Il
grant that thi, order is erroneous as brie
comparison of the original scripture will
modern science will show. Now of cours'
the scripture account barely touches upor
the main heading Of the details, bu
the order j. nevertheless correct. i ap
prshcnd that the common error PARTIAL,
originates from following the translation
Of King James in rendering the. Hebrew
word moyim (huiD as water and copss