Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1922-03-04

1 never wrote these words, but that
some 'redacteur' wrote into the
record ascribed to John some ear
ly piece of Hebrew folklore?
Tennyson, in his Crossing the
Bar" speaks of Meeting his Pilot
face to face" Tennyson, in the
superior light of the reign of Vic
toria, never could have written so
Grass a piece of anthropomor-
phism! 1t must have been writ
ten in by an editor from some An
glo-Saxon folk tale, now lost.
When a man attempts to dip dry
the ocean Of Gods infinity he has
only the tin cup Of his own finite
ness to do it with, and that implies
limitations, and those of language
are not the least. We cannot argue
the falsehood of Johns thought Of
glorious hereafter for Gods
saints, nor deny his authorship OF
the book upon the score of his an
thropomorphisms.
The critics divide the book of
Genesis into a. curious hodge
podge of parts, using the use of
thesterm "Yahveh" and "Elohim,"
Lord and God, as a basis. DIR.
Green in "The Higher Criticism of
the Pentateuch" shows the folly
of this. He explains that there is
a Significant and evidently in
tended contract of the names. The
term Elohim is applied to God as
the God Of creation and proyi-
dence, while Jehovah is applied to
him as the guardian of his peo-
pie" John says: mo man hath
seen God" - Elohim - "at any
time: the only begotten son"-Je-
hoyah-"who hath proceeded from
the Father. he hath manifested
him." Jesus says (John 8:56l
You father Abraham rejoiced to
see my day; and he saw it and was
glad" Before Abraham was,
am" Can we form any other con-
clusion than that the Jehovah of
the Old Testament was the Christ
Of the New? OF course the whole
thing is nonsense to the men who
does not accept the deity of Jesus
Christ. Every man has the right
to his own opinion. AS for me it
would take a far greater feat of
mental gymnastics to follow the
critic through his hacking up Of
the Bible into all kinds of foolish
segments than to accept the plain
Word.
DR.. Moller of Halle, Art. "Gene-
sis" in international Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, shows that
the critic loses sight of the great
purpose of the author, who is a
grand "introit" tells the creation
story, then in ten "toledoths" or
generations" unfolds marvellous
ly the story. Daniel and John
both use the same plan, common
Hebrew literary device. He un-
folds convincingly the marvellous
unity of the great book.
There is no contradiction be-
tween the creation Of man in |
Genesis one and two. One states
the fact; two gives the details. II
cannot explain how God made |
woman from man. Neither can l |
tell which came first, the chicken
or the egg, or why when l break |
in two and give half to dog, eat
ing half myself, my half turns to
Humankind his half to- dog-l
flesh. The most unique thing in |
all literature is Genesis I. 1t car
ries us from a planet like some in
our own system, little more than
formless and extended masses,
through the condensing of an at
mosphere, the appearing Of dry
land, the formation of the plant
life of the coal measures, which
grew before the sun had as yet |
broken through the vapor cnvel-
ope. The came the clearing skies
and the sun and stars first ap-
pear. Then the course Of organ
lied animal life comes in Its nat
ural order, fowl before mammals,
mammals before man. Such an
absolutely accurate record could |
have only been written by a stu
dent Of modern geology--an I'm
possibility-or by direct reveia-