The Truth of Christianity

General P

Monotheism; ad

ays need not be

l development;

Detaile

liest state

) L

he Fir

Dry

Veget

e Sun a

shes an

and An

) M

Concl

ative points to its havi

dible that He might make a miraculous Revelation to man; we pass on now to the Jewis

correct account of events which could not have been otherwise known at the time. What then we have to examine is, whether this narrative is nearer the truth, as we now know it from geology and other sciences, than could h

ws, while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations. Indeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of worshipping the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could have been mor

General P

theism, its seven days, and its gradual devel

pure Mo

ugh now, but it was not so when the narrative was written. For other ancient accounts are either Pantheistic, and confuse God with the universe; or Dualistic, and assume two eternal principles of good

ts sev

to be ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but this is at least doubtful. For ordinary days depend on the sun, and would therefore have been impossible be

ted for twenty-four hours, and then set to work again it would not have been a rest from all His work. But in this case, the seventh day would represent a long period of time, and if so the other days would proba

Gen.

d it seems better to consider it (like so many terms in the Bible) as a human analogy applied to God. Then G

d it not with the assistance of others, or with the help of weapons, but simply by His own unaided inherent strength. It was such a victory as might in a man be described as gained by his own right hand. And the same may be said of the passage

esh or seest thou as man seeth? Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's days?"[11] Here

ob 10.

poke. What we are to suppose in the one case is that God-the Almighty One, for whom nothing is too hard-created all things in such a way as might to man be best represented by a simple word of command. And what we are to suppose in the other case, is that God-the Eternal One, to whom a thousand years are but as yesterday-crea

science; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born about B.C. 20, who knew nothing of geology, ridicules

of Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Yon

gradual d

had passed through several stages did it become fully inhabited. Moreover, at every step (with two exceptions, the firmament and man, noticed later on), God examined the work and pronounced it

once, but slowly step by step, through successive ages. And it also shows that these ages were of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as mere preparations

als, and men. It is not disputed that these various stages may have been evolved from the previous ones, e.g., the living from the not-living, which the narrative itself suggests in the words, Let the earth put forth grass; and also at its close, when it speaks of the generations of the heaven and of the earth; which implie

ause at work then. Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could have been otherwise produced. Take, for instance, this very subject of the origin of life. As far as we know, the only natural mode in which life can begin is from a living parent, yet there was a time when there were no living parents on this earth. How, th

the universe, of animal life (fishes and birds), and of man. And this is very significant, when we remember that these correspond to the beginning of matter, mind, and spirit; and are therefore (as said in Chapter IV.) just the three places where something altogether new was introduced; which could not, as far as we can see, have been e

Detaile

earth, there are eight stages in its development; two of which occurred on the t

liest state

e a separate planet, and had cooled so as not to give out any light itself, these statements seem quite correct. For we know from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as any form of life was conc

) L

is earth. And in the development of this earth, light (which in nature always includes heat) must obviously have come first. For on it depend the changes in temperature, which lead to the formation of winds, clouds, and rain; while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary for the life of plants and animals; so in placing light as the first

he fir

he writer thought this expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above (because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid) is scarcely tenable. For the firmament was called heaven, and the upper waters, above this hea

eut. 1

air (verses 26-28, 30). And it also occurs in other passages, in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the air, e.g., 'any winged f

4. 17; Pr

between the clouds and the seas; just as an artist, though he might examine his pictures to see that they were good, would not examine the spaces

be taken literally, any more than that about the doors of the sea;[16] especially as in another place the heavens dropping water is explained as meaning that the clouds dropped it.[17] And since God promi

1; 2 Kings 7.

ob 38.

ges 5. 4

Gen.

their being in the firmament at all, is not correct if this means only the air. But the word may be used here in a wider sense, like the English word heaven, to include both the air, and the space beyond. For we speak of the clouds of heaven, and the stars of heaven, and in neither case with any idea of their bein

Gen.

Dry

nded by watery vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a kind of universal ocean. And then, when the surface became irregular, through its contracting and crumpling up, the water would collect in the hollows, forming seas, and dry land would appear elsewhere.

Veget

were the four things which then existed. The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of three groups, grass, herbs, and fruit-trees; and it seems to imply that

shes and birds after the commencement of land-animals. But the difficulty is due to the fact that the classes overlap to a large extent. And the order given in Genesis is nearer the truth than any other would be. Had the writer, for example, plac

e sun a

point in the narrative, and was long thought to be a difficulty. But science has now shown that it is correct. However strange we may think it, light did undoubtedly exist long before the sun. In other words, the original nebula of our solar system was luminous, and lighted the earth, long before it contracted i

the narrative, it is quite correct to place the moon with the sun; since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, and must obviously have commenced at the same time. The other objection is, that according to Genesis, the earth seems to be the centre of everything, and e

ht. This must have appeared when it was written, and for thousands of years afterwards, an obvious absurdity, since everyone could see that t

shes an

hem. It is not clear whether the narrative means that they appeared at the same time, or successively, though here, as in other cases, the latter is the more probable. And science entirely agrees in thus placing

at sea-monsters (wrongly translated whales in A.V.), since these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time. The Hebrew word is said to mean elongated or stretched-out creatures, and as several of them

in the narrative. But it never claims to describe everything that was created; and its extreme bre

and an

e case of plants. And the position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and before man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as kangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals as a whole un

7. 21; L

) M

placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing; for its chronology only leads back to the creation of Adam in chapter 2, and not to that of the human race (male and female) in chapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men before

4. 13-17,

A.D. 1655, quoted in th

"Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal" or anything of that kind, but 'Let us make man.' And this also is quite correct, for ma

f he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent miseries,-it seems

d to man; for he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man is unique, a separate personal being, distinct from all e

could not have been created righteous. He might have been created perfect, like a machine, or innocent, like a child, but to be righteous requires his own co-operation, his freely choosing to act right, thou

reation is his free will, to which we have just alluded. And that which distinguishes God's action from all natural forces is also His freedom, (Chapter I.). So it is perfectl

hile image means resemblance in nature (possessing free will, etc.), likeness means resemblance in character[23] (always acting right). Therefore, of course, though God wished man to

ef reference in Gen. 5. 1-2, when speaking of Adam, likeness is used where we should have expected image

g on the sixth day. And this also seems correct, for in spite of his immense superiority, man, in his physical nature, is closely connected with animals. Therefore the writer appropriately uses both words, mad

Concl

ng made of great sea-monsters; and that of the sixth day land animals, and at its close man. And though these groups overlap to a large extent, yet speaking broadly, the three periods in Geology have much the same characteristics. The Primary is distinguis

, and as if the fact was undisputed, 'The order in which the flora and fauna are said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon the earth corresponds with that which the theory of Evo

e, 11th Au

o accident. They are far too many; for the chance against eight events being put down in their correct order by guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they are f

the idea of creation, in its strict sense, being limited to matter, mind, and spirit. While our admiration for it is still further increased by its extreme conciseness and simplicity. S

if we admit a revelation at all, the latter certainly seems the less improbable. And this, it may be added, was the opinion of the great geologist Dana, who said (after carefully considering the subject) that the

ca Sacra, Apri