THE OLD TESTAMENT AND MODERN SCIENCE
For many centuries during the Christian era science was almost
completely dominated by theology. Whenever, therefore, a scientific
investigator proposed views not in accord with the theological notions
of the age he was considered a heretic and condemned as such. During
these same centuries theology was dominated by a view of the Bible
which valued the latter as an infallible authority in every realm of
human thought. The view of the Bible held then was expressed as late
as 1861 in these words: "The Bible is none other than the voice of Him
that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it,
every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it (where are we
to stop?), every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most
High. The Bible is none other than the word of God; not some part of
it more, some part of it less, but all alike, the utterance of Him who
sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme."[1] A book
which came thus directly from the mind of God must be inerrant and
infallible; hence closely associated with this mechanical view of {39}
the divine origin of the Bible was the belief in its absolute inerrancy
and infallibility. This is clearly recognized in the words of two
eminent American theologians: "The historical faith of the Church has
always been that the affirmations of the scriptures of all kinds,
whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical
fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any
error, when the _ipsissima verba_ of the autographs are ascertained and
interpreted in their natural and intended sense."[2]
With such an estimate of the Bible it is only natural that theology
should bitterly resent any and all scientific conclusions which seemed
to be contrary to the statements of the Bible. However, a study of the
history of Bible interpretation creates a serious perplexity. The
principles upon which the interpretations rested were not the same in
all ages. As a result, the "natural and intended sense" of biblical
statements was variously apprehended. What was considered the clear
teaching of Scripture in one age might be condemned as unscriptural in
another. Moreover, some of the methods of interpretation are not
calculated to inspire confidence in the results. When, for example,
the poetic passage,
Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,
And thou, moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,[3]
{40} is considered sufficient to discredit the scientific claim that
the earth moves around the sun, rather than the sun around the earth,
one's confidence in the truth of the theological view is somewhat
shaken. It may be insisted, then, that much of the so-called conflict
between science and the Bible was in reality a conflict between science
and a misinterpreted Bible.
This, even theology seems to have recognized, for again and again it
changed its interpretation of the Bible so as to bring it into accord
with the persistent claims of science. "The history of most modern
sciences," says Farrar, "has been as follows: their discoverers have
been proscribed, anathematized, and, in every possible instance,
silenced or persecuted; yet before a generation has passed the
champions of a spurious orthodoxy have had to confess that their
interpretations were erroneous; and--for the most part without an
apology and without a blush--have complacently invented some new line
of exposition by which the phrases of Scripture can be squared into
semblable accordance with the now acknowledged fact."[4]
The so-called historical method of Bible study, which has gradually won
its way, at least in Protestant Christianity, has established Bible
interpretation upon a firmer foundation, so that at present much less
uncertainty exists as to the {41} meaning of the Bible than at any
preceding age. In the same way scientific investigation has made
remarkable strides during the nineteenth century; Twentieth century
science is far different from that of the early years of the preceding
century. And as scientists have had to surrender many of their
positions in the past it is very probable that, as the result of
further investigation, some views held at present will be superseded by
others. Nevertheless, though science cannot as yet dispense with
working hypotheses which may or may not prove true, and though
modifications in certain widely accepted views may be expected, there
are many conclusions which may be considered firmly established. This
being the case, if at the present time the conflict between science and
the Bible is discussed, it is a conflict between scientific conclusions
reached after prolonged, careful study and investigation and the
teaching of the Bible as determined by the scientific use of all
legitimate means of interpretation.
Does such conflict exist? Many geologists, astronomers, biologists,
and other scientists have claimed for some time that they have reached
conclusions not in accord with certain statements of the Bible. Take
as an illustration the biblical and scientific statements concerning
the age of the earth, or creation in general.[5] The general
conclusion reached by an overwhelming majority {42} of the most
competent students of the Bible has been that according to the
information furnished by the Scriptures, the date of creation was, in
round numbers, four thousand years before the opening of the Christian
era.[6] At that time, in the words of the Westminster Confession,[7]
"It pleased God ... to create or make of nothing the world and all
things therein whether visible or invisible in the space of six days
and all very good." This was accepted as the plain teaching of the
first chapter of Genesis even after scientific methods had been
introduced in the study of the Bible. Then came geology, pushing back
the "beginnings," adding millions of years to the age of the globe, and
insisting that there is abundant evidence to prove the existence of
life upon earth many millenniums before B.C. 4,000. Other sciences
reached conclusions pointing in the same direction, until it became
perfectly evident that Bible students must reckon with what seemed a
real conflict between the conclusions of science and the teaching of
the Bible.
No wonder Bible lovers were troubled when scientists in ever-increasing
numbers advanced claims that appeared to involve a charge of scientific
inaccuracy against the Sacred Scriptures. Many were convinced that
this could not be, for they feared that if the Bible contained
inaccuracies of any sort, its value would be {43} completely destroyed,
and with the Bible Christianity must fall into ruins. In Brother
Anthony, intended to picture the perplexed soul of a monk in the days
of Galileo, Mark Guy Pearse gives a vivid portrayal of the doubts and
perplexities of many devout Bible students in the nineteenth century:
But on my fevered heart there falls no balm;
The garden of my soul, where happy birds
Sang in the fullness of their joy, and bloomed
The flowers bright, finds only winter now;
And bleak winds moan about the leafless trees,
And chill rains beat to earth the rotting stalks.
Hope, Faith, and God, alike are gone, all gone--
If it be so, as this Galileo saith.
"_The earth is round and moves about the sun;
The sun,_" he saith, "_is still, the axle fixed
Of nature's wheel, center of all the worlds_."
Galileo is an honest soul, God knows--
No end has he to serve but only truth,
By that which he declares, daring to risk
Position, liberty, and even life itself. He knows.
And yet the ages have believed it not.
Have they not meditated, watched, and prayed--
Great souls with vision purged and purified?
Had God no messenger until arose
Galileo! Long years the Church has prayed,
Seeking His grace who guided into truth,
And weary eyes have watched the sun and stars,
And heard the many voices that proclaim
God's hidden ways--did they believe a lie?
The Church's holy fathers, were they wrong?
Yet speaks Galileo as one who knows.
Shrinks all my soul from breathing any word
That dares to question God's most holy Book,
{44}
As men beneath an avalanche pass dumb
For fear a sound should bring destruction down.
If but a jot or tittle of the Word
Do pass away, then is all lost. And yet
If what Galileo maintains be true!--
"_The sun itself moves not_." The Scripture tells
At Joshua's command the sun stood still.
Doth scripture lie? The blessed Lord himself,
Spake he not of the sun that rose and set!
So cracks and cleaves the ground beneath my feet.
The sun that fills and floods the world with light
My darkness and confusion hath become!
O God, as here about the old gray walls
The ivy clings and twines its arms, and finds
A strength by which it rises from the earth
And mounts toward heaven, then gladly flings
Its grateful crown of greenery round the height,
So by thy Word my all uncertain soul
Hath mounted toward thy heaven, and brought
Its love, its all, wherewith to crown my Lord.
Alas, the wall is fallen. Beneath it crushed
The clinging ivy lies; its stronghold once
Is now the prison house, the cruel grave.[8]
Since the scientific position seemed to many devout believers to
undermine the Christian faith, it is not altogether strange that they
should set themselves against these claims with all their might, though
it may be difficult to justify the bitterness displayed by many
Christian ministers in the denunciation of even devout Christian
scientists, as "infidels," "impugners of the sacred records,"
"assailants of the Word of God," etc. It is hardly credible that
during the enlightened {45} nineteenth century geology should be
denounced as "not a subject of lawful inquiry," "a dark art,"
"dangerous and disreputable," "a forbidden province," "infernal
artillery," "an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation."
But the progress of science could not be blocked by denunciation, and
gradually the claims of geology, astronomy, and other sciences
respecting the great age of the earth came to be accepted as well
established. Is, then, the scientific teaching of the Bible false? By
no means, said many defenders of the faith; on the contrary, there is
perfect agreement between science and the Bible, provided the latter is
rightly interpreted. The first problem was to extend what was commonly
taken to be the biblical teaching respecting the age of the earth so as
to meet the demands of geology. This was readily done by interpreting
"day" figuratively as meaning an indefinite period. It could easily be
shown that in some passages "day" did not mean a day of twenty-four
hours. Hence, why not interpret the word metaphorically in Gen. 1? It
is safe to say that, had it not been for a desire to harmonize the
biblical account with the conclusions of science, no Bible student
would ever have thought of this interpretation in connection with the
acts of creation, for a natural interpretation of the writer's language
makes it evident that when the author of Gen. 1 speaks {46} of the
successive events of creation he is thinking of days of twenty-four
hours, each consisting of day and night.[9] Marcus Dods is right when
he says, "If the word 'day' in these chapters does not mean a period of
twenty-four hours, the interpretation of scripture is hopeless."[10]
No permanent good can come from doing violence to plain statements of
the Bible by the use of methods of interpretation that would be
considered illegitimate in the study of other literary productions. In
all the harmonizing efforts this caution has been overlooked. The
believer in revelation, thinking that the agreement between science and
the Bible must be minute, has yielded to the temptation to twist the
biblical record into a new meaning with every fresh discovery of
science. Many scientists were repelled by this arbitrary method, and
when they saw that agreement could not be had by legitimate methods,
and knew of no other way out of the difficulty, they too frequently
assumed a hostile attitude toward revelation. A method leading to such
disastrous results cannot be considered altogether satisfactory.
Granting, however, for the sake of argument, the possibility of
interpreting "day" metaphorically, the troubles are by no means ended,
for it is impossible to discover clearly defined periods in the
geological records such as are presupposed in the biblical record. But
there is a more serious {47} difficulty. The order in which the
different living beings and the heavenly bodies are said in Genesis to
have been created does not seem to be the same as that suggested by
geology and astronomy. For example, according to Genesis, fishes and
birds appeared together on the fifth day, preceding all land animals,
which are said to have been created on the sixth day. According to
geology, fish and numerous species of land animals, especially reptiles
living on land, preceded birds.[11] Moreover, according to Genesis,
the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth, a view which is
altogether inconsistent with the modern scientific view of the
universe, and of the part the sun plays in plant and animal life upon
earth. True, this last difficulty is avoided by some by giving to
certain Hebrew words a meaning which they do not ordinarily have. For
example, it is said, "Let there be" (verse 14) means "Let there
appear"; "God made" (verse 16) means "God made to appear," or "God
appointed," to a specific office. With this interpretation, it is
stated, Genesis says nothing about the formation or creation of the
luminaries. They may have existed for a long time, only on the fourth
day they were made to appear--the vapor around the earth having
previously hidden them--and were appointed to the offices mentioned in
verses 14 to 18. No one will claim that this is a natural {48}
interpretation of the biblical language. If the writer meant "Let
there appear," he could have found a suitable word in Hebrew, as also
to express the idea "appoint." The language of Driver is not too
strong: "Verses fourteen to eighteen cannot be legitimately interpreted
except as implying that in the conception of the writer luminaries had
not previously existed, and that they were made and set in their places
in the heavens after the separation of sea and land and the appearance
of vegetation upon the earth."[12]
Various attempts have been made to escape the difficulty caused by the
conclusions of geology as to the order in which different forms of life
have appeared upon earth. These conclusions are based chiefly upon the
presence of fossil remains imbedded in the different strata of the
earth's surface. Passing by the earlier explanations--for example,
that these fossil remains were placed there by a direct act of God on
one of the creative days for some mysterious purpose, perhaps for the
trial of human faith, or that they were due to the ravages of the
Deluge--reference may be made to two or three of the more recent
"scientific" attempts to harmonize the facts of science with the
statements of Genesis. There is, first of all, the _restitution_
theory advocated by J. H. Kurtz and Thomas Chalmers.[13] Admitting
that the fossil remains are important for the determination {49} of the
age of the earth and the order in which different forms of life
appeared upon the globe, Kurtz writes: "The animal and vegetable world
which lies buried in the stratified formations was not that which,
according to the Bible, was created respectively on the third, fifth,
and sixth days. Its origin must belong to an earlier period."[14] In
other words, his view is that "the main description in Genesis does not
relate to the geological periods at all; that room is left for these
periods between verse one and verse two; that the life which then
flourished upon the earth was brought to an end by a catastrophe, the
results of which are alluded to in verse two; and that what follows
(verses 3ff.) is the description of a second creation immediately
preceding the appearance of man." That this view is due to a desire to
harmonize the biblical account with science is clearly implied in the
words of Kurtz intended to meet the charge of Delitzsch that his view
is "pure delusion." "It is," says Kurtz, "merely a delusion to attempt
identifying the creation of the primeval fossil flora and fauna with
those of the third, fifth, and sixth days, _and at the same time to
endeavor harmonizing geology and the Bible_." Not to speak of the
astronomical difficulty referred to above, which remains, science has
nothing whatever to offer in support of this theory, while, on the
other {50} hand, the tenor of the Genesis narrative implies such close
connection between verse one and verse two that there is no room for
the alleged catastrophe. It is not strange, therefore, that modern
apologists have discarded the restitution hypothesis.
The _vision_ theory has been presented most forcefully by Hugh
Miller.[15] According to this view "the narrative was not meant to
describe the actual succession of events, but was the description of a
series of visions presented prophetically to the narrator's mental eye,
and representing, not the first appearance of each species of life upon
the globe, but its maximum development. The 'drama of creation,' it is
said, is not described as it was enacted historically, but _optically_,
as it would present itself to a spectator in a series of pictures or
tableaux embodying the most characteristic and conspicuous feature of
each period, and, as it were, summarizing in miniature its results."
Though this view was presented with much eloquence and skill, it has
been unable to maintain its position, simply because it is based upon
an unnatural interpretation of the biblical record. No one approaching
Genesis without a theory to defend would think for a moment that he is
reading the description of a vision. The only natural interpretation
is that the author means to record what he considers actual fact.
Moreover, {51} where in Scripture could there be found an analogy to
this mode of procedure? The revelation of an unknown past to a
historian or prophet seems not in accord with the ordinary method of
God's revelations to men. But, admitting the possibility of this
method of divine communication, why should the picture thus presented
to the mind of the author differ so widely from the facts uncovered by
geologists?
Similar attempts to harmonize Genesis with geology have been made by
other geologists, among them Professor Alexander Winchell,[16] Sir J.
W. Dawson,[17] and Professor J. D. Dana.[18] The results are perfectly
satisfactory to these writers, but they fail to see that in order to
accomplish their purpose they must have recourse to unnatural
interpretations of the Genesis account, which in itself is sufficient
evidence to show the hopelessness of the task. A similar judgment must
be passed on the more recent attempt by F. H. Capron[19] to bring the
biblical account into harmony with the modern theory of evolution.
Capron is fully convinced that "the most rudimentary knowledge of
geology is sufficient to satisfy any candid critic that the Genesis
narrative as interpreted by any one of them[20] cannot be brought into
harmony with the admitted facts of science." He, therefore, attempts a
new harmony by trying to show that the first chapter of Genesis {52}
gives only the order in which the creative words were uttered, not the
order in which the resulting effects were produced. Unfortunately, in
accomplishing this purpose, he, like his predecessors, reveals an
almost complete disregard for the obvious meaning of the Genesis
narrative.
After a close study of the Genesis narrative and the numerous attempts
of harmonizing it with science, the present writer has become
thoroughly convinced that it is impossible to establish a complete,
detailed harmony between the Genesis account of creation and the
established facts of science without doing violence to the Bible or to
science or to both. The only harmony possible is what has been called
an "ideal harmony," that is, a harmony not extending to details, but
limited to salient features. But this gives away the very position for
which the "harmonists" have contended. As Driver says, "If the
relative priority of plants and animals, or the period at which the sun
and moon were formed, are amongst the details on which harmony cannot
be established, what other statement (in the account of creation) can
claim acceptance on the ground that it forms part of the narrative of
Genesis?"[21]
Admitting now the presence of discrepancies between science and the Old
Testament, what becomes of the Old Testament?[22] Must it be {53}
discarded as no longer "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction which is in righteousness"? Some there are
who seem to fear such fate for the book they dearly love. On the other
hand, there are multitudes who calmly admit the claims of science, and
at the same time continue to read and study the pages of the Old
Testament, assured that it can still furnish nourishment to their
spiritual natures. This attitude of confidence has been made possible,
on the one hand, by a broader and truer conception of divine
revelation, and, on the other, by a more adequate interpretation of the
purpose of the Bible and of the biblical writers.
Believers in God have come to realize as never before that God has
spoken and still speaks in a variety of ways. Manifestations of God
may be seen on every hand:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament showeth his handiwork.
Day unto day uttereth speech,
And night unto night showeth knowledge.[23]
What is the universe but a manifestation of God? The whole realm of
nature is in a real sense a record of divine revelations, which science
seeks to interpret. "Now," says A. H. McNeile,[24] "If God created all
things and carries the universe along by the utterance of his power, it
is clear that every fresh item of knowledge gained by {54} scientific
investigation is a fresh glimpse into the will of God. Strictly
speaking, there is no such thing as secular knowledge. A man only
makes his studies secular for himself as he divorces them from the
thought of God, so that all the scientific experiments in the world
form part of the study of one aspect of God's Word."
On the other hand the purpose of scripture has come to be more
adequately apprehended. The New Testament makes it perfectly clear
that the aim of the Old Testament Scriptures is to bring man into
harmony with God, to make him morally and spiritually perfect, and to
point to the consummation of the redemptive purpose of God in and
through the Christ.[25] There is no warrant anywhere for the belief
that the Old Testament writers meant to teach science of any kind.
This is admitted even by some who insist upon the accuracy of the
scientific teaching of the Bible. "It is true that the Scriptures were
not designed to teach philosophy, science, or ethnology, or human
history as such, and therefore they are not to be studied primarily as
sources of information on these subjects."[26] Evidently, then,
wherever the Old Testament touches upon questions of science it treats
them only in so far as they serve a higher ethical or spiritual
purpose. Is it necessary to have absolute scientific accuracy in every
detail in order to do this {55} effectively? A moment's thought will
show that it is not. The writer heard not long ago a powerful appeal
on behalf of the boys in a certain community, in which the speaker
referred to the "Gracchi, the most renowned citizens of Athens." The
historical inaccuracy in no wise affected the moral force of the
appeal. No one would be foolish enough to assume that the spiritual
and ethical value of sermons preached by the early Church fathers is
invalidated by the fanciful science mixed with their gospel message.
Who has not heard sermons that created a profound spiritual impression,
though their science and history were not altogether faultless? It
would seem, then, that in estimating extra-biblical utterances the
principle is recognized that "ignorance of some departments of truth
does not disqualify a man for knowing and imparting truth about God;
that in order to be a medium of revelation a man does not need to be in
advance of his age in secular learning; that intimate communion with
God, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect
understanding of and zeal for God's purpose are qualities quite
independent of a knowledge of the discoveries of science."[27]
Is it right to raise a different standard for the Scriptures?
"Certainly," say many, "because the Bible is inspired; it is the Word
of God, and God cannot inspire an untruth of any kind." {56} Now, it
may be readily admitted that God cannot inspire an untruth; but have we
any right to argue as if we knew exactly how God ought to convey a
revelation to man? Without entering upon a discussion of the entire
subject of inspiration, the question may be raised whether or not
inspiration covers purely scientific information. The claim has been
put forth by some who believe that the Bible and science are in perfect
agreement that this agreement "proves that the scientific element of
scripture as well as the doctrinal was within the scope of
inspiration."[28] Consistency might seem to require the admission that
disagreement would prove that the scientific element does not fall
within the scope of inspiration. At any rate, it is of enormous
importance to remember, what should be a perfectly obvious principle,
that the facts presented in the Bible must determine the answer to the
inquiry. In other words, "We can learn what the Bible is only from
what the Bible itself says."[29]
One thing is quite certain, namely, that the Bible makes not the
slightest claim of being a scientific treatise complete and
up-to-date.[30] It is equally true that it does not deny being such a
treatise, hence the inquirer is thrown back upon a study of the facts
presented in the Bible; and upon the basis of these he must determine
whether or not there is reason for believing that scientific {57}
knowledge comes within the scope of inspiration. Now, the abstract
possibility of God communicating to man a knowledge of exact scientific
facts in a prescientific age need not be denied. It is, however, a
question whether God could have communicated such facts to man three
thousand years ago without robbing him of his personality and changing
him into a mechanism. So far as the ways of God are known from
experience, observation, history, and other sources, he has always
treated with respect and consideration the powers and faculties of his
chief creature. "Had inspired men," says Dods,[31] "introduced into
their writings information which anticipated the discoveries of
science, their state of mind would be inconceivable, and revelation
would be a source of confusion. God's methods are harmonious with one
another, and as he has given men natural faculties to acquire
scientific knowledge and historical information, he did not stultify
this gift by imparting such knowledge in a miraculous and
unintelligible manner." The same truth is expressed by H. E. Ryle in
these words: "We do not expect instruction upon matters of physical
inquiry from revelation in the written Word. God's other gifts to men,
of learning, perseverance, calculation, and the like, have been and are
a true source of revelation. But scripture supplies no short cut for
the intellect. Where {58} man's intellectual powers may hope to attain
to the truth, be it in the region of historical, scientific, and
critical study, we have no warrant to expect an anticipation of results
through the interposition of supernatural instruction in the letter of
scripture.... Scripture is divinely inspired, not to release men from
the toil of mental inquiry, but to lead and instruct their souls in
things of eternal salvation."[32] This is not an arbitrary limitation
of the scope of inspiration; it is a conclusion based upon a careful
consideration of the facts of science and of the Bible, which seem to
furnish sufficient evidence that the biblical writers were not in any
marked degree in advance of their age in the knowledge of physical
facts or laws. In other words, the Bible is primarily a book of
religion, hence religion, and not science, is to be looked for in its
pages. Altogether too much time has been spent in an effort to find in
it scientific truth in a scientific form. Such attempts clearly
disregard the purpose of the biblical writers as interpreted in the New
Testament.
And could a Divine Providence have chosen a different method? Even now
discoveries follow one another so fast in the realm of science that no
book remains a standard work for more than a few years. It seems
obvious, therefore, that a book written thousands of years ago could
not remain a standard scientific work for all times. {59} But assuming
for the sake of argument that God had communicated the knowledge of
scientific facts to these writers--evidence for which is entirely
lacking--what would have been the result? Later occurrences suggest
what might have happened. The great mass of people would have looked
upon teachers of strange science as heretics and madmen, and would have
rejected not only their scientific teaching but their religious
teaching as well. What a loss that would have been to mankind! No
serious loss would come to men if they were left a while longer in
ignorance concerning scientific matters, but very serious loss would
come to them by continuing in their lower religious and ethical beliefs
and practices. The only way to make the higher religious truth
understood was to present it in a form easily apprehended by the
people. To do this is the chief purpose of the primitive,
_prescientific science_ of the Old Testament Scriptures.
The peculiar element in scripture is the spirit and religious
atmosphere which permeate all its parts and give to the Bible a unique
place among the literatures of the world. This is the divine element
due to inspiration. It is this element which establishes a gulf
between the Hebrew account of creation and the cosmologies of other
nations. Though the biblical writers had very much the same idea about
the form and general {60} arrangement of the visible world as we find
among other peoples--ideas that have satisfied at all times the
majority of men even among nations with a pretense to culture, namely,
the cosmology of appearances--these ideas were all connected with their
sublime faith in Jehovah: to his omnipotence they referred the
existence of the world, and they made all its changes depend entirely
on his will. In their monotheistic religion they secured the
foundation of a clear and simple cosmology different from the grotesque
cosmologies of other nations and yet not beyond the demands of men of a
primitive type and of simple mind, who were full of a lively
imagination, but not much accustomed to analyze phenomena or their
causes.
In this connection it may prove helpful to remember what, according to
the biblical viewpoint and in the light of history, was the
contribution of Israel to the development of the human race. "Israel,"
says G. W. Jordan,[33] "is comparatively young, politically it is
provincial, socially it is not brilliant, in the realm of science it is
narrow and dependent; yet when we lay stress on these limitations we
only cause the peculiar glory of this nation's life to stand out more
clearly; it has its own individuality; its real leaders are men of
genius, their ambition is to speak in the name of the eternal king;
they {61} hear the divine message and claim for it the supreme
significance." This is the judgment of a Bible student. The same
truth is expressed in the words of one who approaches the Bible from
the viewpoint of the scientist, namely, the eminent Italian astronomer,
Schiaparelli[34]: "Their [the Hebrews] natural gifts, as well as the
course of events, carried them to a different mission [from that of
Greece and Rome] of no smaller importance--that of purifying the
religious sentiment and of preparing the way for monotheism. Of this
way they mark the first clear traces. In the laborious accomplishment
of this great task Israel lived, suffered, and completely exhausted
itself. Israel's history, legislation, and literature were essentially
coordinated toward this end; science and art were for Israel of
secondary importance. No wonder, therefore, that the steps of the
Jews' advance in the field of scientific conceptions and speculations
were small and feeble; no wonder that in such respects they were easily
vanquished by their neighbors on the Nile and the Euphrates."
In conclusion: Permanent harmony between science and the Bible will be
secured when each is assigned to its legitimate sphere. Science has a
right to ask that, if men are seeking purely scientific information,
they should turn to recent text-books in geology, astronomy, or the
other {62} sciences. But in the sphere to which Jesus and the New
Testament writers assigned the Old Testament science cannot deny or
seriously question its inspiration or permanent value. Unprejudiced
science has never done this. It is perfectly ready to recognize the
inestimable religious and ethical value of even those Old Testament
narratives which refer to scientific facts, not because of their
scientific teaching, but because of the presence of eternal truth in
the crude form of primitive science. Fair-minded scientists readily
admit that if anyone wishes to know what connection the world has with
God, if he seeks to trace back all that now is to the very fountain
head of life, if he desires to discover some unifying principle, some
illuminating purpose in the history of the world, he may still turn to
the early chapters of Genesis as a safe guide.
What, then, is the bearing of the conclusions of modern science upon
the permanent value of the Old Testament? Science has compelled the
Bible student to withdraw the attention from the nonessential and
secondary, and to concentrate it upon the heart and substance. In
doing this it has established upon a much firmer basis the conviction
that, whatever the scientific value of scripture may be or may not be,
the apostle was right when he wrote that "the sacred writings ... are
able to make wise unto salvation through {63} faith which is in Christ
Jesus. Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished
completely unto every good work."[35]
NOTES ON CHAPTER II
[1] Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, p. 89.
[2] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 238.
[3] Josh. 10. 12.
[4] The Bible--Its Meaning and Supremacy, p. 160.
[5] In a brief treatment it seems preferable to confine the discussion
to a specific concrete case; therefore this chapter deals almost
exclusively with questions centering around the subject of cosmogony.
[6] The margin of the Authorized Version still gives the chronology of
Archbishop Ussher to that effect.
[7] Chapter IV, 1.
[8] The Expositor, 1902, pp. 159, 160.
[9] It requires but a reading of the "proofs" of the opposite view to
understand their weakness. Compare Expositor, 1886, pp. 287-289.
[10] The book of Genesis, p. 4.
[11] Another difficulty has been found in the statement of Genesis that
"vegetation" was complete two days before animal life appeared, but the
disagreement is more apparent than real. The geological record, it is
true, shows many more animal than plant remains in the very ancient
rocks. It was not until Devonian and Carboniferous times that the
plants became very abundant, as far as the geological records go.
Indeed, in the oldest rocks in which animal remains occur, no plant
remains have been discovered. However, this is not to be {64} taken as
proving that animals existed before plants, because low forms of the
latter, having no hard parts, would be preserved with difficulty.
Moreover, in some of the primitive forms, it is not easy to distinguish
plants from animals. But, apart from the records in the rocks, both
biologists and geologists believe that plants existed as early as
animals, if not earlier, for the latter needed the former to live upon.
An eminent geologist, Professor U. S. Grant, of Northwestern
University, has expressed his opinion to the writer in these words: "It
seems to me that, viewed in an abstract way, the Genesis statement of
vegetation appearing before animal life is not far from correct."
[12] The Book of Genesis, p. 25.
[13] Natural Theology, Vol. I, pp. 229, 230.
[14] History of the Old Covenant, Vol. I, p. cxxix.
[15] The Testimony of the Rocks, Lecture IV.
[16] Reconciliation of Science and Religion, pp. 356ff.; compare also
Pre-Adamites, _passim_.
[17] Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science, _passim_.
[18] Bibliotheca Sacra, 1885, pp. 201ff.
[19] The Conflict of Truth, pp. 162ff.
[20] Kurtz, Miller, Dawson, Dana, and the rest.
[21] Expositor, 1886, p. 38.
[22] The writer wants it clearly understood that an "ideal," harmony,
as described above, can be established. He is equally certain,
however, that the harmony cannot be carried into details.
[23] Psa. 19. 1, 2.
[24] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.
[25] See above, Chapter I, p. 12.
[26] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.
[27] Marcus Dods, The Book of Genesis, pp. 4, 5.
[28] Presbyterian Review, 1881, p. 239.
[29] Expository Times, October, 1907, p. 20.
{65}
[30] Surely, there is not the slightest claim in Scripture that Moses
or any other biblical writer received divine information concerning the
beginnings of the universe; nor is there anything to support the
assumption that the account of creation was supernaturally revealed to
Adam, and that from him it was transmitted word for word through the
families of the pious antediluvians, of Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, etc., until it was finally received and committed to writing by
Moses.
[31] The Book of Genesis, p. 5.
[32] H. E. Ryle, The Early Narratives of Genesis, pp. 5, 6.
[33] Biblical Criticism and Modern Thought, p. 90.
[34] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 1.
[35] 2 Tim. 3. 15-17; on the permanent value and significance of the
Genesis narratives; see also below, pp. 234ff.
{66}