given us a new Bible? The Bible is not a book which has been made, ? it has grown.?
Bagehot tells us that ?One of the most remarkable of Father Newman?s Oxford sermons explains how science teaches that the earth goes round the sun, and how Scripture teaches that the sun goes round the earth; and it ends by advising the discreet believer to accept both.? This is mental bookkeeping by double entry; see Mackintosh in Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1899:41. Lenormant, in Contemp. Rev., Nov. 1879 ? ?While the tradition of the deluge holds so considerable a place in the legendary memories of all branches of the Aryan race, the monuments and original texts of Egypt, with their many cosmogonic speculations, have not afforded any, even distant, allusion to this cataclysm.? Lenormant here wrongly assumed that the language of Scripture is scientific language. If it is the language of appearance, then the deluge may be a local and not a universal catastrophe. G. F. Wright, Ice Age in North America, suggests that the numerous traditions of the deluge may have had their origin in the enormous floods of the receding glacier. In Southwestern Queensland, the standard gauge at the Meteorological Office registered l0.75, 20.0, 35.75, 10.75 inches of rainfall, in all 77.25 inches, in four successive days.
(c) It may be safely said that science has not yet shown any fairly interpreted passage of Scripture to be untrue.
With regard to the antiquity of the race, we may say that owing to the differences of reading between the Septuagint and the Hebrew there is room for doubt whether either of the received chronologies has the sanction of inspiration. Although science has made probable the existence of man upon the earth at a period preceding the dates assigned in these chronologies, no statement of inspired Scripture is thereby proved fake.
Usher?s scheme of chronology, on the basis of the Hebrew, puts the creation 4004 years before Christ. Hales?s, on the basis of the Septuagint, puts it 5411 BC The Fathers followed the LXX. But the genealogies before and after the flood may present us only with the names of ?leading and representative men.? Some of these names seem to stand, not for individuals, but for tribes, e. g .: <011016>Genesis 10:16 ? where Canaan is said to have begotten the Jebusite and the Amorite; 29 ? Joktan begot Ophir and Havilah. In <011006>Genesis 10:6, we read that Mizraim belonged to the sons of Ham. But Mizraim is a dual, coined to designate the two parts, Upper and Lower Egypt. Hence a son of Ham could not bear the name of Mizraim. <011013>Genesis 10:13 reads: ?And Misraim begat Ludim.? But Ludim is a plural form. The word signifies a whole nation, and ?begat? is
Was this article helpful?