THE Bible is not a scientific textbook, and this for three evident reasons; viz.—
1. Because its chief aim is to bring man to God, and hence it deals more with man’s heart than with his head (Prov. 23:2626My son, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways. (Proverbs 23:26); Rom. 10).
2. Because, if the Bible dealt principally, or even largely, with scientific matters, it would tend to divert the mind from its chief subject, and thereby seriously imperil the attainment of its great purpose.
3. Because God never reveals to man anything that he can find out for himself; and science is purely a matter of intellectual study, research, and observation.
On the other hand, however, seeing that the whole universe is so entirely and inseparably bound up with scientific laws and principles, it is inconceivable that this Book of God—which confessedly deals with everything in the universe which affects the highest interests of man—should make no reference whatever to any scientific matter; and hence it is that we do find incidental references to various branches of science, some of which we shall consider presently.
As Mr. G. H. Pember, in his Earth’s Earliest Ages, truly says: “Though the Bible gives no information by which science is likely to be advanced, yet it does here and there drop mysterious utterances, the truth of one after another of which is discovered as scientific men become better acquainted with the laws of the universe.”
Meantime, this leads us to the question which is so often asked nowadays, and over which so much discussion rages—viz. Does the Bible agree with science? This is a most important question, and one that must be fearlessly faced and definitely answered. It naturally, however, involves—indeed, necessitates—another question; viz.—
What Is Science?
With this second question we will deal first, and then, having answered that, we shall be in a better position to reply to the first.
What, then, is this mystic word which frightens so many young, and indeed old, Bible students, when they are told that certain statements in the Bible cannot be true, because “Science has proved so-and-so”? Well, in a word, science is simply knowledge—the knowledge of principles. It is a French word derived from the Latin scientia, “knowledge,” from scire, to know. But inasmuch as “we know in part” only (1 Cor. 13:99For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (1 Corinthians 13:9)), what is popularly called science is frequently nothing more nor less than certain theories and conclusions based upon man’s limited and imperfect knowledge of God’s perfect laws. The late Mr. Herbert Spencer—himself a great scientist—said that “science is partially unified knowledge”; while Sir Oliver Lodge—one of the most prominent scientific men of today—said in the Hibbert Journal, vol. 1., “It may be that science only sees one half, because it is blind to the other half.” It would be well, indeed, when scientific theories are set up in opposition to the Bible, to bear in mind such admirable definitions of science as are thus expressed by its greatest professors.
How easy it would be for a half-informed person to work out an elaborate calculation, on the basis of the well-known law that heat expands and cold contracts, to “prove” that as soon as the surface of water freezes, the ice, being contracted under the influence of the cold air, would of necessity become heavier, and as a consequence would sink to the bottom in layers; and then arrive at the “conclusion” that, after a severe winter, all our rivers and canals would become solid blocks of ice, which the hottest summer suns would never melt! And this conclusion, based on that particular law, would be perfectly logical; but it would also be perfectly untrue, being due to the assumption that a given law once in operation must of necessity continue. We happen, however, to know that, in the wise providence of God, just before water reaches freezing point a different law is brought into operation whereby it ceases to contract, and commences to expand. Hence it does not sink, but floats, being lighter than the unfrozen water beneath it.
This sudden change of law, moreover, incidentally proves that our earth is not controlled by blind law—but by a wise and intelligent Lawgiver.
Having thus cleared the ground somewhat, we return to the first question:
Does the Bible Agree With Science?
Now, strange as it may seem, this question may be answered with equal truth both in the negative and in the affirmative. The answer, of course, depends entirely upon what is meant by the word “science.” If the question means, Does God’s perfect Book agree with man’s conclusions based on imperfect knowledge, which he is pleased to call “science”? —and this is what it generally means—then the answer is, most emphatically, No! Otherwise, the very agreement would be the Book’s condemnation, proving, not its scientific accuracy, but its inaccuracy and imperfection.
As it is most important that this should be always borne in mind when science and Scripture are discussed together, I give the following few instances which, if not very edifying from a scientific point of view, may perhaps be instructive to the ordinary reader as illustrating what I mean, showing how very far from perfect much of the so-called science of recent years has proved to be.
Some years ago, Sir Charles Lyell told the world how estimates had been made as to the rate at which the mud, brought down by the flow of the river, deposits itself in the delta of the Nile, and how those who were boring discovered at a considerable depth what was evidently a piece of human-made pottery. Measuring carefully from the surface to the spot where this was found, it was calculated that it must have taken some thirty thousand years for this quantity of deposit to have formed above it—thus “proving” that man must have been on the earth for all those thousands of years; although Bible chronology indicated that man only appeared on the earth about six thousand years ago. This was considered a great triumph of science, and this marvelous piece of ancient pottery naturally excited much interest, as it was exhibited through Europe as the latest scientific discovery. What, however, must have been the dismay of those in charge of this precious find, when, having been taken to Rome, it was recognized as a piece of somewhat modern Roman pottery!
Of course, this is now seen to be an absurd blunder, and I understand that the very record of it has been expunged from recent editions. But it was the “science” of that day, and needless to say, the Bible did not agree with it.
In a similar way, although in another part of the world, the same eminent authority calculated that the falls of Niagara wore away the rocks through which they rush, or over which they pour, in such mighty volumes, at the rate of one foot per annum, and that, therefore, taking into consideration the quantity that appeared to have been worn away, this process must have been going on for at least thirty-five thousand years! Alas, however, for poor “science”! Here is the latest pronouncement on this subject: “More recent surveys have shown that the rate is three times as great as that estimated by Lyell, and also that a considerable part of the gorge was merely cleaned out by the river since the Pleistocene age (i.e. the age immediately prior to the human period). In this way the age of Niagara becomes reduced to perhaps seven or eight thousand years.”
Some years ago, a great stir was caused in the scientific world by the discovery of an immense quantity of flint implements near the Delaware River in America, in a bed of gravel said to belong to the great ice age— “proving,” of course, once more that man must have been on the earth long before what is known as the Bible date of creation. Of course, the Bible did not agree with it, but that is what science said then. What is the verdict of science today? Here it is. Recent careful examinations of the place have shown that these implements were not found in the ancient undisturbed gravel at all, but amongst a lot of loose debris in a place to which modern Indians resorted to find flint material for their implements—and these “prehistoric discoveries” are nothing more than the unfinished pieces which these modern Indians had rejected and left behind them!
Again, many of the higher critics for years maintained that writing was not known until long after the days of Moses—indeed, not until comparatively recent times; and then argued that, as a consequence, the Pentateuch could not possibly have been written by Moses, although the Scriptures persisted in declaring that Moses did write these books, and the Lord Jesus Himself said “He [Moses] wrote you” (Mark 10:55And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (Mark 10:5)), “He [Moses] wrote of Me” (John 5:4646For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (John 5:46)), and the Jews said, “Moses wrote unto us” (Mark 12:1919Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (Mark 12:19)). But all this was nothing. Jesus, we were told—and are told now—shared the ignorance’s and prejudices of His day!
A very striking relic of this scientific ignorance may be seen in Judges 5:1414Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer. (Judges 5:14), of our Revised Version, where, instead of following the Authorized Version, which gives us Deborah’s words as “They that handle the pen of the writer,” the revisers have rendered the passage “They that handle the marshal’s staff” The reason for this is believed to be that many authorities contended that writing was not known in those days. It is, however, even from a literary point of view, an unnecessary alteration in the translation. And the fact that they give the alternative reading as “the staff of the scribe” shows that it was apparently impossible to entirely exclude the idea of writing from the passage. But what do our revisers now think, when they go to the British Museum and see for themselves the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, containing writing in the cuneiform inscriptions which dates back one hundred years before the days of Moses? While in another part of the British Museum may be seen a copy of the huge black stone eight feet high discovered by M. de Morgan at Susa in December, 1901, containing the written laws of King Hammurabi, who lived five hundred years before Moses, and was probably a contemporary of Abraham.
Professor Flinders Petrie truly says, “We have no monumental evidence of any time when the Acadian people of Babylonia were destitute of writing and science; and we now find that there were learned scribes in all the cities of Canaan, and that the Phoenicians and Southern Arabians knew their alphabet ages before Moses, while even the Greeks seem to have known alphabetic writing long before the Mosaic age.”
The Dean of Canterbury, speaking on December 4th, 1904, on the historical accuracy of the Bible, said, “All recent investigation went to show that writing was in vogue long before the time of Abraham.”
The foregoing are very fair specimens of what has been looked upon at various dates as “science,” and my reader will probably be as thankful as I am that the Bible, on which our hearts have so long rested, has not always agreed with anything so changeable.
The Dean of Westminster, speaking on December 10th, 1904, on the inspiration of the Bible, truly said, “Science was progressive; it was always ready to modify its conclusions in presence of new facts.”
Professor Sayce says: “Surprises are constantly in store for the Assyrian decipherer, and a tiny fragment may suddenly throw a new light on a question he had supposed to be settled. In fact, in Assyriology, as in all other branches of science, there is no finality.”
While another authority writes: “It has been the imperfection of our knowledge which seemed to give rise to a conflict between revelation and science.”
My reader will now be prepared to follow me when I say that, if the Bible had agreed with the science of former years, much of which is now admitted to be inaccurate, it could not possibly agree with the more enlightened, and therefore more accurate, scientific theories of today. Indeed, Sir Robert Anderson well says, “Never until our own times have Scripture and science been in accord.”
At the same time, our subject carries us a step further, for we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, notwithstanding all its recent attainments, scientific knowledge is still very far from perfect. As one authority already quoted says, “The standards of geology are as yet undetermined and confused.”
So that we are bound to say that, if the Bible even now agreed in every detail with the scientific conclusions of today, it would undoubtedly have to clash with the so-called science of the future, which, owing to the continued increase of research, the advance in knowledge foretold in Daniel 12:44But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Daniel 12:4), and further discoveries, must, as it more nearly approaches the truth, considerably modify, if not completely upset, many of the pet scientific theories and conclusions of today.
On this point it has been beautifully said, “The first chapter of Genesis contains standards of truth which scientists have not yet been able to reach, though it is gratifying to see that as science advances she is slowly coming up to these standards, and will someday be also arrayed in the same garments of spotless white.”
It is for these reasons we unhesitatingly acknowledge that the Bible, which throughout all time is unchanging and unchangeable, does not, and in the nature of things cannot, agree with every scientific theory which has been adopted from time to time since the world began.
But while thus giving a negative answer to this particular aspect of this important question, we must not overlook the fact that there is another side to it, which demands a totally different reply. For if the question means, as it should mean, Do the laws of God in nature harmonize with His laws in Revelation? then we are able to reply with an unqualified affirmative; for it is a fact, which receives fresh confirmation with every new discovery, that wherever Scripture incidentally or otherwise touches upon science, it invariably does so in such a way as to show that the divine Author was perfectly familiar with His own laws in nature, long before man had learned anything about them; and we rejoice to see that this is being more and more recognized among men of science today. Sir Oliver Lodge, in the Hibbert Journal, vol. 1., said, “The region of religion and the region of a completed science are one”; and Mr. F. Hugh Capron says, “The fundamental truths of religion are the fundamental truths of science,” and again, “The unanimity between religion and science is exact.” While Dr. Chiene, professor of surgery, accurately states the case thus: “There can be no antagonism between true science and true religion; they clash only when they are false. Their present antagonism is only another word for our ignorance.”
How very remarkably modern science is falling in line with the old Scripture of truth may be seen from the following weighty testimonies of some of the most eminent men of our day.
Sir J. W. Dawson writes, “Thus the monuments confirm the Jewish records.”
Canon Tristram also has said, “There is now scarcely an instance in which the Jewish history impinges on that of the neighboring nations which is not in some degree illustrated by contemporary inscriptions, or by the newly discovered records of Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, and Persia.”
The Dean of Canterbury, in a lecture on December 17th, 1904, spoke of the “exact correspondence” between the statements discovered on the monuments and the Bible; and added that “scientific research had equally gone to prove the accuracy of the Bible.”
Dr. Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, preaching in St. Paul’s Cathedral on Bible Sunday, March 6th, 1904, said: “As regarded the Old Testament, every fresh discovery about the world’s early civilization, each significant tablet or cylinder disinterred from its resting-place of thousands of years, seemed to do something more towards the strengthening and deepening of our belief in the genuine inspiration of the written Word of God.”
Now it is an interesting fact, and one which seems to have escaped general notice, that the Bible, far from fearing the test of science, actually appeals to the three great branches of science for corroboration of its own testimony:
II. Job 12:88Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. (Job 12:8) “Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee.” Here is the Bible’s appeal to the earth, or the Science of Geology.
III. Psalm 19:1-21<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.>> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork. 2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. (Psalm 19:1‑2): “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night showeth knowledge.” Here is the Bible’s appeal to the heavens, or the Science of Astronomy.
We will, therefore, call up these three witnesses and hear what they have to say.
I. Anthropology, or the Science of Man
Under this heading we will consider—
1. How man came;
2. When man came;
3. What man is,
—and see what science has to say to the Scripture record on these important questions.
1. How Man Came
On this point a great deal of nonsense has been talked and written about “evolution,” which means to unroll or unfold, as a flower from a bud, or a bird from an egg. Now this theory—denying or ignoring the Bible account of the creation of man, and often shutting out the idea of a Creator—teaches that man in his most advanced state has been “evolved” from one of a much lower type than himself; that this lower type of man has been evolved from some still lower animal—a monkey, for example; the monkey from something lower than itself—a frog, for instance; the frog from something still lower—some vegetable matter; and again, this vegetable or organic matter from some inorganic crystal—that which has life originally springing spontaneously from that which has no life, the origin of life being traced by Darwin to “electricity and albumen”! This, in a nutshell, is the theory of evolution, and is what that particular so-called “science” teaches as to the origin of man.
And, in order that there may be no mistake about it, I give here the very latest pronouncement upon the subject which was made in the Romaine lecture delivered at Oxford on June 14th, 1905, by Dr. Ray Lankester. After speaking of “the development of man from a lower animal ancestry—a not very powerful, semi-erect ape”—he adds, “Animals were in their turn shown to have developed from simplest living matter, and this from less highly elaborated compounds of chemical ‘elements,’ differentiated at a still earlier stage of evolution.”
While Sir Oliver Lodge says: “Taught by science, we learn that there has been no fall of man; there has been a rise. Through an ape-like ancestry, back through a tadpole and fish-like ancestry, away to the early beginnings of life, the origin of man is being traced.”
Or, to use the words of two other modern professors, “It must be granted a primeval germ, originating it does not know how... some primitive protoplasts gliding in a quiet pool... proceeding through unthinkable millions of years... emerging as man, at a moderate estimate, half a million years ago!”
Now there are three important questions involved here, which vitally affect the teaching of Scripture concerning man:
(1) Can that which has life spring spontaneously from that which has no life?
(2) Has man been evolved from the lower to the higher?
(3) Have all men, as the Scriptures teach, descended from Adam?
(1) As to the first question there is no higher living authority than Lord Kelvin. I quote the following extract from a letter written by his lordship to the Times, dated May 4th, 1903: “Was there anything so absurd as to believe that a number of atoms, by falling together of their own accord, could make a sprig of moss, a microbe, a living animal?... It is utterly absurd in respect to the coming into existence, or the growth, or the continuation of the molecular combinations presented in the bodies of living things. Here, scientific thought is compelled to accept the idea of creative power. Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere mechanical forces. He answered, ‘No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces.’”
Here is an even more recent, and if possible more decided, utterance still of Lord Kelvin’s upon this subject. When addressing some medical students in St. George’s Hospital, October 28th, 1904, he said: “Let them not imagine that any hocus-pocus of electricity or viscous fluids would make a living cell.... Let not any of their youthful minds be dazzled by the imaginings of the daily newspapers that, because Berthelot and others had thus made foodstuffs, they could make living things, or that there was any prospect of a process being found in any laboratory for making a living thing, whether the minutest germ of bacteriology or anything smaller or greater.... Nothing approaching to the cell of a living creature had ever yet been made.... No artificial process whatever could make living matter out of dead.”
No wonder that we read in Mr. Capron’s Conflict of Truth of “the collapse of the theory of spontaneous generation.”
I am quite aware of the experiments with radium recently carried out by Mr. J. Butler Burke at Cambridge, which have created so much excitement in scientific and religious circles, and which have led unguarded people to assume somewhat hastily that the theory of spontaneous generation has at length been confirmed. But the uncertainty (to use no stronger term) of the whole thing, even to the mind of Mr. Burke himself, is emphasized in his own words, as follows:
“It is obvious,” he says, “it cannot be proved in our time, because the radioactivity of the earth is so small, that it might take thousands of years to produce life.”
And again: “It is doubtful, therefore, if spontaneous generation can ever be proved to the satisfaction of one who has made up his mind not to believe in it!”
Sir Oliver Lodge closes his comments on the subject with this weighty remark: “All the many attempts in the direction of spontaneous generation hitherto have conspicuously failed!”
While Professor George Darwin, president of the British Association and son of the late renowned Charles Darwin, stated at the Opening meeting of the association, held in South Africa on August 16th, 1905, that “the mystery of life remains as impenetrable as ever.”
Surely such authoritative and clear declarations ought to be the deathblow to so foolish a theory as that of the spontaneous generation of life, which has the subtle underlying evil of shutting God out of His own creation.
(2) Has man been evolved from the lower to the higher?
Now, notwithstanding all the wild theories in circulation on this subject, the verdict of true science is given with no uncertain sound. It ought, however, to be more generally known that, quite apart from what scientific men in general have to say upon this popular but God-dishonoring theory, evolutionists themselves openly acknowledge the uncertainty of their data.
No less an authority than Professor Tyndall said: “Those who hold the doctrine of evolution are by no means ignorant of the uncertainty of their data.” While two learned professors of Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities, in answer to the question, “How man came,” make this pitiable confession in a recent publication: “We do not know whence he emerged... nor do we know how man arose... for it must be admitted that the factors of the evolution of man partake largely of the nature of maybe’s, which have no permanent position in science.” And still more recently, an article in the Times Literary Supplement of June 9th, 1905, referring to a number of professors who have written on the subject of evolution, says: “Never was seen such a melee. The humor of it is that they all claim to represent ‘science’... Yet it would puzzle them to point to a theological battlefield exhibiting more uncertainty, obscurity, dissension, assumption, and fallacy than their own. For the plain truth is that, though some agree in this and that, there is not a single point in which all agree. Battling for evolution they have torn it to pieces; nothing is left—nothing at all, on their showing, save a few fragments strewn about the arena.”
And yet the theory of evolution is sometimes talked about as if it were one of the most certain and unquestionable results of modern science!
Now while evolutionists themselves acknowledge the uncertainty of their data, facts, which are very hard things, are dead against the theory.
This question, however, necessitates a subdivision, thus:
(a) Did man spring from lower animals?
(b) Has modern civilized and intellectual man sprung from uncivilized and unintellectual man of a lower order?
In reference to question (a), if man had really been evolved from a lower animal— “a not very powerful, semi-erect ape,” for example, to use Dr. Ray Lankester’s words—there would in the natural course of things remain some traces of the intermediate forms. But what is the fact? Although we have the monkey and we have the man, yet Sir J. W. Dawson says, “No remains of intermediate forms are yet known to science”; and again, “The earliest known remains of man are still human, and tell us nothing as to the previous stages of development.” And Professor Owen says, “Man is the sole species of his genus, and the sole representative of his species.”
But the most unanswerable testimony on this point is the following: “Professor Post, a scientific gentleman from Syria, visited the British Museum of Natural History in 1885, and being in company with the late Mr. Etheridge, who was esteemed as one of the foremost experts in that great institution, Professor Post asked Mr. Etheridge to show him, in that museum, some proofs of Darwin’s evolution theory, and he was astonished when so great an expert said, ‘In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species.... It is not founded on observation and facts. The talk of the antiquity of man is of the same value; there is no such thing as fossil man. I have read all their books, but they make no impression. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of such views.’”
So this settles the question of the monkey!
While as to question (b), science is equally explicit in its testimony that instead of man having slowly improved from the lower to the higher the tendency is exactly in the opposite direction—viz. it has rather been to degenerate—and this, when we consider the degrading effects of sin, is just what believers in the Bible would expect to find.
Mr. Horatio Hale shows, in a remarkable article in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, that primitive man in his earliest state must have been endowed with as high intellectual powers as any of his descendants; while Sir J. W. Dawson, writing on this subject, says the earliest remains of man show “that man’s earliest state was his best”
But not only do the most recent discoveries completely upset the theory of evolution; they go further, and confirm in remarkable detail the historical account of man as given in the Bible.
The authority above quoted (Sir J. W. Dawson) shows, after careful investigation, that the very earliest known remains of man are those found at Gibraltar, Belgium, and Clichy (France), etc. They consist of human skulls and skeletons belonging to what is known as the palanthropic or post-glacial age, which probably corresponds with the antediluvian period of Bible history. And while some of these represent a smaller race, the four outstanding features of most of these remains indicate:
(i) Great superiority of brain power, intelligence, taste, and skill.
(ii) Extreme longevity of life.
(iii) Great stature—some of them being as much as seven feet in height.
(iv) Great muscular power, with indications of violence and brutality.
My reader will thus be able to judge for himself how utterly these undeniable facts, connected with the earliest known remains of man, exclude the possibility of the evolution theory, that man at first was of a very low type. While, on the other hand, it will be seen how remarkably these discoveries confirm, as they correspond with, the ancient Scripture records in the early chapters of Genesis. Thus:
(i) In Genesis 1:2727So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27) we read, “God created man in His own image.” We should, therefore, expect to find the earliest men exactly as we do find them, possessing “great superiority of brain power, intelligence, taste, and skill.”
(ii) Genesis 5 shows the average age of primitive man to have been about nine hundred years. And so these earliest known remains indicate, as we have seen, “extreme longevity of life.”
(iv) Genesis 6:55And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5) and 11 tells us that, instead of improving (as evolution teaches) during the first fifteen hundred years of the world’s history, man, originally made in God’s image, sadly deteriorated, till “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.” “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” And so these skulls and skeletons of the earliest known men still retain traces of “great muscular power,” combined with “violence and brutality.”
In face, therefore, of these hard facts we are driven to the conclusion that, while “evolution” has utterly failed to give a satisfactory answer to the question, “How man came,” the Bible furnishes an answer which is not only in perfect harmony with the general teaching of the Book itself, but is exactly what the latest discoveries of science demand. So that, in his article on the antiquity of man, Mr. Capron says: “The author of Genesis [writes] with an exact scientific accuracy.”
(3) Have all races of men descended from Adam?
This is an important and interesting question, especially when we think of the varied types of men existing today in different parts of the world.
And the question arises, is it not possible that some at least of these various types of men may belong to different species, and that they originally sprang from different stocks? Indeed, do not the Scriptures themselves incidentally lend credibility to the idea that there were from the beginning other races of men on the earth, besides the descendants of Adam?
Such passages as Genesis 4:1717And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:17) might be quoted, where reference is made to Cain’s wife—a stock argument with unbelievers—or Genesis 4:1414Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. (Genesis 4:14), where Cain expressed his fear that “whosoever findeth me shall slay me.” It is also assumed that there could not have been in those early days a sufficient number of persons among the descendants of Adam to account for the building of a city by Cain (Gen. 4:1717And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:17)), or the establishment of various branches of trade—such as harp and organ making (Gen. 4:2121And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. (Genesis 4:21)), brass and iron works (Gen. 4:2222And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:22)), etc.
Now first let us see what the Scriptures have to say on these matters—i.e. whether all races of men have actually descended from Adam and Eve or not; and then we will hear the verdict of science.
As might be expected on so important a subject, the Scriptures give no uncertain sound, for not only do they declare that there were no other parents from whom the races of the earth could have sprung, but they also indicate, in language that cannot be misunderstood, that all men have actually come from one and the same father, that all trace their origin to one and the same mother, and all belong to one and the same family. Thus:
(a) There was no man before Adam. It is perfectly clear, if we are to believe the Bible, that before Adam was created there was no human being then living on the earth; for Genesis 2:55And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (Genesis 2:5) distinctly states that “there was not a man to till the ground” —surely nothing could be clearer than that. The fact is, however, confirmed in the New Testament, where Adam is actually called “the first man” (1 Cor. 15:4545And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)).
(b) When Adam was first created he was alone. It is equally clear that when Adam was first created there was no one else then living, for he was absolutely alone. Here are God’s own words, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:1818And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)); this fact being further confirmed in verse 20, where we read that “for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”
(c) All have one father, Adam. Here we are carried a step farther—viz. that Adam, who was alone in the world when first created, is actually the father of all; for in Malachi 2:1010Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? (Malachi 2:10), seeing the incongruity of every man dealing treacherously with his neighbor, the prophet appeals pathetically to them—as members of one great family—in these significant words: “Have we not all one father?” And if all have but one father, that one father must clearly have been Adam, for the Bible knows of no one else who could answer to that description.
(d) All have one mother, Eve. In Genesis 3:2020And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. (Genesis 3:20) it is distinctly stated that Eve “was the mother of all living:” And although it is possible that none of her children had been born when those words were uttered, nevertheless, Adam, whose words are quoted, like Abraham, believed God, who had not only said that he (Adam) was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:2828And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)), but had also spoken of the woman’s seed (Gen. 3:1515And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Genesis 3:15)), and in verse 16 distinctly told Eve that she should “bring forth children” —albeit it should be in sorrow.
(e) All belong to one family. The above remarks seem to be amply confirmed by the following Scripture, which is so very plain that it scarcely needs comment.
In Acts 17:2626And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (Acts 17:26), Paul, speaking by the Spirit, made this remarkable statement: “God... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” which has, if possible, even more force if, according to the Revised Version, we omit the word “blood.”
It is very significant also, in this connection, that in the first chapter of Genesis we read, concerning the herbs and trees (Gen. 1:11, 1211And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:11‑12)), fish and fowl (Gen. 1:2121And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)), beasts, cattle, and creeping things (Gen. 1:2525And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25)), that they were all made “after their kinds,” implying variety in each case. But when we come to the creation of man there is absolutely nothing about different kinds of man, but, “Let us make man [not after his kind] but in Our image [to represent God] after our likeness,” to resemble God (Gen. 1:2626And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)). This was not given to the animals, nor even to the angels, and singles man out as being entirely different from all other created beings.
Nor need there be any difficulty in connection with the expression, “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” in Genesis 6:22That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:2) and 4, for its exact counterpart is found in 1 John 3:22Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2), “Beloved, now are we the sons of God,” and 1 Corinthians 3:33For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3:3), “Are ye not carnal and walk as men?”—i.e. mere unconverted men. Genesis 6 tells us how, in those early days, alliances were made between saints and sinners. The “sons of God” must have been real men, for they made marriages with “the daughters of men”; but the result of these unholy alliances was, as it always has been since, “great wickedness” (Gen. 6:55And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)). Hence the injunction, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” etc. (2 Cor. 6:14-1814Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14‑18)).
Moreover, those who argue that there were other races of men on the earth besides the descendants of Adam have to face the question of the flood; for the Scriptures declare that at the flood, with the exception of Noah and his family, “every man” (Gen. 7:2121And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: (Genesis 7:21)), “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life” (Gen. 7:2222All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. (Genesis 7:22)), was destroyed “from the face of the earth” (Gen. 6:77And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:7)), “under the whole heaven” (Gen. 7:1919And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. (Genesis 7:19)).
And then, after the flood, this important truth of the unity of the race is again enforced twice over, in the most clear and unmistakable language—viz. “These [Shem, Ham, and Japheth, ver. 18] are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earth overspread” (Gen. 9:1919These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. (Genesis 9:19)); “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations in their nations; and by these were the nations of the earth divided after the flood” (Gen. 10:3232These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood. (Genesis 10:32)).
Surely nothing could be more plain than the way in which this subject of the unity of the race of mankind is thus presented in Scripture.
Now what does science say on this subject? Two quotations will suffice, as they come from the pens of those who would scarcely be suspected of having any particular bias towards the Bible. Professor Huxley (Origin of Species) says, “I am one of those who believe that at present there is no evidence whatever for saying that mankind sprang originally from any more than a single pair”; while Darwin, in his Descent of Man, is also equally clear on this point, for he says, “I have no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock.”
As, however, the variety of color, stature, and other differences of the various races found in different parts of the world may constitute a difficulty with some people, it should be remembered that all this is easily accounted for by environment, habits of life, food, etc.
We now come to our second question, viz.—
2. When Man Came
or, how long has man been on the earth?
I turn to Chambers’ Encyclopœdia on the subject of the “Antiquity of Man,” and read, amongst other things, as follows: “There is now general agreement that man was alive during the latter stages of the glacial epoch.”
How utterly fallacious is the idea of man being on the earth during that period may be seen from the following extract from one of Herschel’s Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects. But first let me explain that this glacial period, or great ice age, of which geologists speak was probably caused by the withdrawal of the light and heat of the sun from this world at a time prior to the reconstitution of the world for man as recorded in Genesis 1. Here is what Sir John Herschel says: “In three days from the extinction of the sun there would, in all probability, not be a vestige of animal or vegetable life on the globe unless it were among deep-sea fishes and the subterranean inhabitants of the great limestone caves. The first forty-eight hours would suffice to precipitate every atom of moisture from the air in deluges of rain and piles of snow, and from that moment would set in a universal frost such as Siberia or the highest peak of the Himalayas never felt—a temperature of between two hundred and three hundred degrees below zero of our thermometers.... No animal or vegetable could resist such a frost for one hour.”
But, notwithstanding this, another writer confidently tells us that “rough calculations have been made with a view to fix the date of man’s first appearance upon our planet; and though the figures are necessarily only approximate, science avers that there is good reason to believe that he has existed for at least a period of between one and two million years!”
We observe with some sense of relief that these calculations are only “rough” and “approximate,” for it naturally strikes one that “between one and two million years” provides a somewhat wide margin. It is, perhaps, needless to say that is, of course, on the basis of the evolution theory—viz. that some very low forms of life which ultimately were evolved into “man” had been on the earth between one and two million years.
Again, in a similar way, Sir Oliver Lodge, addressing the students of the Birkbeck College on December 6th, 1904, spoke of the Deity who “takes all this trouble through millions of years to evolve a human race, etc.,” and in an article in the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904, he says, “Consider the position. Here is mankind risen from the beasts.... After ages of development we have at length become a conscious portion of the great scheme.”
It should, however, be borne in mind that in most cases the supposed great antiquity of man is assumed from the discovery of flint instruments in certain geological strata, supposed to have been the work of primitive man, as we have already seen; and sometimes from calculation as to the time required for the mud to have deposited in the delta of the Nile, and other similar experiments. One illustration of this has already been given.
Even Herodotus, who lived about 400 B.C., estimated that it must have taken twenty thousand years for this mud to have deposited in the Nile delta. But here, again, let us ask what is the latest pronouncement of science on this interesting subject.
No less an authority than Sir J. W. Dawson tells us in his Egypt and Syria “that, taking one-fifteenth of an inch per annum as the probable average rate, we have 5,400 years as the time required for the delta deposits, the average depth of which is thirty feet”; and then he adds, “We may, in short, fix a date of between five and six thousand years ago as the geological limit, for the possible existence of men on the modern alluvial land of Egypt—in so far, at least, as the delta is concerned.”
While I take the following quotations from an even more recent work of the same writer: “Man is of recent introduction on the earth”; “Only within a few thousand years does our globe seem to have been fitted for its highest tenant”; “The first unequivocal evidence of man” is found in the “palanthropic” age (which corresponds with the antediluvian period of the Bible); “No fact of science is more certainly established than the recency of man in geological times”; “Relatively to Bible history, there is no prehistoric age.”
Also, in Earth’s Earliest Ages, Mr. G. H. Pember says, “Certainly no human bones have as yet been detected in primeval rocks”; and Dr. Kinns, in his Principles of Geology explained, declares that “the recent origin of man is one of the best-established facts in geological science”; while Mr. Etheridge, of the British Museum, has stated, as we have seen, that “that museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of such views” as the antiquity of man.
But, in spite of this unquestionable evidence, Professor Flinders Petrie, in his History of Egypt, professes to trace the 1St Egyptian Dynasty back to 4777 B.C. He also speaks of the “inhabitants of Egypt about 5000 B.C.,” and adds, “at least seven thousand years” have passed “since flint was worked here (in Egypt) by palæolithic man.”
He tells us plainly, however, how he arrives at these conclusions. “The Chronology,” he says, “rests on two modes of reckoning: (1) that by ‘dead reckoning,’ or adding the dynasties up one on another; (2) by certain fixed astronomical data, into the interpretation and calculation of which various uncertainties may enter.” And he emphasizes this uncertainty by adding, “We cannot yet say to what geological period his (man’s) advent must be traced.”
Now, as he has given us his two modes of reckoning, it ought not to be difficult to put them to the test; and as his name carries considerable weight, some test ought certainly to be applied.
(1) As to adding the dynasties one upon another, Professor Flinders Petrie himself acknowledges that in some cases—the 10th and 11Th, for instance—these were contemporaneous. But M. Legrain, lecturing at the Egyptian Institute on November 7th, 1904, showed that the very latest discoveries had proved that the 21St and 23rd Dynasties must also have been contemporaneous. While Mr. Dimbleby in his Egyptian Dynasties’ Manual declares, from astronomical observations and the records of Egypt, that several dynasties were in existence during the life of Abraham. In any case, Manetho, the celebrated Egyptian historian, who flourished in the third century B.C., states that throughout a great part of its history Egypt was divided into three kingdoms—Upper, Middle, and Lower—and there is no doubt that it was so. We speak of Upper and Lower Egypt to this day. So that the strong probability is that many of these Egyptian kings, whose names are usually brought before us as if each reign represented a separate period in the early history of the world, were petty kings of separate states reigning contemporaneously.
A remarkable, though perhaps indirect, confirmation of this comes, as I write, from a most unexpected quarter. In an article in the Times of June 22nd, 1905, Messrs. Naville and Hall, representing the Egyptian Exploration Fund, writing in connection with a recent discovery at Thebes, make this significant remark: “Art has too often been considered as being uniform through the whole country (of Egypt), and its various modifications have been classified chronologically; while no sufficient account has been taken of local tastes and local traditions, which might preserve in Egypt longer than anywhere else.” In other words, the different artistic designs, so noticeable in those ancient Egyptian articles recently discovered, should be traced—like some of the dynasties about which we hear so much nowadays—rather to different districts or provinces of that once great country than to different periods in its history.
The real truth is that there is very much yet to learn concerning Egyptian chronology, before we can speak with any measure of certainty.
(2) As to Professor Petrie’s “astronomical data,” which he himself confesses is “uncertain,” it should not be forgotten that some of the best astronomers and chronologists do not agree with him. The late Piazzi Smith, Astronomer Royal of Scotland, differed seriously from him. Colonel H. W. J. Senior, in his little book on The Great Pyramid, expresses his great astonishment at Mr. Petrie’s nullification of metrical facts; while the premier chronologist of the British Chronological and Astronomical Association contends that Professor Petrie’s calculations are seriously at fault.
So that, whether viewed from a theological or an astronomical point of view, we are driven by an accumulation of unquestionable facts to fall back upon the Book of God, as furnishing the only satisfactory answer to the questions, “How, and when, man came.”
Our third question is—
3. What Man Is
Aristotle said, “Man is by nature a political animal”; Plutarch said man was “a citizen of the world”; while the employer of today knows him only as so many “hands.”
But when we turn to the Bible we get an answer which not only satisfies our judgment as to the marvelously complex nature of the being who was made in the image of God, but one which is found to be scientifically accurate.
As regards his body the Bible says, “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)), and afterward distinctly told him, “Dust thou art” (Gen. 3:1919In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Genesis 3:19)), adding, “unto dust shalt thou return”; which is again repeated in Ecclesiastes 3:2020All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. (Ecclesiastes 3:20), “All are of the dust, and all return to dust again.” This fact is also referred to in many other parts of Scripture. In what perfect harmony this statement is with the latest results of science Dr. A. T. Pierson shows when he says, “Modern chemical analysis detects at least fourteen elements in the human body identical with the ‘dust’—such as oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, magnesium, sodium, phosphorus, carbon.” While it can be still further shown by other and even more recent appliances, such as spectrum analysis and electroscopic methods of detecting the presence of radioactive substances—both of which are immeasurably more sensitive than chemical analysis—that there is scarcely an element in the human body which is not allied to the dust. This is a “modern” discovery for science, but the Bible taught it 3,500 years ago.
But man is not merely dust; nor is he a mere animal or “hands.”
Man is a complex being, and, like his Maker, is a trinity, as the Scripture teaches, comprising spirit, soul, and body (1 Thess. 5:2323And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)); and there is probably a very distinct reference to this fact in the ancient command to “love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:55And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deuteronomy 6:5)), implying that God claims every part of man’s being—viz. spirit, soul, and body. In perfect accordance with this we find three remarkable Hebrew words employed by the Holy Spirit in the book of Genesis in relation to man, which are admirably translated in our English version as “created,” “made,” “formed”:
And it is, perhaps, somewhat remarkable, but evidently with divine purpose, that these three significant words relating to the origin of man are, in another part of the Bible, all found in one verse— viz. Isaiah 43:77Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. (Isaiah 43:7), thus:
“I have created him for My glory,
“I have formed him.
“Yea, I have made him.”
So that the answer of Scripture to the question, “What is man?” would seem to be:
The original word conveys the idea of a potter forming or fashioning clay, shaping it into some vessel. It refers undoubtedly to man’s body, to which was given an existence akin to the earth from whence it came, and to which that body must inevitably return.
The teaching of evolution, that the “man” we read of in Genesis 1 was formed of the dust only in the sense that he had been evolved through slow processes from lower animal and vegetable existences, which originally—millions of years ago—had their origin in the dust of the earth, is altogether contrary to the teaching of the Bible, and therefore cannot stand. For Genesis 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7) declares that it was man, real man, and not some far-distant embryo or protoplasm, which was formed of the dust.
(2) Man was made.
This seems to refer to the soul, the individuality, the man himself; hence the rich man, conferring with himself, said unto his soul, “Soul ... take thine ease” (Luke 12:1919And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. (Luke 12:19)). The word “soul” is used in the Bible almost exclusively in this sense: “Eight souls were saved” (1 Peter 3:2020Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:20)); “We were all in the ship, two hundred and seventy-six souls” (Acts 27:3737And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls. (Acts 27:37)); “Jacob and his kindred, seventy-five souls” (Acts 7:1414Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. (Acts 7:14)); “All souls are Mine” (Ezek. 18:44Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)); “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 18:44Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4))—i.e. the individual shall die for his own sins. This is the life which man possesses in common with the animals. Genesis 1:2525And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:25) tells us, “God made the beasts” — “every beast wherein there is a living soul” (Gen. 1:3030And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1:30), margin). So that man, who had been, as to his body, “formed of the dust,” now “became a living soul” (Gen. 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)).
(3) Man was created.
This, coupled with the fact that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)) appears to refer to His spirit, and is something quite new and unique, which he alone possesses among all living things, enabling him to hold communion with his Creator—see Romans 8:1616The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16), “The [Holy] Spirit beareth witness [not with our soul, nor with our body, but] with our spirit.” So in Luke 1:4646And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, (Luke 1:46) Mary could say, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,” but it was her spirit that rejoiced in God her Savior! It seems also to be this part of man which specially bears the image of God—Genesis 1:2727So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27), “God created man in His image; in the image of God created He him.”
But fallen man has lost that image, hence he is said to be “without God” (Eph. 2:1212That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (Ephesians 2:12)), and therefore, to restore that image a new creation is necessary, so we read, “If any man be in Christ there is to him a new creation,” literally (2 Cor. 5:1717Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)). Just as in Ephesians 4:2424And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:24) we read of “the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”
To the thoughtless mind these three words “formed,” “made,” “created”—might easily appear to have been used indiscriminately, merely for the sake of avoiding tautology, while meaning the same thing. The reverent heart, however, can scarcely fail to recognize the wonderful propriety manifested in a choice of words which so exactly describe the threefold origin of man.
So that Mr. Capron, who sees a fourth operation in the fact that God “breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life,” rightly says in his Conflict of Truth, “A careful examination of religion’s account of the origin of man... discloses a perfect accord with the most advanced theories of modern science.”
Population of the World Before the Flood
This part of our subject, however, would not be complete without some reference to the possible population of the world before the flood, which in itself naturally affects the question of “man.”
Let it, however, be at once said that, as the Scripture is silent as to what the population then was, any calculation on that subject must be regarded as purely conjectural. At the same time, it may not be altogether unprofitable, in view of skeptical objections already indicated, to see what the population might possibly have been at least up to the time of Noah. And as I am not aware that any serious attempt has hitherto been made to arrive, even approximately, at what the population might have been in those early days of the world’s history, I have prepared, and now submit, the accompanying statements marked (a) and (b).
The following few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary, as they may serve to prepare the reader for—what will probably be to many persons—the somewhat startling results which the figures in those statements reveal.
We are so accustomed to think of man with his present allotted age of three-score years and ten, which “is soon cut off” (Psa. 90:1010The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10)), the brevity of which is so constantly referred to in different parts of the Bible as a “hand breadth” (Psa. 39:55Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah. (Psalm 39:5)), a “shadow” (Eccl. 6:1212For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun? (Ecclesiastes 6:12)), “a vapor that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away” (James 4:1414Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. (James 4:14)), etc., that it is difficult to fully appreciate all that is entailed in the extreme longevity of life which man enjoyed before the flood, which in several cases was not far short of a thousand years. Nor does it seem to be generally realized that Adam’s lifetime alone covered more than one-seventh of the whole period of human existence on the earth, from the beginning of the world up to the present time; while the combined lives of Adam and Noah alone, with a gap of only one hundred and twenty-six years between them, cover 1,880 years, and embrace nearly one-third of the whole period of human history!
Again, probably few people are aware that in the nine hundred and thirty years that Adam lived (Gen. 5:55And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Genesis 5:5)), he saw his children’s children to the eighth generation; and actually lived for fifty-six years as a contemporary of Lamech, Noah’s father. While yet again, Noah, whose father was alive in the days of Adam, himself lived nine hundred and fifty years, and thus actually spent the last fifty-eight years of his life as a contemporary of Abraham; having seen his children’s children to the tenth generation. All this, however, is demonstrated in Statement (a).
As to Statement (b), the figures there are worked out on the following bases:
(i) The best authority in existence—viz. Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics—gives the present average age of man as under thirty, while the same authority gives the average number of children per family all over the world as four.
Therefore, in those early days, when the average age of man (excluding Enoch, who was taken to heaven at the age of three hundred and sixty-five, without dying, Gen. 5:2323And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: (Genesis 5:23)) was nine hundred—i.e. thirty times longer than it is now—the average number of children, on the same basis, would work out at one hundred and twenty per family.
But, in order to make every possible allowance, and thus arrive at an estimate so moderate that, startling as it is, it may nevertheless commend itself to the general acceptance of my readers, instead of taking as a basis the true average of thirty years as given above, the present allotted age of man—viz. seventy (Psa. 90:1010The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10))—is adopted, and still allowing for only four children per family. On this lower basis the average number of children in those early days would work out at about fifty-two per family.
But we will reduce even this figure somewhat, and call it forty-eight, especially as this latter figure is more easily divisible for the purposes of our calculation.
(ii) Before arriving at any result, full allowance has been made for the possibility that one-fourth of the population from time to time did not marry; although, as a matter of fact, every one whose name is given did marry and had children.
(iii) Allowance has also been made for the premature decease of another quarter of the population; although, again, we do not read of a single case of premature death—except that of Abel—throughout the whole of that early period. Indeed, there seems, in those wonderful days, to have been an absence of disease and other circumstances which now fill so many early graves.
(iv) It is consequently assumed that only one-half of the actual population married, and that they, during seven hundred out of the nine hundred years of their lives, had no children at all; but that they only begat children during the second and third hundred years of their lives, and then at the average rate of only one child every four years.
It will, therefore, be recognized that not only has very ample provision been made for every possible contingency, but also that, considering the conditions of life then as compared with what they are now, very low averages of births have been adopted to work upon—indeed, considerably less than half the actual average at the present time—while it is natural to assume that the real average was equal to, if not more than, what it is at present.
Nevertheless, if the principle upon which these moderate figures are based is even approximately correct, it will be seen from Statement (b) that we are face to face with this remarkable fact, that during the lifetime of Adam the population of the world might well have reached nearly twenty millions; while before Cain and Seth passed away (assuming that Cain, like his brother, lived to the average age of his contemporaries), it might have been over one-hundred and thirty-six millions!
Let me, however, say again that, in the very nature of the case, these figures are only conjectural, and do not of course pretend to represent the exact population of those times. But, while on the one hand it is readily acknowledged that the number of people then living might possibly have been less than the statement indicates, nevertheless, on the other hand, a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case would probably lead the unbiased mind to the conclusion that, in all probability, the actual population was very much greater than the figures show.
Moreover, a rapidly increasing population seems to be exactly what was intended in the very first words ever uttered by the Creator to Adam, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:2828And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)). In any case, it will be seen that there was, without doubt, a sufficient number of persons to account for the building of not one city only, but many. It is easy also to understand the necessity for the establishment of various branches of trade. While it will now be readily seen that there were plenty of women to provide a wife for Cain, who doubtless married one of his sisters (for Adam “begat sons and daughters,” Gen. 5:44And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: (Genesis 5:4)), or possibly a niece—just as Abraham married his sister (Gen. 20:1212And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. (Genesis 20:12)), against which there was then no law.
Cain’s fear, also—born of a guilty conscience—that “every one that findeth me shall slay me,” was, when surrounded by millions of people, not so unreasonable as some would have us believe.
It will, however, be observed that the statement, so far as the population is concerned, does not carry us beyond the birth of Noah. And objection may be taken to these figures on the ground that, if the same principle were carried a little farther—say up to the flood—the figures would increase to such an extent as to make their adoption impossible.
The answer, however, to this objection is perfectly simple—viz. that in the early days of Noah’s life great changes took place. The earth at that time became “filled with violence” (Gen. 6:1111The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:11) and 13); the old murderous spirit of Cain again seems to have developed, and man apparently thought but little of shedding his brother’s blood—a conclusion to which we seem to be forced by the words of the very first law instituted by God in the new world, immediately after the flood, “Whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:66Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Genesis 9:6)), evidently indicating that God had determined thus to put a check upon the terrible murders which immediately preceded, and largely brought about, the deluge.
Such a state of things must have acted as a very serious check upon the growth of the population, and probably also upon the longevity of life (Psa. 34:12-1412What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? 13Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. 14Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. (Psalm 34:12‑14), and 1 Peter 3:10, 1110For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. (1 Peter 3:10‑11)).
And although it is true that Noah himself actually lived longer than any of his predecessors, except Methuselah—viz. nine hundred and fifty years (Gen. 9:2828And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. (Genesis 9:28))—this was doubtless the reward of his personal righteousness, which is twice contrasted with the wickedness of his generation: “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation” (Gen. 6:99These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9)); and again, “Thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation” (Gen. 7:11And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. (Genesis 7:1)), a principle so often laid down in the Bible (see Psa. 34:12-1412What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? 13Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. 14Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. (Psalm 34:12‑14); Prov. 3:2,162For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. (Proverbs 3:2)
16Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honor. (Proverbs 3:16). etc.). Nevertheless, it is significant that even Noah, although he far outlived the men of his generation, had no children until he was five hundred years old, and then only three sons, and no daughters.
I am aware also that for a short time after the flood the ages of men again ran into several hundred years. This, however, was only natural, as all flesh had been destroyed, and a completely fresh start had to be made in order to replenish the earth—a circumstance which incidentally confirms other parts of Scripture, as the rapid growth of the population, immediately after the flood, explains, as nothing else could, the fact that Egypt and other countries were already populated and flourishing when Abraham went there (Gen. 12:10-12; 20:110And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. 11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. (Genesis 12:10‑12)
1And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. (Genesis 20:1)).
But the span of life again rapidly diminished, so much so that Abraham, who was born only two hundred and ninety-two years after the flood, was considered “old and well stricken in age” at one hundred (Gen. 18:2; 21:52And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, (Genesis 18:2)
5And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. (Genesis 21:5)), and when he passed away at one hundred and seventy-five it was said that “he died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years” (Gen. 25:7, 87And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years. 8Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (Genesis 25:7‑8)).
II. Geology, or the Science of the Earth
Just as we have seen the Bible appeals to the science of man, so here we have the Bible’s appeal to the science of geology. Now let us see what this witness has to say.
Although of necessity it will only be possible, in so small and unpretentious a book as this, to touch the fringe of such a mighty subject, nevertheless, we propose to produce such evidence as, with the blessing of God, may lead some at least to exclaim, from a geological point of view, “The earth is full of Thy riches” (Psa. 104:2424O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. (Psalm 104:24)). And for this purpose we may practically confine ourselves to that part of the Bible which, on geological grounds, has probably been attacked more than any other—viz, the first chapter of Genesis.
Mr. F. H. Capron, in an ingenious argument, has quite recently shown how the very first words of the Bible are found to be in exact accord with the most advanced conclusions of science, and that from the most unexpected quarter—viz. the late Mr. Herbert Spencer, who was one of the greatest thinkers of the age, but, alas! an agnostic, and therefore by no means particularly desirous of confirming the truth of the Scriptures. Mr. Spencer, writing of what he called the “manifestations of the unknowable,” by which he apparently meant the manifestation of God’s power working in creation, says that such a manifestation must, on scientific grounds, take five distinct forms, which he specifies thus:
Space. Time. Matter. Motion. Force.
Now when we turn to the opening verses of the Bible, it is not a little remarkable that we find, as Mr. Capron points out, the Holy Spirit has recorded that these are the very forms which did appear as “manifestations of the Unknowable,” and almost in the exact order given by Mr. Spencer; thus:
{“In the beginning ... = Time.
{God created the heaven ... = Space.
{and the Spirit of God ... = Force.
{moved upon the face of the waters” ... = Motion.
Sir J. W. Dawson, who stands in the first rank as a geologist, working on totally different lines from those followed in this article, gives, in his Origin of the World, an entirely independent testimony—although in a somewhat similar manner—to the scientific accuracy of the facts as stated in the first chapter of Genesis. He says:
“It is interesting that science follows the order of the Bible as to—
“Light = There was light (Gen, 1:3).
—viz. sun = heat.”
The same authority, in his Meeting-place of Geology and History, says: “There can now be no doubt that the order of creation, as revealed to the author of the first chapter of Genesis, corresponds with the results of astronomical and geological research in a manner which cannot be accidental.”
While yet another geologist, Professor Tristram, in Natural History, adds his testimony in the following weighty words: “Thus geological research corroborates the order of sequence in the Mosaic record.”
These are some of the latest results of modern science, and men are being more and more shut up to the conclusion that the writers of the Bible not only wrote with “poetic truthfulness,” but with absolute scientific accuracy also.
As Mr. Pember in Earth’s Earliest Ages rightly says, “The first chapter of Genesis, equally with those which follow it, is, in its primary meaning, neither vision nor allegory, but plain history, and must, therefore, be accepted as a literal statement of facts.”
Indeed, at a public lecture, delivered at the British Museum in January, 1905, the Rev. John Tuckwell, M.R.A.S., in the writer’s hearing, stated that after seven years’ careful study of the first chapter of Genesis, he openly challenged the world to find a single scientific error in that chapter.
Age of the World
Notwithstanding the preceding testimony, however, there are still to be found those who contend that this chapter must be rejected, because, for instance, they say it states that the earth was created in six days (presumably about six thousand years ago); while science, they add, declares that some of the earlier coal-beds must have been in existence, or at least in process of formation, for millions of years. Fossil remains of animals are also said to have been discovered in certain geological strata, indicating their existence on the earth long before Adam, to say nothing of the vast number of years required for the formation of minerals, etc. Indeed, Playfair said the earth had existed from all eternity.
Now as it may interest my reader to see the various results of the scientific calculations of some of the most eminent men as to the supposed age of the world, I append the following list, which shows a difference between the lowest and highest figures of over nine thousand million years, which, to an ordinary mind, is certainly somewhat staggering:
Prof. Ramsay made it fully 10,000 million years
Eugene Dubois made it about 1,000 million years
Goodchild made it about 700 million years
Sir Chas. Lyell made it about 400 million years
Darwin (the late) made it more than 300 million years
Sir Oliver Lodge made it more than 100 million years
Sir Geo. H. Darwin made it at least 60 million years
Professor Sollas made it about 55 million years
Lord Kelvin made it about 24 million years
Dr. Croll made it at most 20 million years
Professor Tait made it at most 10 million years
It should, however, be explained that the above figures are not all calculated on the same basis, and therefore in some cases may possibly be reconcilable. For example, while some of the smaller figures, being based on physical calculations, are intended to embrace a period from the time when physicists believe the earth to have been red hot, down to the present time; others are geological estimates, and are supposed to cover what is known as creation’s week, each day mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis being, of course, just one-sixth of those figures, And most Bible students who hold this latter theory tell us that the “seventh day” is in progress still.
Now, without going into the details of all these different calculations, suffice it to say that the latest estimates on the last-mentioned basis are those of Professor Sollas and Sir George Darwin (about 55 and 60 million years respectively), according to which each “day” mentioned in Genesis 1 would represent about. 10 million years. But I shall have more to say about this later on.
Meantime, it is mournful to find Dr. Driver, who ought to know better, saying, in his Book of Genesis, “that the first chapter of Genesis does not accord with the teachings of science”; and again, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis “contain no account of the real beginnings either of the earth itself, or of man and human civilization upon it.” Now this is a typical case of supposed conflict between science and the Bible, and, like most other similar cases, is founded on an entire misapprehension of facts.
The Bible does not say, nor does it even imply, that the earth was created about six thousand years ago; nor that it was created in six days. This may sound startling, but it is nevertheless true. As Thomas Chalmers wrote, nearly one hundred years ago, “The writings of Moses do not 6x the antiquity of the globe.”
The Bible opens with that majestic statement, the like of which is not to be found anywhere else in all literature—viz. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)).
When that “beginning” was we are not told. It may have been millions or even thousands of millions of years ago, for aught man knows. But, without doubt, that first verse of the Bible must be taken as standing absolutely alone, pointing us back through untold ages to the original creation of the earth and the heavens—i.e. when they were first brought into existence by the act and will of the Almighty.
The Nebula Theory
Perhaps a word on this subject might not be out of place here.
The Nebula Theory supposes that the earth and other planets have been slowly evolved through untold ages from cloudy vapor or masses of incandescent gas having a circular motion; parts of which having, in the process of contraction, broken away from time to time and formed separate bodies. These, continuing to revolve in the same direction as the original mass, are supposed to have ultimately formed the earth and other planets as we know them.
Without, however, going into detail on the subject, it should be remembered that this nebula theory, however attractive it may be to astronomers, is but a theory, and as such is purely hypothetical and unproved.
For example, some believe that “the globular shape of the earth makes it absolutely certain that it must have rotated from the very beginning of its existence.” But it is a fact known to astronomers that two of the eight principal planets—viz. Mercury and Venus—although globular in shape, have practically no rotation at all! Both revolve round the sun, with the same side always toward that central object, in the same way as the moon does round the earth, Mercury occupying 88 days in its orbit and Venus 224 days.
Thus it will be seen that Mercury only turns upon its axis four times in a year, while Venus is slower still, and takes seven or eight months to make one complete rotation, which no one would pretend to say could possibly account for their globular shape, especially as this rate of motion has never been known to change!
This theory therefore need not disturb the minds of any of us, especially as it savors of the doctrine of evolution, and as such does not seem to convey quite the same idea of creation as do the words of Scripture, which tell us: “He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psa. 33:99For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:9)).
Earth’s Earliest Condition
Now Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2), which tells us that “the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” describes, not the condition of the earth as in verse 1, when it was originally created, but that altered condition in which it was just before God “made,” or reconstituted, or prepared it to be the dwelling-place of man, when “God... commanded the light to shine out of darkness” (2 Cor. 4:66For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)). It was this reconstitution or preparation of the earth for man which, as we shall show later, took place about six thousand years ago and occupied six days.
Between verses 1 and 2, therefore, there was a vast period of time which cannot be measured by mortal man, for no indication of its duration is given in Scripture. Any failure to recognize this fact must assuredly lead to endless confusion.
As to what the condition of the earth was when it was first “created,” what were its inhabitants, if any, and what happened during that remote period, the Bible furnishes but little information, as such matters have necessarily only an indirect bearing upon God’s revelation to man. There are, however, a few passages of Scripture which seem to throw some faint light upon that mysterious age, and which point to the fact that, when first created, all must have been fair and beautiful beyond our highest imagination.
Indeed, Dr. Bullinger has pointed out that the Hebrew word for creation “implies that the creation was a perfect work, in perfect and beautiful order.”
It is, moreover, noteworthy that the words translated in Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2), “The earth was without form and void,” might equally well be translated, “The earth became waste and void,” implying, as stated in Isaiah 45:1818For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18), that it had not always been so; just as in Genesis 19:2626But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19:26) we read that Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.” The two words are identical in the original. Indeed, in Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible it is so translated—viz. “Now the earth had become waste,” etc.
Earth’s Earliest Inhabitants
As to how and why this earth, once so beautiful, ever became “waste” and “void,” we cannot speak with certainty. It is, however, a striking fact that there are only two other places in the Bible where the words translated in Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2) “without form” and “void” occur together—viz. Isaiah 34:1111But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness. (Isaiah 34:11), translated “confusion” and “emptiness,” and Jeremiah 4:2323I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. (Jeremiah 4:23). In both these cases the expressions are used in connection with destruction caused by God’s judgment on account of sin.
Although, as I have said, it is impossible to speak with absolute certainty, there are, nevertheless, indications in Scripture that lead us to suppose that our earth was once the abode of Satan and his angels in their un-fallen condition.
Probably also he and they had bodies of some kind, as the following references seem to indicate, and part at least of their judgment may have been that they were disembodied—just as death, which is after all but a disembodiment of the spirit, was part of the judgment that fell upon man for his sin. If this be so, may it not account for the fact that these demons (as the word should be translated, not devils, for there is only one devil) have ever since been seeking to find human bodies in which to dwell, as witness the demon possessions in the days of Christ, and that which looks very like the same thing in our lunatic asylums today? While those violent outbreaks of passion to which men and women at times give way, and with such appalling results, may possibly also be traceable to the same cause.
In any case, Satan is still called “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:44In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)), “the prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:1131Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. (John 12:31)
30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. (John 14:30)
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:11)) “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:22Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Ephesians 2:2)), etc.; and when he laid claim to the kingdoms of this world, Christ did not dispute his claim (Luke 4:5-85And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (Luke 4:5‑8)). That mysterious prophecy, moreover, in Ezekiel 28:12-1912Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (Ezekiel 28:12‑19), may, and probably does, furnish us with a faint glimpse of Satan under the title of the “King of Tyrus” (ver. 12), “the anointed cherub” (ver. 14), etc., first in his pristine glory, when, in earth’s earliest ages, he was set upon “the holy mountain of God,” walking “up and down in the midst of the stones of fire” (ver. 14), “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (ver. 12), words which could scarcely be applied to any man; and then afterward in his “iniquity” (ver. 15), “slander” (as the word rendered “merchandise” might be translated—reminding us of the “accuser of our brethren,” Rev. 12:1010And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. (Revelation 12:10)), and in his pride (ver. 17), until he was “cast out” (ver. 16)—a very striking expression, and one frequently used in connection with evil spirits in the days of Christ—his angels evidently partaking in his iniquity and pride, and sharing his doom (Matt. 25:4141Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Matthew 25:41)). “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Isa. 14:1212How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12)).
If this be the true meaning of this mysterious passage, how significant is the message of God to that once exalted, but now fallen, spirit: “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee” (ver. 15), and “thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness” (ver. 17).
It must be admitted that if there is one sin more than another that God has singled out as being peculiarly detestable in His sight, it is this sin of pride. “Pride, arrogancy, and the evil way... do I hate” (Prov. 8:1313The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. (Proverbs 8:13)). Moreover, many of the passages dealing with pride seem, in view of the foregoing, to have a peculiar and designed reference to that being in whose mysterious nature pride was first conceived. Indeed, in 1 Timothy 3:66Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6) pride is specifically called “the condemnation of the devil” And the solemn warning given in Proverbs 16:1818Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18), “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall,” and so needed by us in this life, may have had its first application to, as it certainly found its first fulfillment in, him whose “heart was lifted up because of his beauty.”
May we not, therefore, see here sufficient cause to account, not only for the downfall of Satan and his angels, but also for that wider and more terrible destruction which evidently overtook this once fair earth in pre-Adamic times?—just as in the days of Noah “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:66Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:6)), as a result of man’s wickedness (Gen. 6:5-75And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Genesis 6:5‑7))—which wickedness in its final culmination, in the future, will bring about a yet more awful destruction still, when “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burnt up” (2 Peter 3:66Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (2 Peter 3:6)).
In this connection it is somewhat remarkable that Ignatius Donnelly, in his Age of Fire and Gravel, asserts that there are distinct geological evidences that our earth once passed through the tail of a gigantic comet in prehistoric times, enveloping it in a shower of fire and stones, which, he believes, ultimately brought the earth into the condition described in Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)—viz. “without form and void.” If this be so, is it not possible that there may be some connection between this shower of fire and stones and the stones of fire—a most mysterious expression—referred to in Ezekiel 28:1414Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. (Ezekiel 28:14)?
The pre-Adamic destruction of the earth and heavenly bodies seems to be graphically described in the vivid language of Job 9:4-74He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? 5Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. 6Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. 7Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. (Job 9:4‑7), as the inspired writer contemplates with awe the scene of wreck and ruin, once the beautiful abode of him who in madness and folly dared to harden himself against God. “He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against Him, and hath prospered? Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in His anger. Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.”
After so awful a catastrophe as is here related, could any words more accurately describe the condition of things which must have prevailed than those of Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2), which tell us that “the earth had become without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep”?
Earth Prepared for Man
Man and all living creatures were created (Gen. 1:2121And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)), but the earth, created ages ago, was now merely “renewed,” as in the words of Psalm 104:3030Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (Psalm 104:30), “Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, and they [all living creatures] are created: and Thou renewest the face of the earth.” And here I would call special attention to the use of the words “created” and “made.” We do not, for instance, read God created the sun and moon on the fourth day, but that God made two great lights (ver. 16). A careful observance of the use of these two words throughout the chapter would serve to elucidate many seeming difficulties. To create is to make something out of nothing, while a thing is made out of something already in existence. A jeweler makes a ring, a carpenter makes a table, and a tailor makes a coat; but it would be altogether incorrect to say either of them created such articles. And it is not a little remarkable that many scientific men appear to have overlooked this fact, which Scripture makes abundantly clear by stating, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1.1); but, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth,” etc. (Ex. 20:1111For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)).
It really seems incredible that there should be any misunderstanding among Bible students on this important subject, seeing that it is made so clear throughout the chapter. For instance, on the second day God did not create the waters—they were all there; He merely divided them (vers. 6-8). And on the third day He did not create the earth—it was there already; what happened was, that when the waters were gathered together into one place, the dry land appeared (ver. 9).
But perhaps the most conclusive statement of all is found in Genesis 2:33And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Genesis 2:3), which really constitutes the last verse in the first true chapter of Genesis, containing as it does an unmistakable reference to the first verse, in the word “created”; while the rest of the chapter is almost entirely compassed by the word “made” —viz. “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made” —literally, “created to make”; thus showing that this “making” or “renewing” of the face of the earth was quite distinct, as to time, from the original creation.
So that all those arguments and attacks on Scripture, based on the time required for the formation of coal and the fossil remains of animals, which may have been on the earth in pre-Adamic times, fall absolutely to the ground.
At the same time, it should be remembered that, if it had so pleased the Almighty, He could have created the earth in its present condition, with its coal and minerals all in their advanced stages, as easily as He created Adam, a full-grown man, dispensing with what we should call the necessary term of years for a child to grow up to manhood; or as the Lord Jesus at the marriage in Cana of Galilee (John 2) supplied the guests with ready-made wine, without waiting for the slow process of nature to produce the grape, etc.; or again, as He provided the people with bread in a moment (John 6), thus rising above all known laws and bringing into operation a law of which man knows nothing. In fact, the one is just as great a miracle as the other, for both need divine power, the only difference being that we are accustomed to the one and unaccustomed to the other.
The Six Days of Genesis 1
What, then, were the six days of Genesis 1? Were they natural days of twenty-four hours each, or lengthened periods corresponding to millions of years of our time?
It is a remarkable fact, as we have already seen, that many of the best authorities on Bible subjects tell us that, unquestionably, the six days of creation were really long periods.
1. We are told that the Scriptures themselves in various places do make use of the word “day” to mean a period—For example, Genesis 2:44These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (Genesis 2:4), “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens”; Psalm 95:88Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: (Psalm 95:8), “The day of temptation in the wilderness,” among others—and we are further reminded that we ourselves constantly use the word in a similar sense, such as “the day of prosperity,” “the day of adversity,” etc.
2. We are, moreover, assured that an actual day of twenty-four hours cannot possibly be meant, inasmuch as the sun, which rules the day, was only made on the fourth day. So that one, otherwise a valuable writer, to whom I have often been indebted, says: “Before Day 4 there was, therefore, according to Scripture, no ordinary day and no ordinary night.”
3. To strengthen the argument further, it has been sought to show that, while mention has been made in the case of each of the six days of “the evening and the morning,” there is no mention of the close of the seventh day, which it is alleged is certainly a long period, as it is supposed to have continued all through the past six thousand years, and to be continuing still. And then we are reminded of the words, “There remaineth therefore a Sabbath rest to the people of God” (Heb. 4:99There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (Hebrews 4:9)), which are supposed to confirm that theory. For if the seventh day is a long period, then the preceding six days must be likewise.
Now it is greatly to be feared that in many cases the period theory has been adopted as an attempt—no doubt honestly—to escape from certain supposed geological difficulties, apart from which it is probable that no such suggestion would ever have been heard of, for there appears to be, so far as I can see, no real scriptural warrant for it whatever.
Let us, now, examine the evidence.
1. It is quite true that the word “day” is frequently used to indicate a period, both in Scripture and in our own daily conversation. But in this connection there are two important facts to bear in mind:
(a) In every case where the word is so used in Scripture, its symbolic meaning is so clear that it is almost impossible to be misunderstood.
(b) Throughout the whole of Scripture, the word day is never used to represent a lengthened period when a numeral is connected with it. In such cases, days mean days and nothing more—whether it be the hundred and fifty days of the flood (Gen. 8:33And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. (Genesis 8:3)), or the forty days occupied by the spies (Num. 13:2525And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. (Numbers 13:25)), or the three days that Jonah was in the belly of the fish (Jonah 1:1717Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. (Jonah 1:17)); the forty days during which our Lord was seen after His resurrection (Acts 1:33To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: (Acts 1:3)), or the six days in which the Lord made heaven and earth (Ex. 20:1111For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)). The same remark applies to our own use of the word.
2. As to there being no day before the sun, however much we may be accustomed in our finite experience to associate daylight with the sun, we need to remember that God, who made the sun and gave it its light, could as easily make both light and day without the sun; and, indeed, this is exactly what He did, as the Scriptures state; and it seems incredible that this should have been overlooked. Moreover, scientific men now know that light can be produced quite independently of the sun. Genesis 1:3, 53And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:5), which records what took place three days before the sun appeared, tells us, “God said, Let there be light: and there was light... And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” And it is not a little remarkable that some of the best writers who hold the period theory acknowledge that “this passage clearly indicates our ordinary day.”
Now, inasmuch as the sun was made on the fourth day (Gen. 1:1414And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Genesis 1:14)), our present solar system must have commenced then, and therefore, whatever may be said of the previous days, the fifth and sixth, like all after days, coming within the compass of “our present solar system,” must have been ordinary days of twenty-four hours each—a conclusion from which there seems to be no possible escape. And, therefore, it is only natural to assume, in the absence of any inspired word to the contrary, that the first four days must also have been days of twenty-four hours each—unless, indeed, we are prepared to face the absurdity that the first part of that first week of the world’s history consisted of long periods covering millions of years each, while the latter part consisted of natural days of twenty-four hours each!
Moreover, the word used in Genesis 1:1717And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (Genesis 1:17), that God “set” the sun, etc., on the fourth day is very significant, apparently implying that on that day it was “set” in its relation to the earth, which latter probably then received its inclination of about twenty-three degrees, at which angle it now rotates upon its axis in its annual revolution round the sun, which accounts for the different seasons—just as its daily rotation upon its own axis, which appears to have commenced with the first day, accounts for day and night, as Genesis 1:1414And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Genesis 1:14) declares: “Let them [sun and moon] be for signs and for seasons, for days and for years.”
But there is another remarkable fact to bear in mind. Johann Kepler, one of the very greatest astronomers that ever lived, discovered three hundred years ago that the sun is not quite in the center of the earth’s orbit, and the astronomer J. B. Dimbleby in his Date of Creation, has shown that the equinoctial point is reached on the fourth day; which is in remarkable accord with the Scripture statement that the sun was “set” in its appointed place on the fourth day (Gen. 1:1717And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (Genesis 1:17)).
In other words, it appears that on the “first day” the earth was started on its orbit round a given center; and the sun, which was “set” on the “fourth day,” was not set exactly in the center of that orbit, but was placed opposite to the earth when it had already traveled four days.
This explains the fact that the autumnal equinox (September 23rd, when day and night are equal all over the world) occurs, not when the earth is at A, where we should otherwise have expected to find it, but when it is at E, being then exactly opposite the sun. It further accounts for the earth being nearer the sun in the winter than it is in the summer.
This discovery is known as Kepler’s first law of planetary motion. It formed the groundwork of Newton’s discoveries and the starting-point of modern astronomy.
But it is only in accord with the inspired Record if those first days were natural days of twenty-four hours each. Otherwise, how is that great scientific fact to be accounted for? Moreover, some astronomers declare that astronomical science demands that that first week of the world’s history, referred to in Genesis 1, must have consisted of seven natural days of twenty-four hours each, otherwise all astronomical calculations would be upset.
The Seventh Day
3. The argument about the seventh day being a long period, continuing until now, will certainly not bear the test of Scripture, for the following reasons:
(1) As to there being no mention of the “close” of the seventh day, I would remind my readers that the expression, “The evening and the morning,” etc., used in connection with the six days, describes not the close of any of the days, but rather the commencement; for the true light of day did not begin until evening, night, and morning were passed. And the most ardent supporter of the period theory would scarcely deny that the seventh day had its evening and morning, just as the other days had, although it is not specifically stated.
In all probability, the expression “evening and morning,” etc., was used merely to mark the division between those early days in the world’s history which witnessed such important events. Those events being completed on the sixth day, it was only necessary, when the seventh day came, for us to be told that God had finished His mighty work and rested. No such important event occurred on the days subsequent to the seventh, and hence no such dividing line between it and the day following was necessary. It is sufficient that we are told it was “the seventh day” (Gen. 2:33And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Genesis 2:3)). So this argument cannot apply.
(2) As to the suggestion that the words of Hebrews 4:99There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (Hebrews 4:9), “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God,” indicate that the seventh day of rest was really continuing or “remaining” until now, I must say that the teaching of Scripture on that point—so far as I understand it—is exactly to the contrary. Whenever that rest of the Creator is referred to in Scripture, it is always spoken of in the past tense—never in the present. Thus:
Whereas, if that seventh day were really continuing until now, surely the present tense would be used, and we should read, “God is resting on the seventh day”; and yet the present tense is never once used in that connection.
On the contrary, we have the words of the Lord Jesus Himself in John 5:1717But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:17), which ought to set the matter at rest forever. Instead of His giving the least hint that God’s rest was then still continuing, Christ, speaking of what happened even on the Jewish Sabbath, distinctly says, “My Father worketh [not resteth] even until now, and I work” (R.V.).
Moreover, a careful perusal of the third and fourth chapters of the Hebrews shows that three distinct rests are there spoken of:
(a) “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all His works” (Heb. 4:44For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. (Hebrews 4:4)). This is God’s rest at creation on the seventh day.
(b) “They shall not enter into My rest” (Heb. 3:11Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; (Hebrews 3:1)). This is part of a quotation from Psalm 95, and from its context clearly refers to the rest that God intended for the Israelites in Canaan; but which, we are reminded in Hebrews 3:1616For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. (Hebrews 3:16), only Joshua and Caleb, of all the men who came out of Egypt, enjoyed. See also Hebrews 4:88For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (Hebrews 4:8), where the word translated “Jesus” should be “Joshua.”
(c) “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (Heb. 4:99There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (Hebrews 4:9)). Now it should be noted, these words cannot possibly refer either to God’s rest on the seventh day or to the rest offered to the Israelites in Canaan, inasmuch as Hebrews 4:88For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. (Hebrews 4:8) distinctly states that God is here speaking of another day!
What, then, is the rest here spoken of? Is it not that heart-rest of which the seventh day was a type —a rest which, thank God, still “remains,” in that it is offered now to those who cease from or renounce their own works (Heb. 4:1010For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (Hebrews 4:10)), which are at best but filthy rags (Isa. 64:66But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)), and rely for salvation upon Him who said, “Come unto Me, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:2828Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Matthew 11:28))?
This is the rest that remaineth to the people of God! Oh, that all who read these pages might know it!
(3) If, however, we were to adopt the period theory and believe that each of the six days lasted for about ten million years, then the seventh day, to be consistent, must of necessity continue for a similar period. But will the reader think for a moment what this would mean?
Already this earth has groaned and travailed under the curse of man’s sin for about six thousand years, and many Bible students have believed that there are undoubted signs, taken in conjunction with the prophecies, that this age was rapidly drawing to a close, and that, ere long, the glorious millennial era would dawn, and the curse forever be removed.
But, alas for such hopes, if the period theory be correct, this “seventh day” has scarcely commenced its course. Only six thousand years—an infinitesimal portion—of the ten million years, have as yet passed; so that there still remain more than 9,990,000 years of this condition of things to go on, ere this sin-cursed earth has run its course. And this is called God’s day of rest!
While if we take the language of the Bible as it stands, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the “days” mentioned in Genesis 1 were nothing more than ordinary days, as we know them, of twenty-four hours each. The Jews have never regarded them as other than ordinary days.
Four things are mentioned in connection with these days—viz, there was light and there was darkness, there was evening and there was morning; and I contend that, in the absence of any inspired word to the contrary, we are bound by all known phenomena to regard such words as defining natural days as we know them, of twenty-four hours, one part of which was dark and the other part light.
The inspired writer further tells us that “God called the light day, and the darkness called He night” (Gen. 1:55And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:5)), and so it has been ever since. We still call the light day, and the darkness we call night; “evening” and “morning,” as at the first, being the natural accompaniments of day and night.
But if these days were immense geological periods, what is the meaning of the words “evening” and “morning,” “day” and “night”? Indeed, one would reverently ask, what could have been the object of using terms which would only convey one meaning to our minds, and that a wrong one? Surely if God had meant “ages” He would have said so, just as in Ephesians 2:77That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:7) we read of “the ages to come.”
Moreover, the very order of the expression, “the evening and the morning,” and not “morning and evening,” as we should write, shows again that they were natural days, calculated exactly as the Jews have ever since calculated them, for the Jews still reckon their days to commence from six o’clock in the evening.
It is to be feared that the period theory expositors scarcely realize what the consequences would have been had those days of Genesis 1 really been long periods, as they suggest; for, taking a very moderate estimate, each day, as we have seen, is supposed to have occupied a period representing ten million years of our time. Now let it be carefully noted that, according to the Scriptures, those “days” had only two divisions—viz. darkness and light, divided only by evening and morning—i.e. the part that was called “day” was all light, and that part which was called “night” was all darkness. There is no escape from this. So that, according to the most recent of all these estimates, each “day” must have consisted of about five million years of unbroken darkness, followed by about five million years of unbroken light!
Now, seeing that the trees and shrubs and grass were made on the third day, and the fowls and other living creatures on the fifth day, one naturally asks what became of these things after they were created? for it is certain that no vegetable creation could possibly live—much less animal life—through five million years of unbroken light, any more than it could survive a similar period of unbroken darkness. And yet if we accept the period theory, this is what we should have to believe took place!
Moreover, the age of Adam constitutes an insuperable difficulty for the period theory.
In Genesis 1:25, 2625And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:25‑26), we are told that on the sixth day God made the beasts, the cattle, creeping things—and man.
If, therefore, the period theory were correct, and that sixth day, like the others mentioned in Genesis 1, were an immense geological period representing millions of years of our time, one of two things must follow:
(a) Either Adam must have been created right at the very extreme end of that vast period, in which case we should be brought face to face with the inconceivable spectacle of the Almighty having been apparently occupied for about ten million years (taking the latest computation of scientific men) in creating the beasts, cattle, and creeping things; while man, the glory of His creation, was treated as a thing of naught, and was not made until that vast period had practically run its course!
(b) Otherwise the Scripture record of Adam’s age must be absolutely incorrect, for he must have lived for millions of years instead of hundreds. For example, had he been created, say, about the middle of that sixth-day period, his age must necessarily have been about five million years!
If, however, we accept the simple statements of Scripture, and believe that a day means a day, all is clear and plain; and we learn that all the time that Adam was in the garden of Eden could not have been more than about one hundred years, inasmuch as Seth was born when Adam was one hundred and thirty (Gen. 5:33And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)).
Lastly, I submit that the period theory cannot possibly stand from a purely exegetical point of view. In Exodus 20:9-119Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:9‑11) we have the actual words of Almighty God Himself, concerning which there can be no mistake—viz. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth... and rested the seventh day.”
Now, in order to support the period theory of the creation “days” it is necessary to do violence to the simplest law of exegesis, by saying that the word “days” in one part of that short clause means one thing, and the identical word in another part of the same clause means something quite different; which on the very face of it is an impossible argument. Thus it seems as if this very discussion had been anticipated and provided for by the Holy Spirit.
Mr. Pember is, therefore, right in saying, “It is clear that we must understand the six days to be periods of twenty-four hours each.”
Nor need we be alarmed when we hear or read of those ancient fossil remains in certain strata of the earth that are supposed to carry us back to prehistoric times, inasmuch as geologists are by no means agreed as to the conclusions to be drawn therefrom.
Prior to that destruction which left the earth in the condition of waste described in Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2), it is quite possible that various forms of animal life may have existed, which may possibly account for “the numerous remains in primeval rocks, which, by the way, are only those of the lower forms of creation.”
As we have before shown, “The Bible is found to have left an interval of undefined magnitude between creation and the post-tertiary period, and men may bridge it as they can with their discoveries without fear of impugning the revelations of God.”
But Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock, R.E., in his Rudimentary Treatise on Geology, says, “Fossils are not sufficient to determine a geological epoch”; and again, “Recent petrifications in our present seas are analogous to those supposed to be of ancient geological times.” He also tells how M. Goeppert actually produced some fossils artificially, which so strongly resembled genuine fossils that they might have been mistaken for them!
So that, when we read of “prehistoric” this, that, and the other, we need to guard ourselves against wild and unreliable speculations which are palmed upon a credulous world as established truths.
“Geologists have based their arguments of the existence of the present constitution of the world before the Scripture date of creation upon rocks and fossils; but more recent investigations show that neither of these is reliable. Rocks which were formerly said to have been originated when the world was ‘red hot,’ such as granite, are now believed to be produced by the action of water. Fossils for the age of which twenty thousand or more years were claimed, can now be produced in less than a century. Some coal and other mines, which are hundreds of feet below the surface, present evidence that their position is due to faults or subsidence of the surrounding strata....
“It is not intended by these remarks that the earth had no existence before the epoch of creation, or was something destitute of rocks and strata. What is intended is that, during the long period of six thousand years, there has been time for forests to become coal mines, soft rocks to get hard... plants to be petrified or turned into flint, and animals to be fossilized.”
Let us, therefore, be thankful for such men as Professor Sayce, who, in reference to a certain point in Bible history mentioned in Genesis 10, is not ashamed to confess that his former conclusions, based on certain ancient tablets discovered some years ago, which seemed to contradict the Bible, were quite wrong. With characteristic honesty he now says “We must write our history of Elam all over again. We have been wrong, and the tenth chapter of Genesis is right after all.”
And the day will surely come when others who have published to the world their “conclusions,” which are antagonistic to the plain and simple teaching of the word of God, will have in like manner to confess, “We have been wrong, and the Book is right after all.”
III. Astronomy, or the Science of the Heavens
Psalm 19 “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy work; day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.”
In this appeal which the Bible makes to the science of astronomy, we find the statement that this particular branch of science bears explicit testimony to the “glory” and “knowledge” of the God who both made the heavens and wrote the Book. This is clear from the fact that, while the first six verses deal with the testimony of the heavens, the latter part of the psalm, from the seventh verse onward, is occupied with the testimony of the written Word.
Now it will be readily admitted that if the science of astronomy—that is to say, if any of the existing laws in connection with the heavenly bodies—really ran counter to, or in any way tended to disprove, the teaching of Scripture, then the heavens, instead of declaring the glory and knowledge of the Creator, would rather witness to the ignorance and consequent dishonor of Him who had written a Book which He had magnified above all His name, and which is specifically called His Law— “the Law of the Lord”—but which was found to be opposed in its teachings to some of His other laws already in existence. Of course, one shrinks from such a blasphemous thought; and yet that is just what much of the teaching of the present day logically leads to.
In order, however, that the reader may have some idea of the vastness of this subject, I may mention that astronomers tell us that, although the naked eye can, on the clearest night, only detect rather less than 3,000 stars from a given point, nevertheless it is estimated that the telescope has discovered as many as one hundred million stars in the heavens; while there are probably countless myriads more which the strongest telescope and the most sensitive camera have never detected. Moreover, the nearest of those stars, Cygni by name, is more than thirty-six billion miles from our earth; so that the light from that nearest star, traveling at the rate of 186,000 miles a second, takes six and a quarter years to reach us. Other stars are so far away that the figures of the mathematician fail to describe the awful distance, and the imagination reels at the thought that the light from some of them, traveling at such a bewildering rate, occupies more than 1,000 years in reaching this globe. With such knowledge in our possession, how easy it is to understand and enter into the Psalmist’s wondering exclamation: “When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained, what is man?” (Psa. 8:3, 43When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? (Psalm 8:3‑4)).
Let us now select the following passages in which Scripture touches upon astronomical science, as specimens, out of many others which might be cited, from which the reader will be able easily to see how God’s Book of wisdom, while making no attempt actually to teach science, has nevertheless anticipated some of the most recent discoveries of astronomy.
Light Before the Sun
Genesis 1:14-1914And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Genesis 1:14‑19). The fact of there being light on the first day of creation (Gen. 1:33And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)), while the sun only appeared on the fourth day, has been a cause of much discussion for many years. But Humboldt has shown how “Science has now discovered that the sun is not the only source of light; but that the earth itself, and at least one other planet in our system, may under certain conditions become self-luminous.” Who taught Moses this truth, which our scientific men, with all their appliances and research, have only recently been able to discover?
But oh! hush, thou unbelieving heart, what need for all this argument? “God is light!” Do we not read in Revelation 21:2323And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Revelation 21:23) of a city yet to be, which, though full of light, “had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God did lighten it?” Surely one ray of that effulgent glory falling upon this dark earth would more than suffice to lighten it, and thus account for the words, “Let there be light, and there was light” —just as on the fourth day it pleased our all-wise Creator that the light that reached this earth should be concentrated as to its source, when another ray of that resplendent glory was wrapped around the sun, making it the center from which light and heat should radiate, to comfort and bless mankind; as a beautiful type of Him who is the brightness of His glory (Heb. 1:33Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:3)), the true Sun of Righteousness, one day to arise on those who fear His name, with healing in His wings (Mal. 4:22But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. (Malachi 4:2)). Then once more there will be light without the sun; but there will be no critics to cavil at it.
But, again, it is worthy of note in this connection that we do not read God “created” the light. Light is not a substance, and therefore cannot be “created.” God said (literally) “Light be, and light was” (Gen. 1:33And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)). Light is the result of rapid vibrations in the form of waves in the ether, much in the same way as sound is the result of wave vibrations in the air. Hence the remarkable scientific accuracy of Job 38:1919Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19), “Where is the way where light dwelleth”—not where is the place. As light involves motion—wave motion—it can only “dwell” in a way, traveling, as we have seen, at the rate of 186,000 miles a second
There are three or four remarkable passages which, if they do not actually describe, certainly hint very plainly at, three important scientific truths concerning the earth,—viz. its position, poised in space; its rotundity, or round shape; and its rotation upon its axis.
1. The Earth Poised in Space
Job 26:77He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Job 26:7), “He hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Is not that simple statement scientifically accurate? And yet nearly all the early physicists and philosophers, including Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, etc., believed that the earth was a flat disc of land surrounded by a great world river—Oceanus, and that this flat disc formed the foundation for all the other elements, supporting first water, then air, then fire, etc. While the firmament was supposed to be a solid sphere into which the stars were fixed like so many ornaments. And these ideas prevailed through Western Europe until the sixteenth century. But this verse, which science now acknowledges to describe accurately the poising of our globe in space, has stood in the Bible for 3,500 years!
2. The Rotundity of the Earth
In Proverbs 8:2727When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: (Proverbs 8:27) we read that when God created the world “He set a compass [or circle], upon the face of the deep,” clearly indicating its spherical or globular shape; while Isaiah 40:2222It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22) speaks of Him “who sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” “The word translated circle does not mean a circle drawn upon a plane surface. It means an arch or sphere... and teaches the true form of the earth.”
There is also a most remarkable reference to the rotundity or round shape of the earth in the teaching of our Lord in Luke 17:34-3634I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. (Luke 17:34‑36), although the revisers have obscured this beautiful thought by omitting the thirty-sixth verse. Scrivener, however, shows that they have based that particular alteration upon faulty Greek copies.
The words are: “I tell you that in that night there shall be two men on one bed; the one shall be taken and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”
Our Lord was speaking of His second coming, when everybody would immediately see Him. “As the lightning that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven shineth unto the other part under heaven, so shall also the Son of Man be in His day” (ver. 24).
And Christ declares that the three things mentioned above will all be happening at the moment of His coming. Now consider what is implied in those three verses:
When are men in bed? ... ... At night,
When are Eastern women grinding at the mill, preparing flour for the day’s bread? ... ... In early morning
When are men laboring in the field? ... ... In broad daylight
Every schoolboy now knows that, owing to the fact that the earth is round, and that the sun’s light can only fall upon one half of it at a time, the result is, when it is midday here, it is midnight at the antipodes, and midway between, the day is breaking.
So Christ here declares that when He comes it will be night in one part of the earth, daybreak in another, and midday in another. And nothing but the rotundity of the earth can explain that.
3. The Rotation of the Earth Upon Its Axis
This is clearly implied in the very first chapter in the Bible, where the days are described as succeeding one another—each day consisting of “evening and morning,” “day and night.”
Now the reader will be easily able to follow me here:
(1) It is perfectly clear that, at the time referred to in Genesis 1:22And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2), when “darkness was upon the face of the deep,” this earth was literally enveloped in darkness—i.e. there was no light on any part of it.
(2) It seems almost equally clear that, when in verse 3 God said, “Let there be light,” and thus “commanded the light to shine out of darkness,” (2 Cor. 4:66For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6)), the light of God probably burst forth in such splendor that the whole earth must have been bathed in universal light—i.e. light was everywhere—all over the earth at once.
(3) And when, in verse 4, “God divided the light from the darkness,” it is natural to assume that this was effected by simply concentrating the source of light at a given point; so that the earth, being round, the rays of light from that given point could only fall on one half of it at a time, leaving the other half in darkness—just as now, and as it has been since the fourth day, light being centered in the sun, its rays can of necessity only reach one half of our earth at a time; and thus the light is still divided from the darkness. And we still call the light day, and the darkness we call night, exactly as God described the first day and the first night (Gen. 1:55And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:5)).
(4) It is evident from the foregoing that, unless the earth rotated upon its axis, one side—that nearest the source of light—would be always light, while the opposite side would be always in darkness; and midway between those two extremes it would be always twilight. Now we know that in fact this is not so. But why is it not so? There is only one answer—viz. because of the rotation of the earth upon its axis. And thus this scientific fact, though not actually stated, is distinctly implied in the very first chapter of the Bible.
Although it is impossible to speak with certainty, it seems probable that the earth commenced to rotate the moment the light of God fell upon it. Indeed, some authorities tell us astronomical calculations show that such must have been the case.
The process of rotation, which produces the alternate effect of day and night, is simple in the extreme. That part of the earth upon which the shadows of “evening” first fell would, owing to the rotation of the earth upon its axis, pass round to that side which was furthest away from the light, when it would become wrapped in the darkness of “night”; while, as the earth continued to rotate, that same part would pass round towards the light again, only on the opposite side from which it started on the previous evening, and thus, as the rays of light began to fall upon it, “morning” would break. While, at length, the same spot would be carried on in its circuit to that side which was nearest the light, when it would be bathed in the full light of “day”; which, however, owing to the resistless motion of the earth (like an eternal wheel turning ceaselessly upon its axle), was destined soon to fade again into “evening” and “night.”
Thus, owing to the rotation of the earth as indicated in the words of Genesis 1, the days succeeded, and still succeed, one another. And thus the psalmist’s words are true, even to the scientific mind, “Day unto day uttereth speech, night unto night showeth knowledge” (Psa. 19:22Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. (Psalm 19:2)).
Now, is it not remarkable that these truths have been in the Bible for thousands of years; and under the outward garb of their simple language have concealed these marvelous scientific laws, which have only recently been fully understood by man?—if, indeed, they are now fully understood.
It is true that one Pythagoras, as early as 506 B.C., is said to have demonstrated the fact that the earth was round; while Aristarchus of Samos, who lived about 280 B.C., maintained that the earth turned upon its axis and revolved round the sun. But all the great astronomers and philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Hipparchus, etc., ignored such theories, and believed in what is known as the Ptolemaic system of astronomy—viz. that the earth was a solid, stationary foundation which supported all the other elements; and it was not until the sixteenth century—i.e. less than five hundred years ago—that Copernicus, the Teutonic knight, definitely compelled the attention of philosophers to the great fact that, after all, the alternations of day and night were really caused by the earth’s daily rotation upon its axis, and that the vicissitudes of the seasons were due to the earth’s annual revolution round the sun—exactly as indicated in Genesis 1:1414And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (Genesis 1:14). But so ignorant is the mind of man, that when Galileo, nearly one hundred years later, declared his belief in the Copernican theory, he nearly lost his life for it! But that very theory, which had lain hidden in the Bible for thousands of years, was ultimately confirmed by Kepler, Newton, and others, and is now universally accepted by all astronomers.
If there is one Bible story which is caviled at more than another, and deemed absolutely unscientific, it is probably this story of what is known as Joshua’s long day; and yet there are few passages of Scripture which are supported by such remarkable corroborative evidence, both from an historical and scientific point of view, as this story is.
First of all it should be noticed that Joshua’s prayer, translated, “Sun, stand thou still,” should be rendered, as in the margin, “Sun be silent,” or “be inactive.”
It is generally held among scientific men that it is the action of the sun upon the earth that causes the latter to revolve upon its axis. So that Joshua’s words appear to express with striking scientific accuracy exactly what, on this hypothesis, would have to take place to provide for an unusually long day—viz. the rotation of the earth upon its axis would have to be “slowed down” by a temporary diminution of the action of the sun.
Newton has demonstrated how quickly the earth-motion might be slowed down without appreciable shock to its inhabitants.
For instance, the window of many an optician’s shop contains a small apparatus, with four fans, which revolve rapidly when exposed to the light—the revolution being at once considerably retarded if anything is placed against the window which interrupts the action of the sun’s rays falling upon it.
Some would explain away the miracle by what is known as the refraction of light, i.e. owing to the different media, or varying densities of the gases composing the air through which the sun’s rays pass; those rays become deflected or bent out of their true course, just as a walking-stick appears to be bent when partly placed in water. In this way it is possible for the sun to appear above the horizon for some time after it has really set. Many such instances are on record.
But, while a slight lengthening of the day—which at most could not possibly exceed an hour—might be accounted for in this way, it is quite impossible that refraction could account for the light continuing “for about, a whole day.” Other explanations have also been attempted. The truth, however, is that no man really knows how this long day of Joshua’s was accomplished; but it must have been accomplished somehow, for astronomy demands that something of the kind must have happened, while history declares that it actually took place.
It is well known that the three great record-keeping countries of the world were Greece, Egypt, and China, and each of these countries has had the record of a long day.
Herodotus, “the father of history,” who lived 480 B.C., himself a Greek, tells us that the priests of Egypt showed him the record of a long day; while the Chinese writings state that there was a long day in the reign of their Emperor Yeo, who was a contemporary of Joshua.
Quite recently, also, Rear-Admiral Palmer, when at Mexico, discovered that the Mexicans had a record that the sun stood still for one entire day in the year known to them as “Seven Rabbits,” which corresponds with the exact year in which Joshua was conquering Palestine!
Greece.
Egypt
China.
Mexico.
Palestine.
It is also worthy of note that not only was this story apparently never called in question by those who were living at the time it was written, and who were of all men best able to judge of its accuracy; but, on the other hand, the fact appears to have been so well known that Jasher, the Upright (Josh. 10:1313And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (Joshua 10:13)), and a contemporary of Joshua’s, actually wrote a separate and independent account of it, which Joshua deliberately referred to, so that in the mouth of two witnesses every word might be established.