upon to believe anything so absurd. The fact is, that many give scant attention to the actual teaching of

the book they antagonize and dismiss as absurd what, in reality, they themselves have foisted upon the

In Genesis 1:9 we read `and let the dry land appear', or `be seen' as the Hebrew Raah is translated in

Genesis 1:4,10,12 etc. The dry land became visible on the third day, not because it was then at that time

created, but because the waters which covered it were `gathered together unto one place' (Gen. 1:9). Let

us open the book, then, and be scientists indeed, taking nothing for granted or at second hand.

There is no word for `the' in the original, it reads `In beginning', not so much as a mark on the calendar of

time, but as indicating the first movement of a series implying an `end', which is named in 1 Corinthians

15:24-28 `Then cometh the end . . . that God may be all in all'. In the simple but sublime words, of

Genesis 1:1, the creation of the Universe is recorded. What took place in the six days of Genesis 1:3-31

was the preparation of the earth for man. In between Genesis 1:1 and 3 comes an undefined interval

(during which all the phenomena associated with geology, the strata, the fossils, the coal beds), the

catastrophe, which has left its mark upon the rocks and the earth's surface, took place.

Here the word `was' translates the verb `to become' as in Genesis 2:7 `Man became (not was already) a

living soul'.

`Without form and void' are words of judgment as Jeremiah 4:23-27 makes plain. The same two

words tohu and bohu which are translated `without form and void' are found in another context of

judgment, which speak of yet future repetition of Genesis 1:2, namely Isaiah 34:4. In verse 11 the words

`confusion' and `emptiness' are in the original the same that are found in Genesis 1:2 tohu and bohu. If

we judge the book of Genesis to be unscientific let it at least be judged upon what it does actually say, and

not what slip-shod quotations make it say.

Moreover the `firmament' of Genesis 1:8, is explained in the margin as an `expansion', and this is the

meaning of the Hebrew raqia. Thus Moses anticipates Jean's `Expanding Universe' by several thousand

years. The Bible however is not a Scientific text book. It finds one short chapter sufficient for the record

of Creation but employs many chapters to describe the construction of the Tabernacle, a meeting place,

not so large as many a church or chapel. The Bible finds eleven chapters sufficient for its purpose, when

it speaks of the 2 000 years that intervene between the creation of Adam and the call of Abraham, but it

devotes nearly 1 000 chapters, or the rest of the Old Testament to cover the similar period that extends

from Abraham to Christ. The Bible is essentially a book of Redemption and must be judged accordingly.

If it says in the language of the common man `The sun rises' or `The sun sets' it is no more unscientific

than a modern newspaper.

Another objection raised against the Bible is that it is:

(2) `Geocentric'.

Today the astronomer is obliged to speak of distance in the terms of `light years', and our earth is so

small in comparison with the Universe and its many `suns', that, says the scientist, it is impossible that

God could speak of the Universe as `The Heaven and the earth'. Yet, if I pick up The Times or any other

newspaper, I shall find that these too are `Geocentric', and the very ones who object to the Bible in this

matter, would feel outraged if a daily newspaper should fill its pages with astronomical details concerning

Mars, or the Milky Way, while children die of starvation and men and women seek in vain a home for

their family. Why condemn the Bible because it ministers, not to the Universe, but to man? If the Bible

be a book of Redemption, and if a man be the object of this redemption, then the Bible to be of service

must be `Geocentric' or fail of its purpose.