epochs instead of literal days.  All such attempts arise from, and aim at

supporting the idea that the fossiliferous rocks were laid down during six

days, and I find fatal objections to the idea in the fact that these rocks

are packed with evidences of disease, fear, pain, abortions and

internecine strife ... How could God have called such things "very good"

during creation days if He regards them as abominable now!

`The third chapter of Genesis introduced the curse and all those aborted

and offensive structures, typified by serpents in the animal world, and

thorns and thistles in the vegetable world, which characterize the

internecine strife of nature today.

`As a geologist and as a Christian, I see only one way of reconciling

Scripture with the testimony of the rocks, and that is by taking the six

days of Genesis as literal days, days when a previously ruined world was

restored and provided with an (unfortunately only temporarily) ideal

population' (Trans. Vic. Inst. LXX. 79-83).

Mr. Thomas Fitzgerald, meeting the accusation that the interpretation of

Genesis 1:2 was only put forward to save the face of Scripture in view of

geological findings said:

`Not when geology was a young science, but centuries before geology or

biology were thought of, learned men translated Genesis 1:2 as the English

words "and the earth became without form, and void"`

.

Dr. Paley, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford, says:

`The belief that creation, at least, dated backward for countless ages,

was current in the church some 1400 years before geology' (Trans. Vic.

Inst. LXX. 85).

The names of several scholars of high repute can be cited in support of

this translation.  John Harris, D.D., The Pre-Adamite Earth, and Man Primeval;

The Rev. David King, LL.D., The Principles of Geology (2nd Edit.); The Rev. T.R.

Birks, M.A., The Bible and Modern Thought; The Rev. Charles Herbert, M.A.,

Neology not New (2nd Edit.); The Rev. E.B. Pusey, D.D., Daniel the Prophet.

We believe that the translation of the word katabole by `overthrow' is

fully justified and completely in harmony with the testimony of the Septuagint

version of the Old Testament, and refers to Genesis 1:2, which itself has been

shown to be, not the state of the world as it came from the hands of the

Creator, but the state of the world after judgment had fallen upon it.

The question that still awaits consideration is, seeing that Adam was at

that time uncreated, who or what, caused the `overthrow of the world'?

The fact that the Church is associated with the `heavens' of Genesis 1,

and that it is associated with `principality and power' in those heavenly places

`far above all', makes the mind meditate the possibility that angelic and