 |  |
While we do not attempt to make Scripture bend and bow to the findings of "Science",
for these are continually changing, yet as the interpretation of Gen. 1: does invade the
territory of geological science, the reader may find the following testimony of a Scientist
of interest. Lt.-Col. L. M. Davies, M.A., F.G.S., F.R.S.E., F.R.A.I., writes:
"I mistrust all attempts to treat the six days of Gen. 1: as geological 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 Gen. 1: 2
was only put forward to save the face the 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 Gen. 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 Gen. 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". This we must consider in
our next article.