339
September, 1936
T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
In teresting Scientific A ccuracies in the B ible [Continued from page 335]
sion bears a striking similarity to the divisions proposed in one o f the most widely used books on botany: The distribution of fossils through rocks o f different ages indicates, for example, that the earliest plants were com paratively simple water-inhabiting forms. In the later ages appeared pteridophytes, the primitive seed plants, forms more or less similar to our present-day gymno- sperms; and finally the angiosperms. ( Textbook o f Gen eral Botany, by Smith, Overton, Gilbert, Denniston, Bryan, Allen, p. 484). Comparing the two accounts, we have, first, plants which are simply “ green,” the seed not being evident; second, plants in which the seed is prominent and exposed; and finally, the forms “ bearing fruit” with enclosed seeds. The entire point is fully discussed by a recent graduate o f Ash land Seminary, Paul R. Bauman, in his “ Critical Study of the Creation Account.” Some time ago while browsing through a volume of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th edition), I became inter ested in the article on Bacteriology written by Dr. Paine of the London Imperial College o f Science and Technology. I found a number of'things that I already knew, for ex ample, that bacteria are most numerous in the air of cities and towns, and very much reduced in the air o f country districts. But I also found something new, namely, that “ in forest areas the presence o f bacteria in the atmosphere is usually hard to demonstrate,” the reason being that “ the leaves o f trees seem to act as efficient bacterial filters” ( Vol. II, p. 905). Reading the statement, I thought o f two things: First, I reflected that our desire for vacations in the for ested regions is based on a sound instinct; and second, I recalled a well-known passage in Revelation where John writes o f the “ tree o f life” in the Holy City, declaring that “ the leaves of the tree were for the healing o f the nations” (2 2 :2 ). The question as to whether this “ tree” is literal or only symbolical does not affect the argument. Even if it is symbolical, we might well ask the unbeliever how it happens that John seized upon a symbol which is so accurate even from a scientific standpoint? T he S cience of A nimal L ife In the field o f the science of animal life we again find the Bible discussing and describing many forms o f life without indulging in the wild and absurd ideas which pos sessed many even of the learned in past ages. Uninformed skeptics often accuse the Bible o f trading in superstition because it mentions the “unicorn” (Job 39:9-12). The Hebrew word is “ reem,” and translators of the Authorized Version, with a limited knowledge of the fauna of Bible lands, turned evidently for help to the Septuagint which translates it by the Greek word “monokeros” meaning “ one horned.” Thus the entirely fabulous “ unicorn” was intro duced into our English Version. The American Revised Version rightly translates the word “wild-ox.” There is no etymological warrant for the assumption that it was a one horned animal. Furthermore, had the translators o f 1611 paid strict attention to the simple statement in Deuteronomy 33:17, they could not have made the blunder. It reads: “ His horns are like the horns o f reem” ; and “ reem” is singular, not plural. Little as they knew about animals, the translators should have known that if the “ reem” had a plurality of horns, he could not be a unicorn ! Thus the Bible not only did not make the error, but actually said enough to guard its translators against the error which they made. (Evidently feeling the inconsistency o f their render ing, the translators made a plural out o f “ reem,” thus hid ing the inconsistency from the English reader.)
To the scientist there is no mystery in the circuit of the waters. Be fore his knowledge of meteorology, however, the earliest Biblical writ ing explained the course plainly: "Behold, G od is great, . . . For he draweth up the drops of water, . . . which the skies pour down" (Job 36:26-28, R. V.). T he S cience of A stronomy T o the ancients the stars were countable, and they were estimated variously in the neighborhood of a thousand. Even the wisest o f early observers seems never to have guessed at the incalculable number revealed by the tele scopes o f modern science. But Genesis 15 :5 certainly sug gests this very thing in the words with which Jehovah as sured Abraham as to the number o f his posterity: “ Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them . . . So shall thy seed be.” The same idea is intimated in Isaiah 4 0 :25, 26. Certainly it would not be any infinite exhibition o f power to name a thousand stars! It is also well known that the ancient speculators had their theories o f how the earth was supported. Some put it on adamant pillars; others had it on the back o f an im mense tortoise which rested on a coiled serpent. Still others thought huge elephants upheld it. The myth o f the giant Atlas was once in good standing. How did the Bible writers avoid these absurdities? This restraint in itself would be a most remarkable accomplishment. But Job actually de scribes the exact situation, using o f course the language of appearance, when he says, “ He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing” (2 6 :7 ). T he S cience of M eteorology We understand quite well today why it is that the con stant flowing o f the rivers into the sea does not finally con centrate all the water there. But it was not always under stood. Consider now the acute observation o f the writer of Ecclesiastes: “ All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not fu ll; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” ( 1 :7). Nothing could be more accurate. Solomon, however, does not tell us how the rivers get back to the place from whence they came. But Job will tell you that: “ Behold, God is great, and we know him n o t; the number of his years is unsearchable. For he draweth up the drops of water, which distil in rain from his vapor, which the skies pour down” (36:26, 28, R .V .). About the only fault that any scientist could find with this statement is that God is made the author o f the whole process, which is heresy to a certain school o f thought. The Bible writers, however, saw no reason to keep their theology and their science in separate, air-tight compartments. T he S cience of P hysics Doubtless the most interesting phenomenon in the field of physics is light. Very early we find the Greeks speculat- [C ontinned on page 367]
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter