335
September, 1936
T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
ignorant, in all places, and in all ages. A mention o f the “ sun rising” is understood perfectly by both the African savage and Dr. Einstein. It is one of the marks o f Biblical inspiration that when God desired to give His supreme revelation in the New Testament writings, He spoke not in the language of the intelligentsia, but in the “ koine,” the Greek o f the common man of the streets. T he C hristian V iew of the B ible and S cience As to the relation of the Bible and science, the follow ing statements represent in general the position that the Christian thinker must hold: (1 ) The Bible was not writ ten primarily to teach us the natural sciences, but rather to reveal God’s plan and work in saving sinners. (2 ) It is a fact, however, that the Bible touches upon many matters which fall within the domain o f those sciences; and for this reason it is folly to postulate an absolute separation between the two. (3 ) The Bible, when patiently studied and fairly interpreted, will be found to contain none o f the absurdities so common to other ancient literature, but A noted scientist states: "The leaves of On the c o n tr a r y dis- trees seem to act as efficient bacterial plays many striking ■ ■ gS B!,l?le ther! H i f J . *, 1 , 1 concerning the tree of life : The harmonies with the es- leaves of the tree were for the healing tablished facts o f sci- of the nations" (Rev. 22:2).
criticism it is quite well known that many of the alleged inaccuracies o f the Bible have been based on scientific theories, not upon established facts. It is well to recall in this connection that even the scientists have made mistakes in the past. Professor Lyell, a noted geologist in his day, once said: “ In the year 1806 the French Institute enum erated no less than eighty geological theories which were hostile to the Scriptures; but not one of those theories is held today.” Before any man has a right to pronounce the Bible at fault scientifically, he should be certain, not only that his interpretation o f the Bible is sound, but also that he is dealing with an established fact o f science. With these two points settled, then he would be eligible to dis cuss the mistakes o f the Bible. T he B ible and S cientific T erms Fourth, in approaching the Bible, the investigator must not expect to find nature described with the terminology o f science. It is well understood that a man may speak accurately on a scientific subject even though he may not employ the technical language o f science. There are sev eral reasons why the Bible avoids such terminology. For one thing, scientific terms are constantly changing. Some become obsolete; others are being coined to describe and designate the new discoveries. The Bible, as a revelation from God, had to come to man at some point in human his tory. I f it had adopted the scientific terminology of any particular age in the past, it would have been out of date within a short period of time. If it had been given in the language o f the final science— assuming, o f course, that God knows His own world— no one would be able to under- stand it, not even the most learned scientists. Furthermore, even we ourselves, and also the greatest scientists o f the age, are not accustomed to using the language and strict terminology of science in speaking of nature. All of us constantly speak of the sun as “ rising” and “ setting,” when every schoolboy knows that the sun does nothing of the kind, but that the revolution o f the earth upon its axis only makes the sun appear to “ rise” and “ set.” Why then should we find fault with the Bible for using such language? It is unquestionably a great mercy for most o f us that God does not use scientific phraseology in His Word. Let the reader consider this specimen taken from a daily newspaper: A young surgeon, recently out of school, was called to testify in an assault case. Under oath he stated that he found the injured plaintiff “ suffering from a severe contusion o f the integuments under the left orbit, with great extravasation o f blood and ecchymosis in the surrounding cellular tissues, which were in a state o f tu midity.” The twelve “ good men and true” on the jury, having heard the testimony, concluded that the plaintiff must have been nearly killed, and they were about to render a verdict in his favor when the counsel for the defense, who also was somewhat acquainted with medical terminology, pointed out that the learned savant had given a description o f what ordinarily is called a “ black eye” ! Now, if we wish to be scientifically exact in our description, we should re member that a “ black eye” is not black, but blue or indigo. Nevertheless, everybody knows precisely what«we mean when we speak o f a “ black eye.” And, after all, the real purpose o f language is to convey intelligible knowledge. When it fails to do this, it is useless. The Bible was not written especially for any select group o f intellectuals, but for the common people, the care worn, struggling, suffering millions o f the race who have had little opportunity to master scientific terms and keep abreast o f the times. In the main, therefore, when the Bible speaks of nature, it uses the language of appearance. Such language is understood by all men, the wise and the
ence. It is the main purpose o f this article to point out a few of the harmonies. T he S cience of ; P lant L ife The O ld T e s ta ment mentions o v e r two hund red speci mens o f plant life, r a n g i n g from the stately cedar o f Leb anon down to the little vine that clings to the wall; yet it contains none o f the erroneous notions found in other contemporaneous writ ings? Genesis 1:11 con tains an interesting reference. S p eak ing of the botanical world, it suggests the follow ing threefold division o f plant life: .“ Grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit, tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.” T h e w o r d translated “ grass” is the Hebrew “deshe,” wh ich , according to Ellicott, refers to “ a mere greenness, with out visible seed or stalk, such as to this day may be seen on the surface of rocks.” This threefold divi- [Continued on page 339]
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter