King's Business - 1951-03


Second Article in a New Series by Harry Rimmer, Sc.D.

Reproduced, by permission from the book T h e H a r m o n y of S cien ce a n d S cripture Copyright by Research Science Bureau, Inc.

T HE third reason for saying that the Bible is in harmony with modern science is the remark­ able fashion in which the Bible dis­ agrees with modern error, exactly as it has contradicted ancient fallacy. This, indeed, is the source of the pres­ ent controversy. There are certain men, wise above that which is written, who are enamored of their own super­ learning. They never hesitate to state probabilities and theories in the dog­ matic terms of certainties. Their con­ clusions (which may, indeed, be based upon fact) are to be received as in­ fallible, or else their dignity suffers. When men of this type come face to face with the teachings of the Scrip­ ture, their mental attitude is, “ Away with such a Book, that dares to con­ tradict us!” Every student who has gone through a full college and university course has met this attitude repeatedly, if he attended a typical institution of higher learning. The Bible is declared to be old-fashioned, out-moded, fal­ lible, unscientific, and teeming with error, merely because it does not agree with the theories and conclu­ sions of fallible men. There have been men in other generations who have also thought that the Bible should have been re-written to con­ form to their conclusions. Had the men of that generation, however, tampered with the sacred Word of God to bring it into harmony with what they fondly believed to be un­ disputed fact, the Bible today would be useless to our generation. In that same manner, if we did rewrite the Bible today to suit the learned pro­ fessors in those same institutions, within twenty-five years the world would be laughing at the Bible which we had rewritten. Most of the controversy, of course, has come from the single field that deals with the problems of origin. We may as well state at the very outset that it is crass nonsense to talk about a science of origin. In science we deal not with origin. That is rather the MARCH, 1951

sphere of philosophy. Philosophy, in turn, depends entirely upon human conclusions. Unless we are prepared to make the assertion that our genera­ tion has reached absolute perfection, .we cannot weil claim that our phi­ losophies will not need to be revised by a coming generation. To illustrate this thought with a practical question, we suggest the utter incompatibility between the two present theories of the origin of man. The first of these theories is the Mo­ saic statement of specific creation. To this is opposed the philosophical the­ ory called organic evolution. Between these two theories every thoughtful student must make his choice. We have, of course, heard of those who maintain that they could and did believe in both evolution and creation. This school generally denominates itself as “ believers in theistic evolu­ tion.” The fact of the matter, however, is that these two theories are in such unquestioned opposition that one can­ not believe the Bible to be the infal­ lible Word of God and hold to the the­ ory of organic evolution. We have seen men who could ride two horses at the same time. This is a common spectacle in the circus, and is often seen in the western rodeos, when the cowboys are at play. When the cavalry of any army are putting on their field days, this is one of their most thrilling spectacles. We have noticed, however, that when a man rides two horses at the same time, he is careful to keep them close together and both going in the same direction! We never saw a rider so skillful that he could ride two horses at the same time when they were headed in opposite direc­ tions ! This, then, is the weakness of the theistic evolutionary school of philos­ ophy. The Bible gives a plain, sim­ ple account of the creation of man, in terms that a child can understand. By a fiat act, possible only to Omnip­ otence, Almighty God created man by a miraculous process.

The word for this creation that is used in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament is bara. Every commentary and lexicon that deals with the text of the Old Testament is careful to note that the word bara means to form something out of nothing, or to call into existence that which had no previous form or substance. The Mosaic account of creation states that man was made perfect, in the image and likeness of God. From this high position as God’s fellow, man fell to a depth of sin and degradation lower than the moral condition of the beasts of the field. From that low position he never climbed by his own power, in­ tellect, wisdom, or spirit. Indeed, to that fallen estate he would have been condemned forever had it not been that Jesus Christ came and lifted him. In a word, then, the theory of cre­ ation starts man as high as he can possibly be and portrays his fall to the lowest depths. Page Nine

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker