Can We Believe Genesis?
By Frederick A. Tart ford. Litt. D.*
T HE book of Genesis has been aptly termed the seed plot of the Bible since the germ of all subsequent revelation is contained therein. It is far more, however. It is the foundation upon which the whole doctrinal structure of the New Testament has been built, and if that foundation is demolished, the superstructure must crumble and fall. It is futile to say that a man may believe the Gospels but question Genesis. The two hold together and rejection of the one virtually involves rejection of the other. In this first book of the Bible is the revelation of the Being of God, the origin of the universe, the creation of man, the introduction of sin, the promise of redemption, etc. If any doubt exists regarding the reliability of Gen esis, we are without a revelation, and faith is without a basis. One of the great battle-grounds of the critics has been the Mosaic author ship of the book. Genesis is alleged to have been written by Moses about the 15th century B.C., but the critics long maintained that writing was unknown at that time and that it was therefore impossible for Moses to have been the author. It is now known, however, that Babylonian colleges and universities ex isted long before Moses and that the art of writing was probably of antediluvian antiquity. Indeed, Professor Sayce says of this period, “ From one end of the civilized ancient world to the other, men and women were reading, writing, and corresponding with one another.” Again, it has been suggested that the book is not one homogeneous whole, but is based upon two primitive documents, one of which (J) refers to God as “Jehovah” and the other (E) as “ Elo- him” and which were brought together by a later editor. Subsequent revisions are presumed to have taken place under other editors and two other documents— the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly (P )—incorporated, until there are evi dences of four documents and at least three redactors. Unfortunately for the theory, the title Jehovah often ap pears in the alleged Elohim passages and vice versa, and the attempt to dis entangle the four alleged documents is further complicated by traces of D in P and P in D and of both in the other passages. * Editor, "The Harvester," Sutton, Surrey, England. Page Twelve
is no doubt as to the common origin of man. Anthropologists have pointed out that, in all races, there are the same anatomical structure, the same average duration of life, the same disposition to disease, the same mean temperature of the body, the same average movement of the pulse, the same period of preg nancy, etc. There can be no reasonable doubt regarding the accuracy of the Mosaic statement. It is also stated in Genesis 2:7 that man was made from the dust of the earth. Chemical analysis shows that eighteen elements compose the dust and, moreover, that each of these eighteen elements is to be found in human flesh! Genesis declares that man was created by God in His image and after His like ness. This was long regarded as myth ical and when Darwin first propounded his theory of evolution, it was hailed with delight as completely discrediting the Biblical story. But the scientist to day is not so inclined to accept the theory unreservedly. It is a fairly well established fact that every species has come into being separately and has re tained its separate entity and individual ity throughout its entire history—that, in fact, there is no link between any of the species in the realm of nature. So far as man is concerned, the evolution ist has .sought in vain for the missing link and has been forced to build his case upon such trivialities as a molar tooth, a fragment of a skull, a piece of a thighbone and comparably flimsy evi dences. It was formerly affirmed that there was conclusive proof of the evolutionary theory in the human embryo and that there was a complete recapitulation of the evolutionary process by the human embryo during its development. The idea is now rejected by the medical and sci entific world. Any apparent likeness is purely superficial and not essential. The similarity of the human body to that of the tailless anthropoid ape—the nearest relation of man—was again de clared to be strong evidence that man derived his origin from the ape. The same 200 bones compose the skeleton; the same 300 muscles move the parts; the same hair covers the skin; the same mammary glands provide food for the young, the same four-chambered heart acts as a central pump of the circula tion; the same 32 teeth are found in the jaws; the same group of ganglionic T H E K I N G 'S B U S I N E S S
Apart from the patent foolishness of the theory, there is an interesting in direct refutation of it. After removing the Israelites from Samaria in 721 B.C., the king of Assyria repopulated it with Gentile colonists. At their request, Esar- haddon subsequently sent them a Jewish priest to instruct them regarding the Jewish worship (2 Kings 17:24-41). The priest doubtless took with him a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch, since a Sa maritan version of it has descended to the present day. This was well over a century before the alleged documents D and P were supposed to have been writ ten. Yet the Samaritan Pentateuch in corporates them! Genesis opens with the statement, “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” a statement of majestic simplicity when compared with fantastic cosmogonies of other sacred books. Al though skeptics have sought every pos sible alternative to the Scriptural claim, both the geologist and the astronomer now admit that some force or person must have been the great originator. The findings of geology show that the formation of the earth must have been a gradual process, accomplished by stages. This is precisely what is indi cated in Genesis 1. Science maintains that creation must have followed the order of light, vegetation, fishes, birds, land animals, and finally, man—exactly the order detailed in Genesis 1. Another simple fact tends to confirm the Genesis account. The division of time into days, months and years is deter mined by physical factors: it takes a day for the earth to rotate upon its axis; it takes a lunar month for the moon to revolve around the earth; it takes a year for the earth to complete its revolution around the sun. But in practically every part of the world, there is also an arbitrary division of time into weeks. There is no obvious explana tion of this and it can only be regarded as a striking collateral confirmation of Genesis 1, since it is there that we find the first intimation of this particular division of time. Genesis declares that the human race sprang from a single parental pair and that these two were brought into being by the creative act of God. Despite the scorn poured upon this statement, Prichard has confirmed, after exhaus tive examination of the physical charac teristics of the various races, that there
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker