cells compose the brain; the same repro ductive organs maintain the species. But, despite this marked similarity, there is no link between the two, and scientists have searched in vain for some intermediate form to prove the development of ape into man. One vital fact, which is often ignored when dis cussing the physical similarity, is the big gap between the brain capacity of man and that of the ape. The highest ape has a cranium of 34 cubic inches: the lowest form of man 68 cubic inches —just double! The physical similarity is nothing more than the resemblance of creatures falling in the same class in the animal kingdom. The account of the deluge given in Genesis 7 has, in the past, been the sub ject of ridicule on every side, but there is now no reasonable doubt regarding its accuracy. It is significant that, in practically every country, there are tra ditions of a deluge which destroyed every living thing except a family and animals preserved in a vessel. Obviously such a wide-spread tradition must have had a historical foundation. Tradition is not the only confirmation. In 1929, Sir Leonard Woolley discovered, in his exca vations at Ur of the Chaldees, a stratum of water-laid clay eight feet thick, pat ently deposited by a flood of unexampled magnitude. In the same year, Professor Langdon made a similar discovery at Kish, hundreds of miles away, and both these well-known archaeologists calcu lated the date of the deposit as roughly 3,400 to 3,200 B.C. The remains of antediluvian mam moths, discovered in the Arctic, provide further evidence. The state of these car casses, with their reddened nostrils, co agulated blood and undigested food, tells plainly of sudden and unexpected death by drowning, followed almost immedi ately by freezing. Genesis 11 reveals that there was originally a universal unity of language and that confusion of tongues was in troduced by a direct intervention of God at Babel. This was for a long time re garded as patently absurd, but Max Muller, an outstanding authority on lan guage, came to the conclusion that no alternative view was possible and de clared that philology confirmed the com mon origin of human languages. So far as the confusion of tongues is concerned, the opinion was expressed by Bunsen that “ comparative philology would have been compelled to set forth as a postu late the supposition of some such di vision of languages in Asia, even if the Bible had not assured us of this his torical event.” Legends in many parts of the world give their supplementary confirmation of the Biblical story. Geology, anthropology, ethnology, ar chaeology, philology, medicine, natural history and even mythology combine to emphasize the reliability of Genesis. But the book does not rest upon science for its authentication. The Scriptures them selves bear their own witness to it. The contents of Genesis are reflected throughout the Old Testament. Psalm
105 refers to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph as historical persons; it alludes to the covenant with Abraham mentioned in Genesis, and so on. Isaiah again re peatedly mentions Abraham and Jacob, and chapter 45 makes an obvious allu sion to the Genesis story of creation. Ezekiel 14 refers to Noah as a historical person. Hosea reverts to Genesis in his references to Jacob’s flight from home, his shepherd life and his service for a wife (Hos. 12:12). We might multiply illustrations to show how inextricably Genesis is tied up with the other Old Testament books. To discard Genesis means to discard the Old Testament. Similar considerations apply to the New Testament. In the first place, Christ Himself, has expressly stamped His imprimatur upon the book of Genesis. The Pentateuch of His day was identi cal with that from which our English version has been derived. Our Lord ex plicitly ascribed the authorship of the
Mark 10:6,7). There was patently no doubt in his mind that He was quoting what was historically true and that it was, in fact, the stated mind of God. He who rejects Genesis rejects the au thority and omniscience of the Son of God. The New Testament writers are no less definite and unhesitating in their complete acceptance of the authenticity and historical accuracy of the records of Genesis. In Genesis 1:3 the writer states that, when the earth was enshrouded in dark ness, God directed light to shine forth. When, in Second Corinthians 4:6, the Apostle Paul refers to the spiritual il lumination of the believer, he finds a suitable analogy to illustrate his point in Genesis 1, and declares that “ God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness” i.e., at creation, “ hath shined in our hearts.” His illustration is based on the assumption that the third verse of the Bible relates to a historical fact. Again, Genesis 2:2 states that, when the great six days’ work of creation was complete, God rested on the seventh day. The very words are quoted in Hebrews 4:4 as the statement of an undisputed fact. In Ephesians 5:31, Paul quotes the words used at the marriage of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24), not only to enjoin a high standard of marital con duct, but also to indicate the intimate relationship of Christ to the church. If these words were not possessed of au thority, his argument falls to the ground. The sad story of man’s fall, as nar rated in Genesis 3, is patently regarded throughout the New Testament as his torically authentic. “ The serpent be guiled Eve,” writes the Apostle in First Corinthians 11:3. “ Adam was first formed and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being de ceived was in the transgression,” he tells Timothy (1 Tim. 2:13,14). “ By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin,” he writes to the Romans (Rom. 5:12). “ By man came death,” he tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:21). More over, so closely does the Apostle link the fall of Adam with the death of Christ, that his teaching regarding the atonement is not merely denuded of power but completely destroyed if the Mosaic account of the fall is inaccurate. If Adam did not fall, there was no need for Calvary, Paul builds his whole case on the facts stated in Genesis 3. The fact of the flood is referred to, not only by our Lord, but also by Peter, who declares that God spared not the old world but saved Noah and brought the flood upon the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:4,5). To Abraham, God made the promise that all nations should be blessed in him (Gen. 12:3). Upon this, Peter based his closing argument in his address to the Jews in the temple porch (Acts 3:25). Upon this Paul founded his argument to the Galatians of justification by faith (Gal. 3:8). According to Genesis 22:18,
Pentateuch to Moses and declared that these particular Scriptures spoke of Him (Luke 24:44; Matt. 5:17,18). Of the historical accuracy of Genesis, He clearly had no doubt. He referred, for instance, to the conditions in the days of Noah, the use of the ark, and the fact of the flood (Matt. 24:37-39) as though the account recorded in Gen esis was of unquestioned reliability. He quoted references to Abel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Luke 11:51; Mark 12:26; John 8 : 37, 39, 40, 56, 58) as though they were indisputably correct. On several occasions He gave indirect confirmation of man’s fall and sinner- ship, and declared that remission of the sentence of death, recorded in Genesis, was possible by faith in His name (John 3:16; Luke 24:47). Indeed, His life and death become meaningless if the early chapters of Genesis are not the inspired Word of God. Our Lord quoted from the first book of the Bible as though it was final and authoritative and there could be no ques tion regarding the validity and correct ness of its statements. When, for ex ample, the Pharisees raised their ques tion as to the legality of divorce, He cited Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as the final answer: “ Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female?” (incidentally confirm ing the story of creation). “ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his w ife: and they shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:4,5;
O C T O B E R , 1 9 5 2
Page Thirteen
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker