02.06. IS MY BIBLE AN UNSCIENTIFIC BOOK?
IS MY BIBLE AN UNSCIENTIFIC BOOK?
“Thy word is true from the beginning.” (Psalms 119:160). To raise the question “Are The Scriptures Scientific?” brings a smile to the face of the skeptic, but it gives to the true student occasion of study. The believer accepts without controversy the Psalmist’s statement concerning God’s Book—“Thy word is true from the beginning.” The unbeliever instantly rejects it, but the unprejudiced student only demands evidence for the assertion. To this, intelligent Christians take no exception.
If the Bible will not bear investigation, if scrutiny disclose shortcomings, if research disproves its assertions, if true science discredits its clear claims, it should fall. We could forfeit it without a tear, join in digging its grave without regret, and return to the duties of life smitten by no serious bereavement. But the men best informed upon this subject have little alarm lest that should be the fate of the most revered Book. They contend rather that Scripture and Science are harmonious and that any imaginary conflict between them is only the nightmare of uninformed minds. Holding that God is the author of the Bible and that He is also the Creator of the natural universe, they stand ready to furnish proofs of perfect agreement between God’s Word and God’s work.
Many years ago, and before I had entered upon a series of debates against the proponents of Evolution, a co-laborer in our Northwestern Theological School—a Senior in years and a man of intellect quite as massive as his gigantic body, gave me this advice:
“If you ever have occasion to debate, insist upon the definition of the terms involved. Definition results in definiteness and lays some limitations upon the parties involved.”
We propose now a similar procedure and pass to THE DEFINITION OF TERMS The subjects of our present concern are Scriptures and Science. The Standard Dictionary defines Science.
It is “knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking; especially as methodically formulated and arranged in a rational system.” That definition takes you at once out of the realm of speculation; it disposes of such terms as “theory”, “assumption”, “hypothesis’’, making them possible servants of science, but never its synonyms. A hundred years ago we had our sciences so-called, but today the most of them sleep in the Morgue of Speculation. The explanation is easy: “The verification of knowledge by exact observation and correct thinking” is the highest accomplishment of which the human mind is capable. Not every man who cries “Eureka” has found it. This is not to inveigh against the sincerity of investigators, nor to suggest a cessation from their researches, nor even to reject all their conclusions; but only to call attention to the difficulties that beset their way and warn against the mistake of identifying science with “speculation” or “theory” or “hypothesis”, as has often and so falsely been done with the guess of Evolution.
“Knowledge gained and verified by exact observation and correct thinking” will never be overthrown by mortal men, nor even by God Himself. An inspired apostle defines Scripture.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Paul speaks of “all Scripture” as that which is “God-breathed,” and the method of its arrival was that “holy men of God spake as they were moved (or borne along) by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21).
Conscious of belonging himself to that inspired company, Paul affirms: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” (1 Corinthians 2:13).
We confess very frankly that this passage seems to us to agree with hundreds of others in confirming the verbal inspiration of the Bible. College students know that many professors now strongly inveigh against that doctrine: and even though they belong to the professed Christian company, they propagate another theory altogether, admitting that God may “have “stimulated” the thought, hut objecting to His having provided “words” with which to clothe it. The Verbal Inspiration theory is now commonly set aside and the doctrine of “illumination”‘ is advocated instead, as the most that can be claimed for the authors of the sixty-six books that constitute this great Library. The same men, however, who reject the Bible as the very Word of God, would go into court tomorrow and insist upon the settlement of an estate in which they were named as heirs, on a verbal basis, and would call the attention of attorneys and judge to “what was written” and, unless they had some unrighteous end to be conserved, they would permit no departure from the very words in which the testator had expressed himself.
It is little wonder, therefore, that the New Testament writers, who may be conceded to have known what the Scriptures were, refer to the Old Testament more than eighty times as that “which is written ‘; and never once did they abandon the literal acceptance of the same. The modern method of admitting that the Bible may “contain” the Scriptures but is not itself “wholly God’s Word,” is merely a form of unbelief. If God has revealed His will to men in this Book it is hardly reasonable that He would do so with less care than any intelligent, faithful father would show in framing the document that bequeathed his possessions to his children. If in the Civil Courts the slightest word of the testator is the weightiest law, who would dare to treat with contempt, thought or phrase found in the Divine will?
Let it be understood there is a decided difference between the plain statement of Sacred Scripture and some absurd interpretation. The scientist is under no obligation whatever to harmonize “knowledge gained and verified” with fanciful interpretations of Holy Writ: nor. is the intelligent student of Scripture under the slightest obligation to bring the Bible into line with the pseudo-sciences of the day. Science is God’s voice in nature and the Scriptures are God’s voice in Grace. It does not fall to the lot of any mortal to harmonize these voices; the harmony is in Him. This common authorship compels agreement. With man that would not be a logical necessity. Man can, and often does, write and speak contradictory things.
It is said that an auditor once went to Mr. Beecher and said: “Dr. Beecher, what you said today was contrary to what you said last Sunday.” To which Beecher is reported to have replied: “Come and hear me next Sunday and may contradict the statements of both days.” But such contraversion is not consonant with the character of God.
“* * * He abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.” (2 Timothy 2:13). On more than one occasion I have heard liberal theologians discuss the subject of “Harmony Between Science and Scripture” and apparently to their personal satisfaction accomplish the same by quietly dismissing the claims of the Sacred Book with a waive of the hand or a jerk of the head, saying, for instance, of Moses and other early writers—“They faithfully recorded the views of their day, but Science has long since discredited such primitive impressions.” Is that harmony? Is it not rather annihilation? It may let you out of your difficulty, but you escape at the expense of inspiration, and to the unspeakable loss of the people.
There used to be an eccentric preacher in Kentucky, well known to the author. He did no great amount of study, and yet he commonly preached with unction. One day he found himself before an audience with no unction on hand; even thoughts refused to come. He floundered through a few ill-formed sentences, and then, squarely facing his audience he said: “Brethren and sisters; you think I have got into the brush and can’t get out, don’t you? Well, I’ll show you; we’ll just look to the Lord and be dismissed!” But let it be understood that when one dismisses the claims of the Sacred Book and walks out of his difficulties, he has lost the Divine message and left the hungry multitudes unsatisfied.
However, these three primal remarks but introduce— THE THINGS OF DEBATE
Frankly we enter upon that without the least fear. God’s Holy Book has lived through a war of several thousand years, and, instead of wearying with the battle, it is more virile and combative today than ever before. “Defeat” is not in God’s dictionary. To the conflict then!
We concede that Genesis is the storm center of this controversy. That has come largely in consequence of Charles Darwin’s work on “The Origin of Species.” The ancient author of the Pentateuch and the modern philosopher of Evolution are in direct conflict. The so-called Liberals of the day follow Darwin; conservative scholars consent with Moses. The reason for the course of the latter is found in the fact that to this good hour not one statement of that matchless chapter—Genesis 1—has been shown to be unscientific. In demonstration of this declaration, let us take the statements up in their order:
First — “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1).
Here two questions of Science are involved— the source of the physical universe, and the order of Origins.
Beyond controversy Sir William Thomson, or Lord Kelvin, was, in the realm of science, without a superior in his day. Concerning the origin of the Universe he said:
“Science positively affirms creative power.” Among modern astronomers, James Jeans knows no superior, and yet he does not hesitate to speak of “the Creator” and of “Creation”; and while he does not use the Biblical term “God,” he does say: “The great architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician.” The views of Professor Millikan are well known to the scientific world, and Jeans quotes him as having said of creation: “The Creator is still on the job.”
Again the order of creation as set forth here is that now uniformly accepted by scientists, namely, so far as our section of the universe is concerned the heavenly bodies were created first and the earth afterwards. In other words, the old geocentric system which looked upon the earth as the center of the universe (which for thousands of years after Moses was held by supposed scientists) had to give place to the heliocentric system; but into that mistake Moses never fell.
It is doubtful if there is a scientist living who would deny that at one time “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” (Genesis 1:2). The statement of Genesis 1:3—“* * * Let there be light: and there was light”—before the rays of the sun had reached the earth (on the fourth day), was at one time disputed; but finally Laplace appeared declaring it to be a scientific certainty, that in the condensation of the originally formless chaos, there was such molecular and chemical action as must have emitted light! No truth-seeker arose to dispute him, and Boardman in his “Creative Week” remarked: “Why will the Academy vote Moses a blunderer for declaring that light existed before the sun appeared, and yet vote Laplace a scientist for affirming precisely the same thing?”
Take Genesis 1:5—“And God called the light Day ,and the darkness he called Night”
Till now the language of science has not departed from this statement. “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
“And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
“And God called the firmament Heaven.” (Genesis 6:1-8). Huxley is reputed to have slipped here by charging Moses with believing that heaven was a solid substance resting like a canopy over the earth. But Huxley’s mistake was the result of his ignorance of Hebrew since the word translated into the Latin “firmamentum” is the Hebrew word “rakiah”, correctly translated “a broad expanse.”
How significant! “A broad expanse”! The present-day scientist will tell you that that “expanse” is so broad that they know not whether it be finite or infinite; so broad that though Jeans insists that the only thing with which we are familiar that can compare in number with the stars are the sands of the sea; and yet, innumerable as those stars are, and enormous in size, almost past human computation, this broad expanse, instead of being insufferably crowded, Jeans also declares to be emptier than anything we can imagine; and then illustrates by saying:
“Leave only three wasps alive in the whole of Europe and the air of Europe will still be more crowded with wasps than space is with stars.” And as for the waters which were in the heavens and the waters that are on the earth, modern science has again justified Moses by telling us that there is a veritable sea forever suspended in the first heavens by the law of evaporation! If any man doubt it let him express his skepticism to dwellers along the Ohio River or the Mississippi valley who lately had the scientific demonstration of seeing oceans of it fall from the firmament above to the firmament below. But still further:
“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
“And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas; and God saw that it was good.” (Genesis 1:9-10). That statement used to be laughed at as a further sign of Moses’ ignorance, supposing that he had seen but one sea and imagined it the only one on earth! But now exploration has turned the laugh on Moses’ critics, for it has proven, as Dana in his “Manual of Geology” tells us, that while the continents are separated, the seas occupy one bed.
Here is wisdom that is wonderful!
Proceeding now to the Acts of Creation we find a remarkable agreement between Genesis and Geology. They both begin with grass as the oldest form of life and come up through herbs, trees, fish, fowl, living creatures, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth to man as the last and most wonderful of God’s creations.
There is not a mistake from the standpoint of the geologist in this arranged system. The very rocks bear testimony to the Divinity of this revelation.
I have found it extremely interesting to compare Genesis and Geology at other points. There are mentioned in the 1st chapter of Genesis three creative periods relating themselves to life upon the earth, called the Third Day, the Fifth Day and the Sixth Day of Divine work.
I consult my Dictionary and find it also recognizes three creative periods—Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Zenozoic. Is this a coincidence? When I turn back to the specimens found in these three periods I discover that they are all quite clearly included in the Genesis account. But I must pause a moment to remark on the almost unthinkable wisdom found in the Fourth Day procedure where, not the earth, but the heavens are the subject of consideration.
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night;
“And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:16-17). On this let me make two or three observations that should at least impress the most confirmed skeptic.
First of all the word “made” is not “bara”— which implies a creative act, but “asah”—a Hebrew word that suggests appointment to function. There is, therefore, no inharmony between Genesis 1:1 where God created the heavens and Genesis 1:16 where He appointed the sun and the moon “to rule over the day and over the night.”
More remarkable still is the statement—“the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.”
How did Moses find out that the Sun was bigger than the Moon? He had no instruments with which to effect their measure, and all the appearances were to the contrary. I have seen the rising Moon when six to eight feet seemed to be its diameter, and the setting Moon under similar conditions; but three or four feet at the most would commonly compass the rising Sun, or the Sun at set.
Again: If Moses had witnessed an eclipse— and perhaps he had—when the Moon came right in front of the Sun it not only dimmed it but covered it completely, indicating its excess in size. The Greeks, therefore, following natural reason, believed that the dimness of the Moon was due to its distance from the earth, and that it was the larger of the two heavenly lights; and just as naturally reasoned that the proximity of the Sun to the earth accounted for the warmth from that great center. But now that modern science has mastered the subject, we find—in the language of Jeans— that the Sun is not only 400 times as distant from the earth as the Moon, but it is also 5 million times as big as the Moon. Its diameter is about 400 times the Moon’s diameter, or 109 times the earth’s diameter; or 864,000 miles; and that no fewer than 1,300,000 earths could be packed inside its circumference.
Before these facts, clearly outlined in Genesis, let the critics come and humbly confess—not the mistakes of Moses but of Bob Ingersoll and all skeptical confreres.
I will not at this time undertake to prove the very easily compassed proposition that man is a creation of God—the climax of His work on earth and not an evolution from an amoeba; that I have done so often in other addresses and hooks as to obviate the necessity of repetition here.
But, I conclude as I began by saying that the first chapter of Genesis has weathered the storm and comes out of the conflict with flying colors, its every proposition certified by the best scientists of the 20th century. But there are many other Scriptures involved in this Controversy.
It is not within the province of this address to take up the asserted instances of conflict between science and Scripture, since that has been accomplished in a former chapter; but we here propose a marvelous demonstration of agreement instead. In a recent class in Homiletics one of our Theological Seminary students presented an argument for the Inspiration of the Bible in which he said what can be abundantly proven, namely that the Divinity of the Book was strongly argued by the fact that the Bible was historically correct; no mistakes in its historic statements having yet been proven; that the Bible was geographically correct — no dislocation of places having been discovered in its pages; that the Bible was geologically correct— the first chapter of Genesis a demonstration; that the Bible was botanically correct—-the flowers mentioned in it can be found in Bible lands to this day and create a complete herbarium satisfactory to any modern scientist; that the Bible was astronomically correct—not only anticipating for our section of the universe the heliocentric system, but rightly naming and perfectly placing the stars it mentions, and even going so far as to call attention to the now conceded “empty place in the North.”
“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place.” (Job 26:7).
He also presented an argument that the Bible is physiologically correct, and only modern discoveries have convinced us that man is “wonderfully made!”
“I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made***” (Psalms 139:14).
“When I read what the scientists have to say concerning the physical man I feel as I do when I follow Jeans in his vain endeavor to give me some hint of stars and space; I am staggered mentally! But if what they tell me is true, then the Psalmist’s statement concerning the creation of his body is certainly justified.
If there be a thousand miles of blood vessels in my body, if there be 1,500,000 sweat glands on its surface, if my lungs are composed of 700, 000 cells, if my heart has already beat 3, 00, 000.000 times since I was born, and has lifted what would equal the weight of 600,000 tons of blood, if my nervous system controlled by a brain that has 3,000,000,000,000 nerve cells of which 9,200,000,000 are in the cortex or covering of The brain-alone, and if my veins there are 30,000,000 white corpuscles and 130, 000,000,000,000 red ones—then it is some job for an amoeba to evolute himself into that complexity, I grant! It sounds to me more like the work of God. But we proceed: Having just spoken of those thousand miles of blood vessels, it is not out of order to remember the statement of Moses that life is in the blood. (Genesis 9:4).
Harvey, in modern times, discovered this same truth, and now it is uniformly accepted. Natural life is not in the flesh, not the nerves, not in the brains, not in the bones, not in them all combined; it is in the blood. In Ecclesiastes 1:1-18 we have rather clearly set forth two scientific facts which have been paraded in recent centuries as wonderful discoveries. The first belongs to the realm of the so-called Weather Bureau and tells us whence our storms or cold come, and also the source of heat winds; (Ecclesiastes 1:6) and the second compasses the whole question of evaporation.
“All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full.” The reason is assigned here—“Unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7). But perhaps nothing is more remarkable than the scientific statements to be found in the Book of Job. We have already referred to his reference to “the empty place” in the north. Our time forbids that I take up all the scientific suggestions of Job 38:1-41 : Dr. Harry Rimmer in his volume “The Harmony of Science and Scripture” has well accomplished that job, and one stands amazed at their multitude! But I do want to affirm that Job taught the rotundity and the revolutions on its axis of the earth, (see Job 38:13).
Still more remarkable is this ancient’s statement concerning the law of gravity. Other ancients had other methods of supporting the earth on mighty pillars, on the tusks of enormous elephants, on the back of Atlas; but into this folly the inspired writer never fell, for Job wrote:
“And hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Isaiah 26:7) the very deliverance of your latest science.
Even more astonishing still is the statement concerning wind and water. We still employ very unscientific speech when we declare a thing to be “as light as air,” knowing that air has a pressure of 15 pounds to the square inch; and we still talk as if the seas might be dried up, when science says there is no change, and the drops of water—so far as extent is concerned—being only simply a question as to whether it is in liquid or gaseous form. But Job, anticipating the scientists by several thousand years, wrote:
“To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.” (Job 28:25).
Such instances of Scripture statement preceding scientific discoveries could be multiplied out of number; but I refrain in order to remark:
It is high time pseudo-scientists surrendered their skepticism.
Refusal to be convinced when such facts face them reminds one of Aesop’s fable.
You will remember that the wolf, coming upon the lamb, said to him:
“You are feeding upon my grass and I’m going to eat you for it.” But the lamb replied: “Sir, I am but a babe and have never tasted grass as yet. My mother’s milk suffices for my food.” To which the wolf responded: “But you drank from my spring, and on that account I will eat you.” And again the lamb said: “No, Sir; I have not done so. My mother’s milk is drink as well as food and I have never tasted water.” Whereupon the wolf replied:
“Well, anyway I’m not going to be cheated out of my meal”—and he started in to kill and consume.
Such a conduct ill becomes the true scientist. He should be a searcher for truth and when “knowledge gained and verified” is presented to him he should have an open mind and be subject to conviction.
We pass now to THE UNDEBATABLE THEMES There are Scripture subjects upon which Science is Silent.
There are points of human experience of which the microscope reveals nothing, the telescope tells us nothing; they transcend scientific investigation. Tyndale admitted that the problem of the universe would never be solved. And yet that problem is not so difficult from the scientific standpoint as are the problems of sin, substitution and salvation. There have been many theories as to how sin came into the world; but if the Bible statements be rejected, the so-called scientific philosophy proves unsatisfactory, As Joseph Parker, the great City Temple, London, pastor once remarked, “the faintest scratch reveals the wolf in us.”
Paul, whose experience and observations on human life have seldom been exceeded, said: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of the which, I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Jesus, admittedly the soundest Judge of human life the world ever saw, said:
“Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man.” For two thousand years, yea, for seven thousand, supposed scientists and professed philosophers have worked at the problem of sin and are as much at sea regarding the origin of sin, and as remote from the solution of the problem as they were when first they began. The only light we have that has proven of value is that from the sacred Word and that found in Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. If this statement needs verification we can present a few millions of men and women whose experience attests its truthfulness; and in the last analysis, that is a scientific confirmation of Scripture. The multiplied experiences of men demonstrate the divinity of the Bible. Wherever this book has gone light has walked in its wake, morals have improved and life itself has not only been made worthwhile, hut both inspired and protected by its teachings. A skeptic, in crossing Africa, found a native chieftain sitting calmly under a tree reading from a book. When asked what he was doing, he said, “Beading my Bible.”
“Why man,” remarked the skeptic, “don’t you know that that Book is out of date?”
“Maybe so in your country, but it is a good thing for you that it is not so in this, for had it been, we would have, some time since, made meal of you.”
It was James Russell Lowell, was it not, who said:
“When the microscopic search of skepticism, which has hunted the heavens and searched the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has turned! Is attention to human society and has found a place on this planet ten miles square where a decent man can live in comfort and security, supporting and educating his children unspoiled and unpolluted; a place where age is reverenced, infancy respected, manhood regarded, woman honored, and human life held in due esteem—when skeptics can find such a place ten miles square on this globe where the Gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way and laid the foundation and made decency and security possible, it will then be in order for these skeptical literati to move thither, and there ventilate their views.”
There is a realm of the spirit that is super- scientific.
God does not come within the range of the modern telescope; revelation is not subject to the measurement of the modern yardstick, and spiritual experience is not to be investigated by the modern lense. When the man who has been drunken for twenty years, and who, as a result, is a ragged, social outcast, staggers into a downtown mission and hears the Gospel and comes out never to drink again, supposed scientists will never be able to explain it; but that does not effect what you and I have often seen. When a woman who has walked in the ways of wickedness is visited by a Christian sister and brought face to face with Scripture teaching until, under profound conviction, she cries, “God be merciful to me a sinner” and after some minutes of weeping rises with a face from which a new light shines, and declares that she has personally met the Redeemer and knows that her sins are pardoned, and gladly takes the path that “shines more and more unto the perfect day” true science will never disregard what men and women have seen. They know that this Book contains the Gospel that has proven and can prove, “the power of God unto salvation” ; and seeing that, they believe the Book divine.
One night in Paris, France, I was preaching and Dr. Reuben Saillens was my interpreter. I came to the close of a discourse upon this same subject, and I turned to Dr. Saillens and said:
“Now, Dr. if you can put into such French language as not to despoil its rhythm, I would like to close with a poem of which I am very fond,” but concerning which I had seen again and again, “author unknown,” and I started in. At the end of my first line he was in a hearty laugh, and I could not imagine why my great friend should treat a poem of such portent, so lightly. He divined my embarrassment and said:
“Excuse me Dr.; but I assure you I can put that poem into French, since I wrote it myself some fifty years ago.” In his early life Saillens was a blacksmith and from that experience he brought this poem:
‘I paused one day beside the blacksmith’s door And listened to the anvil ring the evening’s chime And looking in I saw upon the floor, Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
“ ‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I, ‘To wear and batter out these hammers so?’
‘Just one,’ he answered, with a twinkling eye, ‘The anvil wears the hammer out, you know.’
“And so, I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of infidel was heard The anvil is unworn, the hammers gone!” So more and more skeptic-hammers will beat upon it, but the Book will abide, “Forever, Oh Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven.”