THE BOOK OF GENESIS. |
Ver. 1. Speech. Probably Hebrew; in which language we have the most ancient book in the world, the work of Moses. This language has been preserved ever since, though with some alterations. Most of the oriental languages are but like dialects from it, as French, Italian, &c. are from Latin. The arguments which are brought to prove that other languages are more ancient, because the names of men, &c. have a proper significance in them as well as in Hebrew, do not invalidate the right of the latter. The most respectable authors have, therefore, always declared for it. (Haydock)
Ver. 2. The East: Armenia, which lies to the eastward of Babylonia, whither they directed their course in quest of provisions for themselves and cattle, being now grown pretty numerous. (Menochius*)
Yerevan 40°10′53″N 44°30′52″E
Babylon (as Classical Babylon) 32°32′33″N 44°25′16″E
Yerevan 40°10′53″N 44°30′52″E
Edessa 37°09′N 38°48′E
Cizre 37.332°N 42.187°E
Edessa 37°09′N 38°48′E
Cases where a Book was written in the light of the information which the writer already possesses from natural sources, without special research, are found in the Epistles, and also apparently in the instance of Genesis. Moses would seem to have put into writing the traditions that had been preserved, perhaps in writing or perhaps in the memory of the people, and it is probable that the young children were taught the story by their parents, in the way in which it was ordered that the remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt should be kept alive. (Exodus xii. 26, 27.) The history of the Creation cannot have been known except by revelation; but there is no reason to suppose that this revelation was made to Moses. More probably it was made to Adam, and became known to Moses through human sources. When we speak thus of history having come down to Moses by tradition, we do not mean to imply that there was any special guarantee that the whole of this traditional history should be preserved free from corruption; the case is not like that of the Tradition by which the knowledge of the Christian Revelation is preserved, free from admixture of error, in the Church ; it is enough that God's providence preserved Moses from being misled by any errors that may have crept into the current account.
we do not mean to imply that there was any special guarantee that the whole of this traditional history should be preserved free from corruption
The phrase “fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail” does not mean that the Flood was only fifteen cubits (22 feet) deep, for the phrase is qualified by the one which immediately follows: “and the mountains were covered.” Nor does it necessarily mean that the mountains were covered to a depth of only fifteen cubits, for this would require that all antediluvian mountains be exactly the same altitude. 3 The true meaning of the phrase is to be found in comparing it with Genesis 6:15, where we are told that the height of the Ark was thirty cubits. Nearly all commentators agree that the phrase “fifteen cubits” in 7:20 must therefore refer to the draught of the Ark. In other words, the Ark sank into the water to a depth of fifteen cubits (just one-half of its total height) when fully-laden.
It would require real energy and faith to follow Noah’s example and build other Arks, but it would have required neither of these to pack up a few things. and migrate. There is nothing that Noah could have done to stop them except by disappearing very secretly. Such a departure could hardly act as the kind of warning that the deliberate 10 construction of the Ark could have done. And the inspiration for this undertaking was given to Noah by leaving him in ignorance of the exact limits of the Flood. He was assured that all mankind would be destroyed, and probably supposed that the Flood would therefore be universal. This supposition may have been quite essential for him.
[Arthur C. Custance, The Extent of the Flood: Doorway Papers #41 (Ottawa: Published by the author, 1958),] p. 18. Custance feels that the Ark was not overly large (see above, p. 10) and that it did not take over a century to build. The 120 years of Gen. 6:3, in his opinion, refers to man’s future life-span. But where is the evidence that man’s life span after the Flood was to be 120 years? Many men lived much longer than this (11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 25:7; 35:28; 47:9). See [Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd Ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949),] p. 230, and [H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1942),] pp. 256-257.
But how can one read the Flood account of Genesis 6-9 with close attention and then arrive at the conclusion that the Ark was built merely to warn the ungodly, and not mainly to save the occupants of the Ark from death by drowning? And how can we exonerate God Himself from the charge of deception, if we say that He led Noah to believe that the Flood would be universal, in order to encourage him to work on the Ark, when He knew all the time that it would not be universal?
P. J. Wiseman, like I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, will present a case for the more traditional view of the Book of Genesis against JEDP theory, though with a twist. Moses substantially the author of the Pentateuch, was not properly speaking the author of Genesis, but its editor.
Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, the same can basically be said for the fundamentalist biblical approach, ridiculed by Kikawada and Quinn as reactionary.
For although those, such as the Creationists for instance, might give the impression of their complete dedication to uncovering the truths of the Bible - and I am sure that that is generally their sincere intention - they, too, read the text from a modern, generally Westernised, scientific point of view. In fact one astute commentator has rightly described Creationism as a form of modernism, attempting to reduce Genesis to science.
This Book is called Judges, because it contains the history of what passed under the government of the judges, who ruled Israel before they had kings. The writer of it, according to the more general opinion, was the prophet Samuel. (Challoner)
Some are of opinion, that the judges might have each left records of their respective administrations, (Menochius) which might be put in order by Samuel. The author of this book seems to have lived under the reign of Saul, before David had expelled the Jebusites, chap. xviii. 31. (Du Hamel)
Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)
The influence of John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), and the Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917), led many members of the Plymouth Brethren movement to adopt belief in old-earth creation, as opposed to young-earth creation, or theistic evolution. The preferred old-earth view was the gap theory, with less willingness to accept belief in pre-Adamic races, or the day-age position.
John Nelson Darby, the Scofield Reference Bible, and the rise of old-earth creationism
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 36(3):123–128, December 2022
https://creation.com/darby-and-scofield-bible
Ulm, Lemgo, Edinburgh, Paris, London, Petit-Montrouge, Brunswick, Leipzig, Vienna, Mainz, Munich, Regensburg, Trier, Quedlinburg, Louvain, Kœnigsberg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Frankfurt am Main, Lyon, Rouen, Rodez, Clermont-Ferrant, Ghent, Brussels, Madrid (twice), Munster, New York (once), Florence (once), Rome (once), Siena (once), Valladolid (once), Brixen, Barcelona (once ), Steyl, Alessandria (once), Paderborn, Bonn, Linz, Friborg (Switzerland), Geneva, Graz, Cologne, Stuttgart, Berlin, Profnitz.
| Ver. 1. Why hath God? Hebrew, "Indeed hath God, &c." as if the serpent had overheard Eve arguing with herself, about God's prohibition, with a sort of displeasure and presumption. St. Augustine thinks, she had given some entrance to these passions, and the love of her own power, and hence gave credit to the words of the serpent, de Gen. ad lit. xi. 30. | 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? | |
| She might not know or reflect that the serpent could not reason thus, naturally; and she had as yet, no idea or dread of the devil. (Lombard, 2 Dist. 21.) This old serpent entered into the most subtle of creatures, and either by very expressive signs, or by the motion of the serpent's tongue, held this delusive dialogue with Eve. Moses relates what happened exteriorily; but from many expressions, and from the curse, ver. 15, he sufficiently indicates, that an evil spirit was the latent actor. (Haydock) --- Of every tree. Satan perverts the word of God, giving it an ambiguous turn: in doing which, he has set heretics a pattern, which they follow. (Menochius) | ||
| Ver. 24. Cherubims. Angels of the highest order, and of a very complex figure, unlike any one living creature. Theodoret supposes that God forced Adam to retire from that once charming abode, by the apparition of hideous spectres. The devils were also hindered from coming hither, lest they should pluck the fruit of the tree of life, and by promising immortality, should attract men to their service. | 24 And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. | |
| The flaming sword, might be a fire rising out of the earth, of which Grotius thinks the pits, near Babylon, are still vestiges. These dreadful indications of the divine wrath would probably disappear, when Paradise had lost its superior beauty, and became confounded with the surrounding countries --- Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at a loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New[New Adam, Jesus Christ], we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who love darkness rather than the light. (Calmet) --- Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock) | ||
| 4: 2 Corinthians xi. 3.
6: Ecclesiasticus xxv. 33.; 1 Timothy ii. 14. 14: Isaias lxv. 25.; Micheas vii. 17.; Isaias xlix. 23.; Psalm lxxii. 9. | 15: Apocalypse xii.; Genesis xlix. 17.; 1 Corinthians xiv. 34.
19: Genesis xviii. 27. 20: Psalms cii. 14. and xxii.[xxi.?] 16.; Ecclesiastes vii. 12.[xii. 7.?] | |
The age of puberty in the Hebrew affords more scope for the increase of population than that in the other texts. For if a man begin to have a family at thirty, it is likely to be larger than if he began a hundred years later and only lived the same number of years altogether. Now the Hebrew and Samaritan agree generally, against the Septuagint, in the total years of life; and in two instances, Heber and Terah, the Samaritan has even a less number than the Hebrew. It is to be remembered, also, that the number of generations is the same in every case. Hence, in all human probability the Hebrew age of paternity will give the greater number of inhabitants to the world in the age of Abram. If we take the moderate average of five pairs for each family, we shall have for the estimated population 4 X 5(to the 9th power) pairs, or 15,625,000 souls. This number is amply sufficient for all the kingdoms that were in existence in the time of Abram. If we defer the time of becoming a father for a whole century, we shall certainly diminish, rather than increase, the chance of his having so large a family, and thereby the probability of such a population on the earth in the tenth generation from Noah.
Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)
The ‘personification of nature’ claim is simply a hyperliteralistic misunderstanding of a phrase, and a failure to understand that language is defined by usage. The creationists who first proposed NS and Darwinists who followed them never intended it to mean anything cognitive by nature. So we can’t blame the evolutionists for any misunderstandings. This is easy to document.
However, despite the evolutionists’ disclaimers, should we be concerned by a term that even figuratively personifies nature? Actually, scientists do that all the time without any problems. For example, pharmacists might warn about ‘light-sensitive’ medicine that should be stored away from light. Is this really claiming that medicine is literally sentient? According to Guliuzza and some of his colleagues, we must logically say yes.
As a final observation, it’s rather strange to claim that personification of nature is anti-biblical, when the Bible contains passages like “the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12), unless of course the Bible is anti-biblical.
