Bible Romances, First SeriesFoote, G. W. (George William)
Religion
Bible Romances, First Series
Foote, G. W. (George William)
Bible; Free thought
The Bible, it is frequently asserted, was never meant to teach us
science, but to instruct us in religion and morality; and therefore
we must not look to it for a faithful account of what happened in
the external world, but only for a record of the inner experiences of
mankind. Astronomy will inform us how the heavenly bodies came into
existence, and by what laws their motions are governed; Geology will
acquaint us with the way in which the earth's crust was formed, and with
the length of time occupied by the various stages of the process; and
Biology will tell us all about the origin and development of living
things. God has given us reason, by exercising which we may gather
knowledge and establish sciences, so as to explain the past, illustrate
the present, and predict the future; and as reason is sufficient for all
this, there is no need of a divine revelation in such matters. But
as reason is insufficient to teach the will of God and the laws of
morality, a divine revelation of these is necessary, and the Bible
contains it.
This plausible contention cannot, however, be maintained. The Bible
is not silent with respect to astronomy, geology, or biology. It makes
frequent and precise statements concerning them, and in nearly every
instance it contradicts scientific truth as we have amply proved in
previous numbers of this series.
The eleventh chapter of Genesis gives an explanation of the diversity
of languages on the earth. It does this in the truest spirit of romance.
Philologists like Max Müller and Whitney must regard the story of the
Tower of Babel, and the confusion of tongues, as a capital joke. A great
many parsons may still believe it, but they are not expected to know
much.
One fact alone is enough to put the philology of Genesis out of court.
The native languages of America are all closely related to each other,
but they have no affinity with any language of the Old World. It is
therefore clear that they could not have been imported into the New
World by emigrants from the plains of Central Asia. The Genesaic theory
is thus proved to be not of universal application, and consequently
invalid.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account