Biology versus Theology. The Bible: irreconcilable with Science, Experience, and even its own statementsJulian
Religion
Biology versus Theology. The Bible: irreconcilable with Science, Experience, and even its own statements
Julian
Bible and science
Many other examples of a similar contrariety might be added, but the mere
multiplication of evidence can serve no useful purpose when enough has
been brought forth to establish the point in question. We might refer to
the miracle of Joshua (x., 12.) in proof of the vulgar notion that it is
the sun which moves over the earth, not the earth round the sun; we might
direct attention to Gen. ix., 13, in proof that Moses supposed the
rainbow to be a miraculous exhibition of God’s power in confirmation of
his covenant with Noah; or we might dwell on the 2nd Epistle of Peter
(iii., 10–12) to show that the prince of the Apostles believed that the
heavens could be burnt with fire, like the roof of a house, and the
elements be melted by fervent heat. We might cite a whole host of verses
to prove that the Scripture writers believed the earth to be a vast plane
with an abyss, and the whole rigidly fixed on a solid foundation wholly
immovable.
Or we might turn to the physiological notions of the Bible writers to
show that they were no more in advance of the period than their notions
of astronomy, geology, and general history. They referred intellectual
operations to the kidneys or reins:—“My reins instruct me in the night
season” (Ps. xvi., 7). The affections they ascribe to the heart, and
bodily pain to the bones. They believed epilepsy to result from
demoniacal possession; that mandrakes provoked fecundity in women (Gen.
xxx., 14–16; Cant. vii., 13.); that peeled withes, placed before pregnant
ewes, would affect the colour of their lambs (Gen. xxx., 37.); that ants
eat corn and lay up for themselves a store for winter (Prov. v., 6.);
that bees can be generated from a dead carcase (Judges xiv., 8.); that
falling meteors or stars prognosticate evil (Ezek. xxxii., 7.; Matt,
xxiv., 29.); that spittle contains a charm to cure blindness and other
maladies (John ix., 6, 7.; Mark vii., 33–35.; viii., 23, 24.); and that
the stars exercise an influence on the lot of our life (Judges v., 20).
But to enumerate all the instances of contrariety between Scripture and
science would occupy more than all the pages of the present pamphlet;
suffice it to say, that every false notion of the age is endorsed as an
inspired fact, and no single error is corrected, or new truth brought to
light. We must now leave this part of our subject and proceed to the
next division.
PART II.
SCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
It is not our intention to dwell at any length upon what are termed the
miracles of Scripture. Of course they are contrary to experience, but
then they are acknowledged miracles, and those who believe such things
possible satisfy their minds by the persuasion that He who made the laws
of nature can suspend them at will, or can introduce some new factor at
need to bring about preternatural results.
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