seven days; _cf._ _Is. 2:12_—“_a day of Jehovah of hosts_”; _Zech. 14:7_—“_it shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day, and not night_”; _2 Pet. 3:8_—“_one day is with the Lord as __ a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_”). Guyot, Creation, 34, objects also to this interpretation, that the narrative purports to give a history of the making of the heavens as well as of the earth (_Gen. 2:4_—“_these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth_”), whereas this interpretation confines the history to the earth. On the meaning of the word “_day_,” as a period of indefinite duration, see Dana, Manual of Geology, 744; LeConte, Religion and Science, 262. (_c_) The _hyperscientific interpretation_ would find in the narrative a minute and precise correspondence with the geological record. This is not to be expected, since it is foreign to the purpose of revelation to teach science. Although a general concord between the Mosaic and geological histories may be pointed out, it is a needless embarrassment to compel ourselves to find in every detail of the former an accurate statement of some scientific fact. Far more probable we hold to be (_d_) The _pictorial-summary interpretation_. Before explaining this in detail, we would premise that we do not hold this or any future scheme of reconciling Genesis and geology to be a finality. Such a settlement of all the questions involved would presuppose not only a perfected science of the physical universe, but also a perfected science of hermeneutics. It is enough if we can offer tentative solutions which represent the present state of thought upon the subject. Remembering, then, that any such scheme of reconciliation may speedily be outgrown without prejudice to the truth of the Scripture narrative, we present the following as an approximate account of the coincidences between the Mosaic and the geological records. The scheme here given is a combination of the conclusions of Dana and Guyot, and assumes the substantial truth of the nebular hypothesis. It is interesting to observe that Augustine, who knew nothing of modern science, should have reached, by simple study of the text, some of the same results. See his Confessions, 12:8—“First God created a chaotic matter, which was _next_ to _nothing_. This chaotic matter was made from nothing, before all days. Then this chaotic, amorphous matter was subsequently arranged, in the succeeding six days”; De Genes. ad Lit., 4:27—“The length of these days is not to be determined by the length of our week-days. There is a series in both cases, and that is all.” We proceed now to the scheme: