The Christian View of the Old Testament — John Shaqi
The Christian View of the Old TestamentEiselen, Frederick Carl
Religion
The Christian View of the Old Testament
Eiselen, Frederick Carl
Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Since the scientific position seemed to many devout believers to
undermine the Christian faith, it is not altogether strange that they
should set themselves against these claims with all their might, though
it may be difficult to justify the bitterness displayed by many
Christian ministers in the denunciation of even devout Christian
scientists, as "infidels," "impugners of the sacred records,"
"assailants of the Word of God," etc. It is hardly credible that
during the enlightened {45} nineteenth century geology should be
denounced as "not a subject of lawful inquiry," "a dark art,"
"dangerous and disreputable," "a forbidden province," "infernal
artillery," "an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation."
But the progress of science could not be blocked by denunciation, and
gradually the claims of geology, astronomy, and other sciences
respecting the great age of the earth came to be accepted as well
established. Is, then, the scientific teaching of the Bible false? By
no means, said many defenders of the faith; on the contrary, there is
perfect agreement between science and the Bible, provided the latter is
rightly interpreted. The first problem was to extend what was commonly
taken to be the biblical teaching respecting the age of the earth so as
to meet the demands of geology. This was readily done by interpreting
"day" figuratively as meaning an indefinite period. It could easily be
shown that in some passages "day" did not mean a day of twenty-four
hours. Hence, why not interpret the word metaphorically in Gen. 1? It
is safe to say that, had it not been for a desire to harmonize the
biblical account with the conclusions of science, no Bible student
would ever have thought of this interpretation in connection with the
acts of creation, for a natural interpretation of the writer's language
makes it evident that when the author of Gen. 1 speaks {46} of the
successive events of creation he is thinking of days of twenty-four
hours, each consisting of day and night.[9] Marcus Dods is right when
he says, "If the word 'day' in these chapters does not mean a period of
twenty-four hours, the interpretation of scripture is hopeless."[10]
No permanent good can come from doing violence to plain statements of
the Bible by the use of methods of interpretation that would be
considered illegitimate in the study of other literary productions. In
all the harmonizing efforts this caution has been overlooked. The
believer in revelation, thinking that the agreement between science and
the Bible must be minute, has yielded to the temptation to twist the
biblical record into a new meaning with every fresh discovery of
science. Many scientists were repelled by this arbitrary method, and
when they saw that agreement could not be had by legitimate methods,
and knew of no other way out of the difficulty, they too frequently
assumed a hostile attitude toward revelation. A method leading to such
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