Biology versus Theology. The Bible: irreconcilable with Science, Experience, and even its own statements

by Julian

But of this enough. Come we to the physical features of the heavens and the earth according to the writers of the Old and New Testaments.

The earth is represented by these writers as immovable in the centre of the universe, and the heavenly bodies are described as revolving round it. The clouds (rakia) are supposed to be a solid body sustaining an ocean of water similar to the seas: “God said, let there be a firmament (rakia) in the midst of [or between] the waters, and let it divide the waters [of the sea] from the waters [of the clouds], and it was so.” This solid firmament, or roof of the earth, is said to have windows or casements in it, which are opened to let the rain fall through.

The New Testament makes no advance upon these primitive notions. We are told (Matt, iv., 8) that the devil on one occasion took Jesus to a high mountain, and showed him thence “all the kingdoms of the world.” Of course the writer supposed the world to be a flat surface, the whole of which could be seen from one spot, if of sufficient elevation. In like manner the solidity of the clouds is taken for granted, for thrones are set upon them, and Christ, it is said, will show himself hereafter “sitting on the clouds,” attended with his court of angels.

We grant that many expressions of daily use will not bear a close analysis. Thus we talk of being “charmed” and “enchanted” without the remotest idea of incantation; and when we say “the sun rises and sets” we ignore the active character of these phrases. These, and hundreds of other words, have acquired a conventional meaning: thus charmed means “greatly delighted,” and the phrases “rising in the east” and “setting in the west,” applied to the sun, mean simply that it shows itself at daybreak in the east, and as the day closes disappears in the west.

This conventional use of words is a very different matter to the endorsing of vulgar errors. To say that the sun rises and sets can mislead no one. It teaches nothing beyond an optical fact, and can in no wise justify such teaching as this: The earth is a vast plane, buoyed up on a bed of water; and under this water is the region of hell, where Satan rules supreme over the fallen angels. The clouds are a solid roof sustaining an aerial ocean, the fountain of our rain; and above this is the region of heaven, where God rules as an earthly potentate, and where are mansions, streets, rivers, and trees, after the fashion of this earth.

It is said again, if Moses had written like a modern geologist, no one would have understood him. Apply this to Newton, or any early teacher of a new science. What would be said of Newton, if he had taught the myths of Scandinavian mythology under a similar plea? If his discoveries of light and gravitation were not new, they were no discoveries at all; but if they were new they were unknown. It is the part of a teacher to teach, to correct errors, and not to perpetuate them; to tell what is not known, and not confirm the folly of ignorance and superstition.

Once more. It is said that the object of the Bible is to teach religion and not science. Granted. And the object of an astronomer is to teach astronomy, of a geologist to teach geology. What then? Is the astronomer and geologist free to revel in all sorts of errors provided they do not affect his special science? No one would advance such a plea except for a sinister purpose. But admitting it for the sake of argument, what is gained by the admission? The express object of the first chapter of Genesis is to teach science. It professes to tell us how the world was made; and all its teaching is wrong. The object of Genesis vii. and viii. is to teach history. It professes to tell us how the world was destroyed by a flood; and the teaching is all wrong. The object of Genesis xi. is to teach ethnology. It professes to tell us how men became dispersed over the earth, and how it is that different nations speak different tongues; and the teaching is all wrong. It is no justification to plead that Moses was not skilled in geology, history, and ethnology. If he knew nothing about these matters, why did he profess to teach them, and why give it out that what he taught was told him by God? If God is the God of truth he can no more teach false science than false morals; it is equally untruthful to falsify a scientific or historical fact, as to falsify a moral precept or church doctrine.

It is said that the writers of Scripture were inspired by divine wisdom to write nothing but truth. Now either the world was made in six days or it was not; either the flood covered the whole world or it did not; either the sun stood still at the bidding of Joshua or it did not; either Balaam’s ass spoke Hebrew and the serpent in the garden spoke the language of Adam, or they did not. If these things are not positive facts they are fictions, and could only deceive as they still do. It is inconceivable that Professor Airy or Huxley, knowing certain facts, should write a book and wholly ignore that knowledge. It would be puerile in the extreme if they were to plead in excuse for such folly that they were writing on another subject. The true question is this: were they knowingly stating fiction and falsehoods as veritable facts? If they knew that man was not made of dust, nor woman of a rib taken out of Adam while he was asleep; if they knew that the world was not made in six days, but affirmed that it was; if they knew that the serpent was not doomed to crawl on the ground and eat dust because the devil chose to assume its shape, but said that it did, then are they altogether to blame, and it is a matter wholly indifferent whether they were writing science or theology. So with the “inspired penmen.” They profess to write truth, to write facts, and if the words they utter are not truths, and the events they record are not facts, it is quite beside the question whether they pertain to the immediate object of their books or not.

Lastly, it is said that science at present is unsettled, and therefore it is too early to pronounce upon the scientific teaching of the Bible. No doubt there are questions in science still in nubibus, and others sub judice, but what of that? Because a science is still not fully developed, is it worth nothing? has it no voice, no authority? It is still doubtful whether some of the nebulæ are unfinished stars, or stars so thickly clustered together that at this distance they look like a “cloud.” Because this question is not fully determined, must we ignore the fact that the earth is a globe; that the planets roll round the sun; that the clouds are due to evaporation, and rain to a change of temperature? The Bible says the earth is a plane, and the clouds a solid flooring; that the sun, moon, and stars are set in the atmosphere between the upper and lower waters. We are told to suspend judgment on these points, because there are problems of astronomy and geology yet unsolved. This indeed is clinging to a hopeless hope; it is the obstinacy of a Gambetta, who finding no help in man, dreamt in his enthusiasm that the stars in their courses would fight for France against the Prussians.

To return to the Mosaic notion of creation. The writer tells us that man was made in the image of God—a male and a female. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” This seems to imply an Isis as well as an Osiris, a female as well as a male deity, and no doubt Moses, who derived his inspiration from the Egyptian priests, believed this sexual divinity. But what is meant by “the image and likeness of God?” We are told over and over again that God has no image, no bodily form, and we are forbidden to make any likeness of any creature and look on it as a likeness of God. Theologians tell us the likeness referred to is righteousness and true holiness. But why say “the image and likeness?” image seems to point to bodily form. Besides, Adam was not like God in holiness and true righteousness, for he hearkened to temptation, and if he was “like God,” it implies that Satan might delude even God, and that God might by possibility fall like Adam.