A BIBLICAL DISCUSSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 195, 17 August 1900, Page 2

A BIBLICAL DISCUSSION.

' (To the Editor.) Slr,-On reading a letter sign|{t br one John Brame (10th) I thought the public would not suffer much ia not being supplied with more of the same kind. . , The bulk of the letter was takenup m laying to the charge of education that whlca is not chargeable to education-a man s condition of spiritual understanding. . If knowledge and mental power was the desideratum in that which caused a-±m>-llcal discussion" to arise, I fear Mr Brame would find in "Übique" an awkward foe to settle with. If "something else' gave him the power to assume the top-side totne contention with ''Übique," '"Moderation, and perhaps others of the same^ calibre, it is well to remember the words of the »mie,. "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" In God's sight we are on alevei as far as worth is concerned. __„*__,_. To classify "Übique" with "God-haters and Cbrist-denlers" is done Irrespective of evidence, and shows wonderful self-comp-lacency.-l am, etc., .^ EARL _ ,

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l have no wish to prolong the "Biblical Discussion," but would point out briefly the- serious errors of some of your correspondents, "Criticus" appears to be anything but a sound critic when he objects to such anthropomorphism as Is found in the Bible. In speaking of God, it was impossible not to speak more humane; coming down to the level of human apprehension, and thereby gradually raising our conceptions of God. As for His character, as depicted in the Old Testament, a person who reads the Book with unprejudiced mind, and with a due exercise of his critical faculty, can hardly fail to ,see that God's character is. one of holiness, justice, love, compassion ana infinite tenderness and . condescension. Even the Pentateuch, which has been specially denounced, contains most exalted conceptions of God, and Deuteronomy is an eminently spiritual book. If by Lev. 27, "Criticus" understands that an Israelite was at liberty to devote to death any person belonging to him, he i 3 grossly in error. The difference between verses 1 to 27, and the two following verses, must be carefully noted. In these laUer the' Hebrew word, which is not found in the preceding portion, means anathematised (not consecrated), with respect to which Jahn's "Biblical Archaeology" says: "It was designed in its operation upon men to bear ohly upon the wicked, who were thereby made an example to others.'^ __ x - . The statement of "Criticus" that God ordered indiscriminate massacre, etc., is, to say the least, a very indiscriminate and unjust statement, since it denies God's right to command the slaughter of all those persons. His further statement that "on one occasion He spared the young maidens and shared them with the Hebrew warriors, so many to each," besides being incorrect, since they were, divided between the whole people and the warriors, who gave a tribute of tn^ai to the service of the priests,. seems to contain an abominable and unjustifiable insinuation. God was willing, to spare those who could be snared without danger to Israel, and the maidens were virtuously absorbed in the whole community. As for the slaughter of„the rest, the narrative shows that it was deserved; unless foes and seducers of Israel ought to be tolerated, no matter what their murderous and mischievous designs, and the, injury they had already done. "Unique," like "Criticus," has made no attempt to answer my contention, that the charge of murder is not to be laid, as they have laid it, against an authorised judge and executioner. To sustain the' charge against God it is necessary either to prove that He is not authorised to take life , or that He used His authority and power unjustly when He drowned the world, etc.; that the death of innocents, now, as.well as then, is always an act of cruelty, and that to seek to vindicate it from such a charge by suggesting that Goo^"Kaj-^raITU-es--vl^_.-»^^J_tQ.wa I rds them in the next life and removes. therh~7r_n evll influences here renders one liable .to; be regarded as "gloating over blood," etc. ";'. :'.! ;" '-.-.„•';.' '■".

Sir, if your correspondents had appended their names to their effusions, I cannot but think that "public, opinion," or the dread of it, would have exercised a wholesome restraint and compelled them, to be a little more:-. careful and logical. If they-cannot, or will not, see the dlf-| ference between murder or unauthorised massacre -and a judicial sentence, no ; wonder they.misread the Bible.- If theyj can £eny the Supreme Ruler's right to, judge even the whole world, or if they can impeach His justice and vindicate those whom He condemns, let them do j so; ,but until they do, their cha.rges.ofi murder and wholesale massacre are, to, say the least, but empty wind.. ■•':'• j Another glaring Instance of "Übicme's"! illogicality is that it is "public opinion,"! and not the Bible, which has been the i restraining influence.' Public opinion, indeed! Yes,, that is just what I said —that we have been-moulded by the Bible, not our bodies, but our opinions, sentiments, etc; though • it' has taken centuries., to bring us up to the present standard—a standard the unprogressive Boers have not yet reached— just as it has taken cen> turles to extinguish slavery through public opinion formed by the Bible. It, would not be difficult to answer other | points, but I must not trespass furtheri upon your space.—l am,- etc., ' CHAS. CARTER.

(To the Jijauor.)

Sir,—Mr Nicholson, in your issue of the| 6th of August, offers to give Mr JjJmmeri one hundred pounds if He'rcan prove thej truths taught in the Bible,, That Is* a big' contract, and an Impossible one, for the! Bible contains future prophecy which can-1 notbe proven until itbecomes history. If, Mr Nicholson will define.the .things'hewants proven, then it will be possible' to know how and where;:to begin. Should he be willing to give a small,part ,of the money "he offers for proof of th*-, most controverted parts of the Bible, which are the Creation and the Flood, then I shall be willing to venter for-the prize he offers myself. I am n6t an educated man, but the process of proving these two facts, not legends, is so simple, yet no powerful, that any. third standard boy cah master it. My method is by astronomy — not that far-off; sctance usually known, by that name, but the simple astronomy, of the Chinese, Turks arid Jews, and the study that our astronomers have decided to go back to In this1 present year in which we live, and which they have found, out can he best worked from Jerusalem. . These facts* may be new to most of your readers, but we who have been searching after truth have' known them some time. If people would only; cut themselves away from their sects and dogmas,, and those that get their Hying from them,' and let science, Which Is knowledge, be their guide, they would find that the Bible is an inspired book from beginning to end. I am glad you open your columns for the discussion of these subjects, as much good ..'will he done for the cause of truth and much error be swept away from candid minds, -I am, era, v T. MITCHELL,. '