THE QUESTION OF ADAM

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21133, 7 April 1934, Page 9

THE QUESTION OF ADAM

TO THE ITOTOR 07 TBI P*«3S. Sir,—Your correspondent-, "El Capitanc,'' lik° many other people, still clings to the long-exploded theory of i evolution in preference to believing

the Bible account of the creation of man. Science has never been able to account for the fact of life apart from a Creator, and all efforts to produce it by chemical or other action have tailed. B'jing unable to bridge the gulf between the living and non-living matter meant disaster to the theory and if would be infra dig for science to hold to a theory that could not be proved as true. It was therefore abandoned. Another insurmountable obstacle is the vast difference between the ape, who neither toils nor spins, is naked and unashamed; and man, who spends so much of his time in sewing fig leaves together, in building houses, and erecting ugly fences to cover and hide his nakedness, and earns his bread by the sweat of his brow. The difference is commonly known as the "missing link," but the whole theory of evolution rested on Ihe fact of the variations from one stage to another being minute Science has never claimed that the few oddshaped skulls found at various times tilled the blank. The difference is too vast. Another obstacle is that the working of the law of evolution is nowhere at present in evidence, while the law of "after it-; kind" of Genesis is everywhere to be seen, and stands as an unalterable law. Believers in the evolution theory have oftimes been asked to cite one single instance of the working of the law in nature, but have always failed, because all hie research of science for years has failed to disclose one iota (if sound evidence to put forward.— Yours, etc., PEACEFUL. April 0, 1931.

to imf, rotTOR or mi miss. ' Sir,—Two or three days ago your , correspondent "Kiwi" raised the ques- i tion of Lilith and asked for further 1 information. Perhaps he may be in- : tcrcsted in what I have dug up from ; some encyclopaedias and translations. A Hebrew word that may be transliterated into English as "lilith" occurs : in the fourteenth verse of the thirtyfourth chapter of the Book of Isaiah. , It comes in the middle of a passage • describing the animals that should inhabit Idumea after its judgment: and therefore it may reasonably be inferred that it is used in this connexion to denote some kind of bird or beast. There is, however, considerable diversity of opinion as to the exact meaning of the word. In the common authorised version it is translated "screech owl" in the text and "night monster" in the margin. The revised version has "night monster" in the text and "lilith" in the margin. Dr. Robert Young has "night owl" in his literal translation. The Douay version (the Roman Catholic Bible), translated from the Latin vulgate, has "the lamia"—evidently after Lamia, a female phantom in Greek mythology <sce Keats's poem. "Lamia").' J. N. Darby translates in j the text "the lilith" with a note, "or , night spectre." ! The name "lilith" is probably of I | Babylonian origin, Lilu and Lilitu being in Babylonian mythology spirits j that plague men. particularly at night. i ilayil=night). Evidently the Jewish i folk-lore took over this belief in a female nocturnal demon, and she was considered particularly dangerous to young children. It is said that she was dreaded by Mesopotamian Jews until the seventh century after Christ, and amulets were worn as a protection against her. The Rabbis apparently invented the theory that she was the first wife of Adam before her j transformation into a demon. This I legend has been dealt with by modern i poets and by painters. But as far as j I know it has no basis in historical i fact and certainly none in Scripture. ] The legend has been spread through ! jts being incorporated in "Faust." j I hope this rather meagre account | will be acceptable to "Kiwi" and posi sibly some others.—Yours, etc., i AMPERSAND. ! April 6, 1934. i to vnr. Runos or the trp.'-s | I Sir. —Will you permit me to say that the reason why there is so much ' misapprehension among those who I essay to write upon Biblical revela--1 tion is because they do not possess the I essential qualification of mind and spirit, namely, sincerity and serenity in the study of the Word of God. The i loose thinking of such writers is not i to be wondered at, seeing that they ] manifest so little knowledge of Bibli- | cal literature. Quite recently a gentleman made to me the remark that the Bible is responsible for more than 300 sects or issues. My reply to him was: "You might as reasonably say that I the author of the weekly cycle is responsible for Sabbath breaking, or that the author of the cycle of day and night is responsible for the midnight debaucheries." Sometimes the question is asked: "Why was Prince Charley of 1744 called the 'Pretender'"? For the same reason which governs the thoughts of some of your correspondents: his ideas were illusory. The "Question of Adam" as raised by your

correspondents appears to be not so much the fact of his person but rather as to how he was created. The bio-1 logical origin of Adam has interested Biblical students for many generations. It has been a recognised principle, however, that the things which God has revealed belong to man, and that there are some things which are not revealed which even angels desire to look into, and which are beyond our power to understand. It would be of no material benefit to anyone to know how God created Adam. That which is of greater importance is to learn God's purposes in Adam. How few there are who are acquainted with the recorded genealogy of Adam, or even know that his succeeding generations are carefully tabulated in the Scriptures. There were 15 generations from Adam to Abram. A study of the following record will show that there were many branch families, but that one line of descent is strictly followed. The line from Adam is followed through Seth, through Enosh, through Kenan, Mahalalel Jared, Enoch, Methuselah. Lamech, Noah, Shem 'Shcm was the father of all the children of Eber— Hebrews i. Unto Eber were born two sons. Pcleg was tne elder, "for in his day the earth was divided." And Pel eg begat Rcu, to Reu was born Serug. Ihe next in line being Nahor to Tcrah, and Tcrah became the father of Abram I.subsequently changed to I Abraham). Abraham begat Issac, and I in Isaac's seed the children of Israel (Jacob) were to be called. Following strictly the historic line which is recorded in so many places in the Serip- | hires, wc have the line of descent | from Abraham to David and from ! David to the houses of Joseph and : also of Mary. Inseparable from Ihc "question of ' Adam" is the house and lineage of David, as it is intended to concern all the nations of the earth. To follow the genealogical details of this important sequence of the line of Adam would possiblv prevent the publication of this letter; suffice it therefore briefly to state the fact that 18 generations intervened from the time of David to Izcdekiah, the last of the Kings of the House of Judah, whose daughter married King Eochaidh 11. of Tara of Ireland; 11 generations thence to Angus, the Prolific of Tara, ancestor of both Irish and Scottish kings. From him there were 34 to Kenneth MeAloin. Four lines—Stuart. Bruce, Plantagenct, and Guelph—bring us in 28 generations to George 1., whence eight more lead us to H.R.H. Prince David < Prince of Wales'). His Royal Highness King George V. and Queen Mary are Ihus each the ninety-ninth generations from King David. The birth of King David is given as 1076 B.C. Prince David (of Wales" was 30 vcars of age in 1924; thus we have 3000 vcars or 100 generations. It will therefore be seen that the "Question of Adam is of greater interest than a bioplasm which is the living formative part of protoplasm.—Yours, W. T. KINGSTON. April 0, 1934.