THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH AND THE DATE LINE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23591, 30 August 1938, Page 8

THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH AND THE DATE LINE

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —If Mr Gardner thinks he has been successful in producing “scientific and Scriptural facts” in support of his theories, he needs a frank reminder that he has dismally failed. Your correspondent has two main points for consideration—namely (a) the location of Eden, and (b) the day should begin at that spot. Let me deal with these contentions.

No one to-day knows with any degree of accuracy where the Garden of Eden was situated. Many have guessed, and still are guessing, and there is such a strange diversity of opinion, even among the most well-in-formed. that for anyone to build a doctrine upon the location of Eden, and especially the garden, would be biblical suicide. If your readers will examine Gen. ii, 8-17, and compare with a map, they will notice that there ; s no place around the 43rd or any other meridian that coincides with the description there given. The earth’s surface was so terribly mutilated by the Noaic Flood, rivers altering their courses while others ceased to be, that from that time till now we have no positive evidence of the location of the Garden of Eden. To quote from some standard Bible dictionary will best illustrate this point. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible says:—

No subject has nrobably attracted the attention of men of learning so much as that of the identification of the Land of Eden, and Its Garden! Every quarter of the old world has at one time or another formed the subject of examination to this end. India, Ceylon, China, the mountains of the moon, the

Canary Islands, the coasts of the Baltic —all these have been fixed on as possible localities. Columbus, when sailing to find the New World (then supposed to be part of India), expected to come across it there; and a very bold and learned contention published of late years locates it at the nortl pole. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says:— Many attempts have been made to determine the precise geographical position of Eden. The most ancient tradition. going back to Josephus, and followed by most of the churcli fathers, makes Hovllah equivalent to India, and the Pison one of its rivers, while Cush is Ethiopia, and the Gihan, the Nile. A very popular theory places Eden in Babylonia. Calvin made the ShattalArab, formed by the union of the Tigris and the Euphrates, the river that went out of Eden.

I quote these, Sir, to show that there is no unity or certainty about this first point as to location. That being so, how can anyone dogmatise about an Eden day-line, if ever one existed? Your correspondent is in presumptuous error when he infers that the fortythird meridian marked the Garden of Eden. No ope knows. It is only an assumption based on the word of some Assyrian who explored the country and stated that the spot covered by Lake Van was the place where the Garden of Eden was planted. Many other legendary spots have just as reasonable claims. Your correspondent speaks of an Eden day-line as though such a thing ever existed. 1 had expected an asspciate of the Otago Astronomical Society to keep to facts, but now I see that such a title is only for the purpose of giving weight to his curious theory. Your readers will not be so easily misled. I repeat, Sir, that no such thing as an Eden day-line ever existed. Neither the Scriptures nor profane histones mention it, and since this matter is reviewed for the sole purpose of religious controversy, I challenge your correspondent in his reply to produce one fraction of Bible evidence proving that the day began and ended at Eden. If, as your correspondent says, not one character from Genesis to Revelation knew anything about the Pacific Ocean much less counting time from it," I reply that not one character from Genesis to Revelation knew anything about an Eden day-line, much less counting time from it. Again, your correspondent says: “They must of necessity have changed their day there (at Eden).” Nothing could be more presumptious and erroneous. If Eden was near the forty-third meridian, the patriarchs crossed and recrossed the locality; armies fought and marched over the surrounding areas, yet never in Scripture or history have we any record of changing dates on Mr Gardner’s day-line; and yet he claims to be presenting “ Scriptural and scientific facts.” Why, it is ludicrous! Let him quote the Scripture evidence proving the Eden' day-line. We don’t want mere suppositions. Thus Seventh Day Adventists are not keeping the seventh part of time on the sixth day of the week any more than others keep the first day on the seventh day. As a matter of fact. Sir, there was no necessity for the idea of a day-line to be discussed at all, until men began to circumnavigate the globe. As the two great masses of humanity migrated east and west, further and further from their original home, the time came when, meeting on the opposite side of the earth from whence they started, they found there was a difference of a day in their respective weeks. The cause was, of course, that those travelling east had added their journey to the earth’s motion while those travelling west had decreased it by the extent of their journey. Mark, however, that neither party had gained or lost one second of time ’in their lives. The adjustment was therefore necessary, on the opposite side of the earth, where they had met, from the start of their journey—that is almost exactly where our day-line runs to-day. Therefore the logic and reason are with the Pacific day-line, where also there is a minimum of inconvenience. But, further, if we take the experience of the captivity of Judah as an illustration from among many, Dan. i: 1,2 records the fact that from Palestine many Jews were carried into Babylonish captivity. The Plain of Dura in the province of Babylon (Dan. iii: 1) and Shushan in the province of Elam (Dan. viii: 2) are both mentioned as being localities of the captivity. Daniel himself was there. Now, as Dan, 1; 4 says, he was “ well favoured and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge and understanding science,” yet crossing the forty-third meridian from Palestine to Babylon and journeying as far east as Shushan, he makes no reference to any adjustment of days or even remotely infers that they were known or necessary to enable him to remain steadfast to the “law of his God.” The Babylonians were no mean astronomers, yet Daniel was “10 times better ” than them all (Dan. i: 20), the reason being that God gave him “ knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom.” So, I still ask, Sir, where is any reference to this fictitious Edenic day-line? It must be most apparent that this supposed Edenic day-line had nothing to do with controlling the time for Sabbath observance from the beginning. Having shown Mr Gardner to be unscriptural in his assumptions, I must further doubt that this matter is brought up, as he claims, “in the interests of truth.” Thousands of people in this city keep Sunday as the first day of the week. If Mr Gardner is consistent he would advocate that since Monday, in his theory, is the first day of the week, then Monday should be observed by all present Sunday-keepers. Yet on this matter he maintains a discreet silence. Why is it, Sir, that we only hear of your correspondent on this subject, when a Seventh Day Adventist mission is being conducted? In this city, scores of missions are conducted, and the evangelists and ministers, who for the main part worship on Sunday, seem never to receive any corrective letters. If they, too, are wrong in their belief never an effort is made to enlighten them. There must be tens of thousands of others just as wrong, in the opinion of your correspondent, as we are supposed to be, but only Seventh Day Adventists seem to be singled out for a barrage of these so-called ‘scriptural and scientific facts.” Mr Gardner can continue his attack on God’s Gibraltar of truth, though I hope that Isaiah’s prophecy will be literally fulfilled, “ Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened.” Now. Sir. having viewed the subject from the angle suggested by your correspondent, these conclusions should be apparent:-—(1) The exact location of Eden is not known. (2) there is no scriptural evidence tr show that the day began and ended at Eden; (3) Daniel, skilled in science, crossing and recrossing the locality of the fortythird meridian, knew nothing of this alleged Edenic day-line; (4) logic and reason indicate that travellers moving east and west would find an adjustment necessary in the proximity of their meeting; (5) no one from Genesis to Revelation knew anything about an Eden day-line.—l am etc.. August 28. T. J. Bradley.

[Subject to a reply by Mr Gardner, this correspondence is closed.—Ed.. O.D.T.]