THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH AND THE DATE-LINE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23595, 3 September 1938, Page 24

THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH AND THE DATE-LINE

TO THE EIJITOK Sir, —The wall of defence which Pastor Bradley has sought to build to safeguard his Pacific date-line has simply been daubed up with untempered mortar and soon crumbles under the searchlight of truth. Let us test out the strength of the wall and see if we can locate the cracks. First, briefly, no one knows where Eden situated. Therefore, on this supposition, the Bible is not " the adjudicator," as it mentions the names of four of the Edenic rivers, one of which still bears the original name, e.g.. Euphrates. God has not left it for man to choose which day of the seven he will observe for the Sabbath, but has specified the seventh day. Neither has He left it for man to choose the hour when Divine time begins—sunset on the sixth day. So likewise the Almighty has not left it for man to decide or fix the site where we should begin the count of our days. As I previously stated, the Scriptural method of counting time is by the rule of the sun (Gen. i: 16) westward. Now, mark well, if Smith's Bible Dictionary or the Jewish Encyclopaedia on other points of doctrine were contrary to Seventh Day Adventist teaching they would also " dL.mally fail to convince." For the benefit of your readers, 1 beg to quote evidence regarding the site of Eden from a modern fundamentalist, Sir Charles Marston, F.S.A., vice-chairman of the British School of Archaeology, a recognised authority and prominent writer, author of "The Bible is True." The article is entitled " How archseology bears witness to the enduring truth of Genesis," and it appears in "The Story of the Bible" (part 2, page 67). This very fine work, just published this year in serial form, is the joint authorship of the ablest living divines and scholars of the day, many bsing professors of biblical exegesis and of Hebrew and Greek. Sir Charles Marston writes as follows, under the heading. " Streams that Ran in Eden "• The events which are described in those chapters are said to have happened in the neighbourhood of the River Euphrates. It is significant that there archaeologists find ample evidence of what is believed to be th? most ancient civilisation in the world. In considering the site of the Garden of Eden account must be taken of the great changes that have taken place on the surface of the earth since that time Noah's flood alone, if it was a real event—and we know now that it was a real event —must have considerably affected the configuration, the climate, and the course of the rivers of Western Asia. According to Genesis ii, the Garden of Eden was watered by four rivers—the Pison. the Gihon. the Hiddekel, and the Euphrates. The Pison has been identified with an ancient river bed. Part of its course is to-day marked by the Pallacopus Canal, which runs through Babylonia from the Euphrates towards the edge of the Arabian desert, a distance of about 80 miles. The land of Havilah means " the land of sand," and represents the region of North Arabia. The Gihon has been identified with the modern Kerkhah, a river which flows down from Persia. In this connection the land of Cush has been Identified with the land of Kas. where lived the Kossaeans, who are called Kassi in the Cuneiform tablets. The Hiddekel is the River Tigris. The word " idiqua " or " idigla " means " the encircling river" in the ancient Sumerian language, and justifies the description " that is it which goeth towards the east of the city of Assur," not " the land of Assyria," as translated in our Bible. If these identifications are correct, a glance at the map will show that the Garden of Eden had a watershed spreading fan-shaped from the mountains of Persia on the north-

west to the desert ot AraDia on the south-east; while from the north there <ame down the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates—all four streams making their way to the Persian Gulf. Such a conflux of rivers might indeed make a land that lay between them all a perfect paradise, cool and moist and fruitful. The oldest known civilised race are the Sumerians: their records go back to 4000 B.C

The late Professor A. H. Sayce (professor of assycology, Oxford University) wrote in Hastings's Bible Dictionary (a work of multifarious Bible scholars—l 34 listed): "The cuneiform inscriptions have, however, cleared up the geography of the Garden of Eden. The Sumerian name of the plain of Babylonia was Edin, which .was adopted by the Semites under the form of Edinu. Its Assyrian equivalent was Zeru, corresponding to the Arab Zor, the name still applied to the depression between the Tigris and Euphrates." Now, Sir, there are literally hundreds of fundamentalists, great Bible scholars, who likewise concur and accept the Euphratean Valley as the original site of Eden. As for my presumptuous error in inferring that the forty-third meridian was a likely starting point from which to count Divme time westward, relative to this your readers may be interested to know that the Assyrian referred to was the late Hormuz Rassam, a native of Mesopotamia, who assisted Mr Layardm his Assyrian researches. He was commissioned by the British Museum authorities to gain evidence as to the truth of the Scriptural site of Eden Mr Rassam, in a lecture given to the Victoria Institute, on June 23, 1890, said that: " The only part of the world that could be assigned for the ancient site of the Garden of Eden would be the country that surrounds Lake Van ir Armenia."

Let your readers examine a map of the territory and they will see that Sir Charles Marston's and Prpfessoi Sayce's findings likewise establish the particular site as the most Scriptural starting point The great majority of ethnologists, excepting disbelievers m the Scriptures, admit that Mesopotamia w s the cradle of the human race As Genesis was written after the Flood why did the Holy Spirit inspire Moses to write a particular account of the four rivers of Eden unless it was to point out to future generations the true locality? All that was destroyed by the Flood is given in Gen. yii: 4, 21-23 The mountains were intact alter the Flood (Gen. viii: 4,5) Then again in B.C! 588 Eden had in it merchants who went to trade with the people of Tyre (Eze. xxvn: 2. 3. 22--d4) ine river Euphrates is also referred to after the Flood, obviously, being the same river (Duet ■. \*% 2 24,; a 4 ,; J °f£ i- 4- 1 Chron. v: 9. xiu: 3,2, Sam. vin. 3- 2 Kings xxiv: 7). My opponent vainly imagines he has scored a. point owing to the crossing and recrossmg of thesite of Eden by. many Bible characters without their knowledge that from that particular locality would be the site from which to count biblical time It would seem that all that .was required and revealed to those primitive people was simply that they were to observe the hour of sunset on the sixth day to the seventh day sunset. The Edenic-day l ; ne is a straight line marked by the sun on our'rotating globe, and the inclination of the earths Lis at an angle of 23* degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, combined with the annual revolution around the sun. accounts fcr the varying seasons in different parts of the earth. This movement also allows for Adam. Abraham Moses, Daniel, and other biblical characters who were sometimes east of Eden to observe the Sabbath. Daniel did not go beyond the neutral zone governed by the sun. neither did any of the other Bible characters. Eden s Initial day-line will ever remain to the west of Babylon and to the east of Mount Sinai, according to the seasons. Was not the Sabbath restated and again given Divine startng authority at Mount Sinai? This spot being also loca.ed within the compass of Edenicday line and the situation of Mount Sinai being indisputable, it follows that God's day-line cannot be evaded or

\ ■ reasoned away, but is an established fact. _ ~ . I must thank Pastor Bradley for unwittingly proving my contention that early mankind must of necessity have changed its day where it originally dwelt prior to migrating east and west, otherwise, when the two streams, met, as he says, on the opposite side of the earth, how could they have compared their days? They must have taken the count of their days from their starting point (Euphratean Valley) , and to number the days they had to change them. The migrating stream going east gained nine hours, while those going west lost 15 hours, and yet those who travelled east deducted a whole day, although they had only gone not even halfway around the world. Likewise, those who travelled west had only lost 15 hours; they put on a whole day. As the Euphratean Valley was the starting place, it had to be also the finishing place. They had to compare their time with the time of the place from which they migrated, otherwise they would not have known whether they were fast or slow. It is' by making the complete circuit of-the globe that we gain or lose 24 hours. So it is incorrect to add 24 hours. By obeying the Creator's appointments there is ho confusion, but there always is by ignoring and setting them aside. Man cannot improve on them, he can only obey them. Christ declared "that every plant which My Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up " (Matt, xv, 13). Further, if the " opposite side of the earth " where the two migrating streams of people met was the Pacific Ocean, as Pastor Bradley affirms, then Eden must have been in England, somewhere near the Greenwich meridian, as it is the "opposite" to the 180th. Was the Thames one of the four Edenic rivers? He says that " nothing could be more presumptuous and erroneous" than my statement that our first parents must of necessity have changed their days where they dwelt—at Eden. I suppose they had one long, continuous day all their lives, and never changed them or numbered them at all. as this is the only other alternative. Therefore Moses made a mistake when he wrote " and all the days that Adam lived were ninehundred and thirty years." I reiterate that the real Scriptural facts are that our first parents dwelt in Eden and changed their day there, and, as the Euphrates River still bears the same name, God has indicated the site, and when God's servant, Moses, wrote the account long after the Flood he uses present tense in pointing out the Edenic rivers. The Seventh Day Adventists did not always deny that the day began at Eden or that no one knew its location. It was only after it was correctly pointed out to them that they were only keeping the seventh part of time on the sixth day of the week between the 180th and 43rd meridians that they commenced to deny the site of Eden. I can only quote a few of their earlier statements:— The Garden of Eden, where the Day started.—Editor " Signs of the Times,' October 14, 1892. The Sabbath comes to us from Eden when the earth was new.—Editor of the " Present Truth," London, June 13, 1895 We must keep Divine time before or after Eden or Palestine time. To keep it before with respect to the Sabbath is absurd when reasoned back to the inception of the Sabbath in Eden, for had there been any inhabitants dwelling at 180 degrees east (we know that only Adam and Eve were in existence, and the Creator at Eden), they would have introduced their Sabbath at 6 p.m. (say, spring equinox) at 180 degrees east some nine hours before the Creator had finished the work of creation as the time in Eden would be only 9 a.m. on the sixth day when it was 6 p.m. at 180 degrees east. As only the Creator can make a day holy, He alone can sanctify and bless it. This ought to show the fallacy of the 180 degrees date-line logically considered from its inception. A further convincing point cited by me previously is confirmed in the statement that spring begins on September 24, this being one day later than the change of season in England.

Now, Sir, as for suggesting that I had an ulterior motive rather writing in the interests of truth, l can assure your readers that I bear animosity to no one, Pastor Bradley included; but, seeing that Seventh Day Adventists make such dogmatic claims as to keeping: the identical seventh day, then they really call down the criticism upon themselves. As for attacking God's Gibraltar of truth my letters are written in defence of it, and I only oppose those who deny that the Scriptures constitute our chart and compass. As regards other visiting evangelists, they invariably make no reference or dogmatic assertions as to keeping the identical first day; they generally, when spoken to. say _one day in seven should be given to God. Now Sir, having' reviewed .the salient cracks in the daubed wall of defence. I feel satisfied that your more studious readers will be able to valuate rightly the points at issue and see the fallacy of my opponent's summing up. and thus realise that all arguments against Eden being the original place from which to count scriptural time become, as previously stated, 100 per cent, more unscriptural. illogical and unscientific when considered, from the Pacific dateline, and end in an inextricable dilemma. ■ ■ _ >< m In closing I shall analyse Pastor Bradley's conclusions: (1) ••: Archaeological discoveries establish scriptural site of Eden and Sinai. (2) Unless the days began and ended in Eden we could not know the count of the days now. (3) .Daniel never went beyond tne limits of the seasonal swing of tne Edenic date-line. (4) Logic and scientific reasoning prove that the man-made adjustment at the supposed meeting place •& (5). No one from Genesis to Revelation went beyond the seasonal .limits of the Edenic day-line, contrary to Divine time, who kept the commandments of God • —I am. etc.. W. Gardner, Associate, Otago Astronomical Society. September 2. [This correspondence is closed—Ed.. O.D.T.J