THE BIBLE—NEW INTERPRETATION.

Southland Times, Issue 20203, 14 June 1927, Page 5

THE BIBLE—NEW INTERPRETATION.

To the Editor. Sir, —I cannot let Mr Chisholm’s unfair exposition pass. “The world w 7 as not created in six days.” The Bible statement of creation is not in conflict with geological record. “It was not possible to believe that God would send bears to tear up little children for calling out names to an old prophet.” Is the accuracy of the narrative to be decided according to God’s dealings with “little children” ? It must first be proved that the victims were “little children.” Two Hebrew words “naar” and ■ yeied” are used in the original text. These words are nearly synonymous in use and application. Either one or the other is used of the servant who went down with Gideon into the host of Midian; of the servant of Geliazi; of Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth; of the servants of Nehemiah who watched and worked with him on the wall of Jerusalem; of the servant of Sanballat who was sent to Nehemiah with the open letter in his hand—all tough, strong, lusty men with all their wits about them and by no means “little children.” Either one or other word is used of Ishmael when he was about fourteen years old; of Isaac when he was grown to a young man; of Shechem, the son of Hamor, when of marriageable age; of Joseph when he was seventeen; of Solomon after he had become king; of the young men who were brought up with Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and who gave him such disastrous counsel; of the two sons of Naomi, husbands of Ruth and Orpah, and of many other like examples—all fine strapping young fellows and by no means “little children.” The circumstantial evidence would go to show that these socalled “little children” were youths or young fellows of an appreciable age upon whom the bears rushed. They were opposing the prophet at the commencement of his work. As a prophet he called upon the name of his divine Master, and, as in the case of Elijah, the Master let it be seen that the servant could not be opposed with impunity. It is grossly unfair to the Bible that such passages should be read in public without adequate exposition. “It was a ridiculous thing to imagine that God would punish a man by keeping him alive in the belly of a whale for three days.” Is the ground of attack shifting now to the question of God’s accountability? Punishment indeed! We always thought Jonah was thrown overboard to die and that it was by the “goodness and mercy” of God that he was miraculously preserved alive to live and work another day. I suggest that in view of Christ’s comment upon Jonah gibes at the whale record are not altogether wise. “In the New Testament also there was not agreement in every detail in the four Gospel stories.” An earlier correspondent instanced discrepancies in the Gospels. It is still my intention to reply concerning these, probably by a course of addresses. I shall be very glad to receive Mr Chisholm’s list of “mistakes.” When we consider the different viewpoint of each Gospel, difficulties either vanish or are sufficiently eased, when faith in the Gospel narrative is strengthened or restored as the case may require.— I am, etc., FRANK SAMPSON.