THE BIBLE.

Southland Times, Issue 20220, 4 July 1927, Page 11

THE BIBLE.

To the Editor. Sir, —Once more I “dips me lid” and enter the battle of the creeds. I notice that several correspondents are thirsting for my blood, and, spurred on by my silence are practising “sarcasm” at my expense. Now sir, I will proceed to business, dealing with each of my controversial opponents in turn. None shall be spared. No, not one. With regard to the whale controversy, there appears to be a good deal of dissension among my orthodox brethren. Whales, common, ordinary or garden breed have been dusted and brought forth to bolster up Jonah, but these have been spurned by other hot fundamentalists who insist upon having a special made-to-measure whale created for the express purpose of swallowing the aforementioned Jonah. A correspondent writing under the name of “Finis” tends towards the “special” school, whilst that incorrigible joker, Mr J. D. Malcolm, is the leader of the school of thought that favours the common whale. I am bewildered at this split in the camp. The Southland Times reeks like a Billingsgate fish market, but so long as zealous enthusiasts do not go to the extreme of presenting whales at the office for inspection by the editor, I have no doubt that the paper will weather the storm. Another esteemed correspondent, Mr Ayson, takes exception to my levity in using such terms as “whale’s passenger,” “tottering edifice of Old Testament infallibility” and so on, and states that I am not in search of the truth. I fear that Mr Ayson is limiting me to his own conception of divine revelation when he makes such a statement. To me, such beliefs are perfectly legitimate subjects for criticism, humorous or otherwise. As to the charge of not seeking the truth, Mr Ayson evidently makes the term synonymous with stifling the intellect. I have been in search of the truth for some years, and if I have learned one thing, it is ■ that truth is not stationary, but progressive I and adapts itself to the intelligence of every age. It is not a finished thing as Mr Ayson would imply. Truth is always in ■ existence, and our knowledge of it is always increasing, but truth must embrace every science under the sun and must be re-stated in terms of modern thought for those who seek the union of science and religion. Neither am I attacking religion, true religion, for which I have a profound respect. I am simply endeavouring to break the shell that cramps it, and I have the intelligence of the world on my side. Father Time, who tests all things, will prove who is in the right, Mr Ayson or myself. I have no need to defend my beliefs; if they are erroneous they will kill themselves, but, on the other hand, if Mr Ayson is wrong—well, I will be kind and say no more. As to the amateur astronomical lore given forth by your correspondent anent our scientists’ statement that the sun stands still, I would advise the gentleman to look it up again. I I was always under the impression that the I sun rotates on its own axis, once every 25.38 days, and therefore does not stand still. In any case such verbal quibbling does not affect the point at issue which is quite plainly a miraculous deviation from natural law. To state it in those scientific terms for which your astronomical correspondent’s soul thirsts, Joshua held the earth stationary for a certain period of time, which, of course would upset the stability of the solar system. To say that Joshua was speaking in the language of his day is erroneous. It is stated plainly as a miraculous upsetting of natural law, and that is the point we are discussing. Personally I believe that the Creator, of whose splendour and magnificence I have probably as much appreciation as your correspondent, is limited by his own laws, and never violates them, else we would live in a most peculiar world of topsy turveydom. Another gentleman “Jude Fifteen,” comes tilting at me, indirectly over the editor’s footnote to Mr Ayson’s letter. I have read “Jude Fifteen’s” epistle to the heathen, about thirty times and submitted it to other bloodthiray liberal thinkers, but I must confess defeat. What does he mean ? His letter is very obscure. I do not know yet whether he is insinuating that I am a dark and dirty Atheist, or whether he is prasing me highly. Perhaps “Jude Fifteen” will raise the veil and state his position more clearly. As to his statement that the Bible is not responsible for the wrong interpretations of its contents, I am quite aware of that. That is what I have been saying. Neither does it claim infallibility. That has been claimed for it by the fundamentalists, who are thus its strongest enemies. When it is regarded as a w’onderful collection of poetry, folk lore, history, etc., the situation clears without detracting from the great truths that it reveals, and gives us room in which to move. Let us throw aside the binding shackles of fundamentalism and use the minds with which we are endowed, to perceive the Creator in all his majesty and splendour, in i all things, and not solely between the covers I of the Bible. In conclusion, sir, I wish to

thank the Rev. Chisholm for his fearless stand in the pulpit. Also I thank “Presbyterian” and several other correspondents who have tried to penetrate the clouds of bigotry with the light of tolerance. It is a pleasure to know that there are so many liberal minded people in this town who are endeavouring to rescue Christianity from dogmatism and to stress the tolerance towards other views that is consistent with the essence of Christianity.—l am, etc., TWENTIETH CENTURY.