THE WHALE AND JONAH.

Southland Times, Issue 20226, 11 July 1927, Page 3

THE WHALE AND JONAH.

To the Editor. Sir, —Much has been written by your correspondents on “Jonah and the fish” and with your permission, we will review the evidence upon which the story rests and call upon the critics to refute it by evidence weightier, or forever hold their tongues. There are three ways usually employed for the testing of truth. First by possibilities; second by experience; third by trustworthy authorities. Taking them in order we quote evidence of possibilities by eye witnesses. First, we cite Mr Bullen, an experienced whaler, and who is regarded as a trustworthy authority. He says “we have caught whales 70 feet long with breadth in proportion and that a shark 15 feet long was found in the stomach of a sperm whale (what about the critics’ contention that the gullet of a whale is too small to admit of a man?) and that these monsters swim about with the lower jaw hanging down and the huge gullet gaping like a submarine cavern and that when dying the sperm whale always ejects the contents of its stomach.” Thus the possibilities are undeniably proved. Secondly we test the case by experience. In an edition of “The System of Nature” by the philosopher Muller, we are told of a frigate cruising in the Mediterranean from which fell a seaman overboard and was immediately received into the jaws and throat of a sea dog or carcharis which was following the ship. Before the animal sank an officer on deck discharged a gun at its head and the discharge taking effect caused the animal to disgorge its prey and the sailor was rescued alive and uninjured and lived for several years to repeat the story of his deliverance. By harpoons and cables this fish was captured and his exact weight was 3,924 pounds. We now take the evidence of Jonah who positively affirms his being thrown overboard and being in the belly of the fish for three days and nights and afterwards vomited out.

The last witness we will call is that of Jesus of Nazareth, noted by “critics” as the highest example of morality, plain and truthful speaking, a condemner of “ridicuinquisitors ?

Whether the Rev. Murray or the Rev. Chisholm is correct in his exposition of the Scriptures is beside the point. Neither can honestly expound them unless he does so according to his own beliefs. If the local pastor is brave enough to give his honest beliefs founded on his study of the Bible, be is entitled to do so, and no one has any right whatever to exhibit anger at his statement of those beliefs. For him, and, I believe, for very many people, his conclusions are right. In any case, being his honest opinions, he is bound to give voice to them if he has the courage to do so. If they are heretical views so far as his church is concerned, then the Rev. Murray can no doubt institute a heresy hunt and prosecute it to the bitter end. It appeals that it would please him to do so. So far as the Rev. Chisholm is concerned, I have been unable from a perusal of the report of his sermon to discover any sign of a feeling of anger towards anyone holding beliefs like those evidently held by the Rev. Murray. I have no doubt that Mr Chisholm has no such feeling. On the other hand, I can well believe that in no Tespect did he feel a greater need of courage than in the thought that the expression of his beliefs would probably cause pain to those who honestly hold beliefs similar to those of Mr Murray. At any rate I have certainly not seen in Mr Chisholm any evidence of the spirit of intolerance. Therein lies the difference between the two men with the reason for this letter.—l am, etc., TOLERENCE. Invercargill, July 9, 1927.