THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE ON CREATION.

Waipa Post, Volume III, Issue 133, 2 August 1912, Page 3

THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE ON CREATION.

TO THE EDITOR. SIR,—You have requested me to be brief, therefore I must plunge in incdins res. My friend, Mr de Ridder is evidently unacquainted with the rules of debate, for he does not attempt to “ play the game ” ; moreover, his style is all his own, and 1 confess to having been quite obfuscated in trying to follow his arguments. If this be the case with his writing, then his verbal statements would be “ confusion worse confounded,” and hence the suggested public debate is entirely out of the question. If there be difficulties and even discrepancies, and every Bible student knows there are both, then I submit that the only manly course for those who assume the role of a teacher lies in honestly stating and facing them, not in sticking the head in the sand and indiscriminately vituperating a band of men, who in many cases, are eminent scholars, sincere selfsacrificing investigators, and withal virile Christian men, to whom the world owes a debt it can never discharge. To dub these men as “secular,” and insinuate thut they are bound together in one hellish conspiracy against truth is, in this age, an anachronism of a very sad tyoe. Mr de Ridder in his wandering, seems to have quite lost sight of the real issue, which I would again remind him, is as to whether Ussher’s marginal note to the Bible, which limits man’s creation to less than 6000 years ago, is tenable in the light of the facts of history. Please let us keep to this. My opponent has taken the affirmative, and gave the authorities for his ipse dixit as the Bible, certain learned British associations, and Lord Kelvin, but when asked to quote then! he evaded the question, and gave in lieu thereof a long excerpt from a certain Dr Dimbleby, the premier chronologist, which, strangely enough, had no bearing on the subject at all. It certainly came as a surprise to me, Mr Editor, and, I understand, to at least some of your readers, that after posing as an exponent of the researches of the British Association, the British Astronomical and Chronological Association, and Lord Kelvin, and leading us to believe that-this mighty array of authority had once and

for all settled this matter quite definitely, to learn at last that - most of the datse were taken from Dr Dimbleby, whom one has never even heard of before. However, let us hear what this gentleman has to say for himself, and see to what extent, if at all, he is worthy of credence. First he deals with Sargon (who, by the way, so far from being men- - tioned repeatedly, as Mr de Ridder says, in 11. Kings 15, is not men- , tioned at all), and tells us that . his time is put down at 722 8.C., which is perfectly correct for

Sargon 11., but not for Sargon I. of Isaiah, mentioned by me. Now, either this chronologist knew or not know about Sargon I. of Y - Agate, 3800 B.C. If he knew then - he culpably suppressed the information, possibly because it upset his pet theory. It he did not know, what becomes of the illustrious “premier”? In this connection I quote from a worldwide scholar, archaeologist, and divine—the Rev. A. H. Sayce,

D.D., LL.D., professor of Assyriology at Oxford, who can scarcely be turned down as “ secular.” He says: “ Sargon 11. was an Assyrian general who seized the crown during the seige of Sammaria on the I2th of Tebet, 722 B.C. He claimed to be a descendant of the early kings, and

assumed the name of the famous Sargon, King of Babylonia, who reigned about 3000 years before him.” This latter date, I may mention, is one of those which

Mr de Kidder said “ could not be for a moment accepted ”; he did not say why. Again the said Dr Dimbleby informs us that “ prehistoric authors (pretty close to an <■ Irish bull this) are out of court because there was no secular history, verbal or monumental, prior to the Dispersion, 2226 8.C.” 1 Compare his statement with that of the Rev. J. P. Peters, Plr.D., D.D., director of the university >. expedition to ' Babylonia, 1885, who again cannot be brushed aside as “ secular.” In his report / of the discoveries at Nippur he says: “Somewhere, apparently •*. about 4000 8.C., we begin to find * inscriptions written on clay.” Corroborating this, Dr H. V. Hilprecht, a subsequent director of the same expedition, 1900, writes of the discovery of “ published laws, banking accounts, and children’s lesson and exercise books, belonging to the fifth preChristian millenium,” i.e., 5000 8.C. ; in other words, about 1000 years before Dimbleby’s “creation year I.” But I may be told that only jfible history, not secular history, is accepted, for has not Dr Dimbleby, the premier chronologist, expressly stated : “There is no day, month, year, or period in Scripture not scientific and true.” So we must test the redoubtable doctor on his Biblical knowledge. Now, in 11. Kings 15-2, we are told that Ahaz began to reign at the age of 20,

and reigned 16 yea s in Jerusalem; and in It. K 11.4 s id-2 we read that Hezekiah his son succeeded his father, bung if the age of 25 years, which the chronological tables set down at 10 years after the accession o. Ahaz; hence the age of Aha/, at his death was 20 +l6 = 36, and the age of Hezekiah, iiis son, at this time, was 25, hence it follows that when Hezekiah was born, his father was 36—25 years, i.e., IE years old only. 1 should like to ask is this either '‘scientific” or “ true.” So much for the “premier chronologist!” 11 lie is still identified with the British Association then 1 submit that it were better far that the lead of New Zealand should be followed in this case, and a new “Premier” appointed. lam sorry that under these circumstances 1 cannot endorse Mr de Ridder’s advice to country folk to get a sound working hypothesis from ‘All Past Time’ by Dr Dimbleby,” for the simple reason that he belongs altogether to Past time, and in my humble judgment is an out-and-out back number. —I am, etc., F. W. Clarke, B.A. TO THE EDITOR.

SIR, Your correspondent “True Progress” takes up a deal of space in your columns to say nothing. He has a very bad case in trying to show that loan proposals will ruin the town. It seems to me that he is exactly in the same position as the man who never goes out at night and therefore does, not realise the value of a lighting system, or as the man who never has a bath and consequently wonders for what good purpose water is required. His letter is characterised by a spirit of “Taihoa” and if thinking ratepayers listen to, and act in accordance with his wishes, they must be prepared to put up with the mud, the fire, the dust and the hundred other inconveniences which will be remedied if loan proposals are carried. —I am, etc., Real Progress.

Sir, —I have heard a lot of talk about the ruination that awaits our town by the authorisation of

loans for public works. The lighting system has been particularly singled out, and I have been told by a few short-sighted residents (one of whom called on me for the express purpose of cautioning me) that it was simply courting bankruptcy to even suggest such a thing. Nov/, Mr Editor, might I ask .you to inform me if it is the Town Board’s intention to give the lighting rights to a syndicate should the proposal be defeated at the poll. It seems to me that if the scheme is good enough for private speculation, it is good enough for us as a town. I have also been told that the syndicate will sell the rights at the original value after seven years, but if lam to believe that investors will sell without substantial payment for goodwill, then I must have better evidence than the mere assurance of the man

who only desires to condemn the scheme. —I am, etc., Critic. . [lf the poll is not carried, we understand that the Town Board will agree to allow a private syndicate,to take over the rights. In the event of the town purchasing the gas works

after seven years, certain provisions are made in the proposed agreement which means that not only the plant but the

rights will have to be purchased.— Ed. Waipa Post.]

SIR,—In your issue of July 30U1 you have a small paragraph in reference to the gas at the Town Hall. You speak of it as “the utter failure of the lighting system in the Town Hall,” in refer-

ence to which, in justice to the public and myself,! must ask you to allow me to say a few words. In the. first place some alterations had been carried out during the day, and it was late in the evening before they were completed; the last joint made, it seems, was not as it should have been, and gave out just as the performance

commenced. It became necessary then for safety’s sake to turn out the light. But that is not all. It was afterwards discovered that the light had been tampered with. Some wedges had been put into the machine to prevent it working, and the handle used in winding up the tanks was not to be found, a new one having to be procured. I will leave your readers to judge whether this sort of treatment constitutes the failure of the system. —I am, etc., John Crook, The Inventor and Patentee.