THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11738, 16 September 1902, Page 2

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

To the Editor, Sir, —Your correspondent Charles Dan tells us he is now in his 79th year, and after reading his letter one realises the possibility of a man being a long time on this earth'and yet knowing very little indeed about it. His re-hash of the story of Thomas Paine is scarcely worth answering, yet for tine sake of truth I am averse to passing it by. The hoary-headed falsehood has been, with others, invented by malicious clergymen to belittle a great thinker and reformer, 'and some few noble-minded men have giver a lot of time to the probing of them. The result has been a complete refutation of these stories. Paine did not die destitute; he possessed the farm presented to him. by a country and a people who were not alto gether ungrateful for the immense service? he had rendered them. It was within hi? own ground and on his own farm that he was interred. A few days before he died a clerfrvnian by the name of Cunningham gained admittance to hisi bedroom (against his express wish that none should be admitted), xlxe Rev. C said: "Mr Paine, you have new a full view of death; you cannot live long, and whosoever does not believe in Jesus Christ will assuredly be damned." "Let me have none of your Popish stuff." replied Paine. "Get away with you. Good morning," and, as the author of a reliable Life of Paine goes on to tell us, "the day before; he died Dr. Manly (a man well known and much resp;cted in those parts) says he purposely paid him a very late visit with a view to ascertain the trur state of his mind." We are told he asked during the meeting whether he wished to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and Paine answered "I have no wish to believe on the subject/ and, pays Dr. Manly, these, he believed,were the last words he uttered, and he expired "placidly., and almost witfiout a struggle" early thf next morning. I would like to draw attention to the sentiments at the end of C.D.'f letter as to the treatment h© would mete out to teachers who object to r-ive thest Bible lessons. If this feeling animate; many of your zealous Christians, I shall faa] sorry for teachers if the Bible advocate!? win'the day. "Was Christ a Plagiarist?" is ..ho question —at v- Arthur Dewdney. J should say that it is somewhat difficult to to define, but if it means striclty a literary theft, —then I shauld say Chris was not a plagiarist, as he committed . o tmng to writing, and so far as we can sec claimed nothing he taught to be original. A.D. states that Max Muller contends that thero is no IMS. 1000 years old, yet I car quote him the same writer as follows, fuu the Hibbert Lectures: "The sacred boot of India offer, for a. study of religion igeneral, and particularly for the study oi the origin and growth of religion, the sarapeculiar and unexpected advantages- whic^ the language of India (Sanscrit) has oiTere* for the eittudy of the origin and growth r> human speech" ; and again, to show the misleading character of your correspondent^ statement: "One thing is certain : there h nothing more ancient and primitive, not only in India bufc in the whole Areyan world than the hymns of the Ri~-Veda. whicl have been handed down for three or four thousand years <*>f oral tradition." Agair he sa-s.: "The period during which these ancient hymns were collected and arrange*' as prayer-books for the four classes of priests may have extended from about 1000 to 80C years 8.C." Or again from Max Muller : "The human race no more started from the Hebrew' faith thaii. as was formerly ' thought, from the Hebrew tongue." The argument of A.D. is absurd, that say, for instance, Buddhism and Hinduism borrowed from Christianity. As. well say the Senat< of Ancient. Rome borrowed it« laws from the' New Zealand Houss of Representatives. Is it not a generally accepted fact, that San scrit, the language of the ancient Brahmins is the oldest language so far traced in the history of'the human rac£. And it is generally considered amongst antiquarians that ' thia Uanguage was extant before the Jews were known as a nation. The myths and legends of Christianity can only be understood or apprecaited at their vreal value through a knowledge of the mythology of | the older nations that- preceded them. The magnificent proportions assumed by Chvisti ianity in the eyes of its believers reminds ' one of the ideas of the ancients anent thjr world of ours, when it was thought that this was the only world in existeuce, and that the other bodies were only shinging Wghts from the empyrean. Christianity as a. religion drops into its proper place amongst other religions just as this all-important sphere of ours did amongst the celestial bodies by which it v surrounded, when the truer knowledge came of its insignificance compared with the sun and stars. I would like to refer to another "ghost'which, with all duo deference to your correspondent A.D., ha« never yet been "laid,*' and that is the "Creation story" of the Christian re lip-ion being admitted, b" all the most reliable critics, to have been written after, and not. before; "the captivity." Even many of the learned Rabbis admit this;- and when we find that the words "Adam" and "Eve" are taken from an older lai%uag»thsn their own—viz., the Sanscrit, —and that "Adima" in this language means the first man, and that "Heva" means "that which completes life" in the same language, a language, bear in mind, that had flowered into perfect expression before the Jewish was yet in existence or in its most embryonic condition; when this is all taken into account it seems

j unnecessary to put more evidence before a rational mind. Did space permit I would like to give the original story, which, m some particulars, varies slightly from that in Genesis, and much to its advantage, for it shows a higher conception of Deity than does the plagiarised account. I hope to refer to your correspondent Wm. John York s letter and his champion later on. I can assure W.J.Y. that there is nothing in the statements of R. A. Torrey, D.D., that I have yet read in the newspapers calculated to impress any but those who are already saturated with the soft of thing generally served out to the ignorant at this kind of meeting, except it be his most ill-judged bradcetting of the unbeliever with whiskydrinking. Perhaps he wishes to make the Biblte in Schools, and Prohibition, one question for the next elteetion. If this is not his purpose, then his statement that unbelief and whisky-drinking go arm-in-arm is still a falsehood.—l am., etc OMEGA.

'To the Editor. Sir—l was very much surprised at your correspondent "Omega," in his letter of the 13th. for he simply misses the point at issue of my letter of the 11th, by drawing a wrong conclusion from-the statement, "I find no demonstrated fact of science at all out of harmony with the Bible," and therefore his assertion of my implying that I base "bound . tightly together the Sacred Book to the vacilating heels of science," is wrong. Let me refer "Omega" to my first letter, wherein he will see that popular theology finds no place in my estimation, for I may add thao his questions are based on the teachings of popular theology, and used by such men as "Omega/ and W. W. Hardwick, M.D., in judging the Bible by popular theology. This is seen very plain in W. W. Hardwick's book on the evolution of man, in Chapter 6, which book some of your so-called critics, especially "Omega," have been enlightened on, as regards taking everything of an opposition side to the Bible truths, md applying it to a Bible doctrine. However, "Omega" and others clamour for the rvoliutionistio theory against the Biblical account.' I was rather surprised that "Omega." didn't take up the creed aiid bring forth some arguments. I should advisa "Omega" to read the Scriptures, and then, when quoting Scripture, not to misap oly, for the Apostle Paul, in Corinthians, i 15th chapter, is alluding to the redemption if man by the second Adam, from the efi 'ecU of the son of the first Adam, and does I iofcimplythat.no one lived or died before ■ \dam, and, as regards the Bible teaching, lof a personality of a devil, and Christ, '. ; Eternal Son of God. and immortal soultm. I emphatically deny, and am willing \: meet "Omega" and. others, publicly or Privately, and debate it from a Bible standpoint. "Omega," in'such arguments, is 'k-r putting up straw men and knocking 'em c'own again. May I ask "Omega" and ;7.V. ;> t r science accounts for the break •ii the n^man race, for I maintai nthat the Sible teaching of man appearing upon^ ?arth of 6000 years is in harmony with mathematical science. It is .a well-known fact that the population of the earth is on the increase, for the newspapers makes us aware of that fact from da^ to day, and therefore we see it is simply a matter of calculation to ascertain how long ago since the progress began. Invert the ratio of :.he increase in the earth's population, and t will follow that we shall get approxi..ite 1? to a starting point. Of course pbectlons may be i-aised to this method, but ■ye will allow a wide margin. For instance, take the British Isles, the census goes far enough back to give us an average rate. For example, about the year 1880, Great Britain doubled in less than a hundred years, and it is a startling fact that you oannot carry the population of Great Britain much further than the commencement of the Christian Era. I shall not work this out, bu+. will let your readers prove for homstlvts, on the principle, say in 1881, by 10,C00,000, putting it roughly ; then in 1871 it would be 20.000,000, in 1681, 10,000,000 and so on. I have taken Great Britain for example, but the same'holds good as to other countries, with the exception, that other countries have been exposed to destruc tion of life by war and temnest, and pestilence, and consequently the population of the present hour cannot be taken as representing , the full increase. Making allowance for this, it is a matter of simple calculation to- find out how long ago the present process of increase bearan; and I say that on that simple 'principle" you cannot carry back the human race- to an antiquity of even 6000 years. This mn~ seem wrong. Is it? The Bible tells us..-if the flood which swept away the human race between 1000 and 2000 years after Adam's day. Therefore, we would have a new start in the work of increase. This is the point: Take the estimated population of the woi'ld at 1,400,----000,000; which is accepted, and noting the rate of increase on, and working the process backwards, after making allowances for all deciminations of the snecies by war, pestihuman fpecies further back than the Bible nuts if., and if the speculation of scientists be true, that man has been unon the earth for 50 000 years, will "Omega" be surprised at the result, taking for our starting point 1.,400,000,000 in 4500 years, more or less, how many ought we to have in 50.000 years? Now I shall concede "Omega" a much larger rate of 100 years to re-double the earth's population, and we will give modem ideas of human antiquity the fairest of fair play: 200 years would be a fair margin, b\ ' v;s "•:- 1 />~"•■•r-rie 500 years—a

'reasonable hypothesis—and as it is already worked out, I shall relieve "Omega" of the trouble ; the present population ought to be 2,535,321,200,456,458,802,993,406,410,752, which represents two quintiilions, five hundred and thirty five thousand, three hundred and twenty-one quadrillions, two hundred thousand, four hundred and fiftysix trillions* four hundred and fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and two billions, nine hundred and ninety-three thousand, four hundred and six millions, four hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred and fifty-two, and therefore, instead: of fourteen hundred millions, and seven hundred and fitty-two, and therefore, instead of fourteen hundred millions—the present estimated population of the carth — it is countless myriads of billions, and therefore the Bible account of a flood is in harmony, and also the teaching of Genises, for in this book it» teaches a pre-Adamic existence of the earth of indefinite ages, for the commandment given to Ttfoab. after the flood, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." Gen. 9—l,' was also given to Adam. "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth." Gen. I—2B. I would give several' other illustrations, but space will not permit. The reference of "Omega" to Lot is only natural. To me it stamps the Book as divine, fof the Bible's depreciation of nature and exaltation of God, is contrary to human nature. There is next the agreement of our part of the Bible with another throughout, notwithstanding the long intervals during which its different parts were produced. If it were a human production, each successive contributor would have imparted his own sentiments to it; instead of this, the Book is absolutely one, whether you take Moses, Malachi or" Christ. There is the same hope in all the books of the Bible of a coming age in which Christ, as Ring of Israel, shall rule on earth universally, and mankind be blessed. This truth is somewhat hidden by the corruptions of orthodox Christendom, which has long ago abandoned the one apositilic hope of Israel common to the whole Scriptures, and embraced the miserable substitute for an imagined post mortem beatification of an imaginary personal invisibility in regions above the stars.. No, Mr Editor, let the Bible be read as any other book, to speak for itself, not to read it with pre-coneeived ideas; then the truth will strike our friend "Omega1' in a different light. .Thanking you in anticipation.—l am. etc.. DISCERNER OF FACTS. September 14th, 1902.