Under this heading we would refer to the knowledge that has developed in the various schools of science, as to questions raised by the Scriptures, and consider the conclusions based on the knowledge thus acquired, in respect to the references to the same subjects that are finned scattered throughout the Scriptures.
The rapid and extensive increase of knowledge in various branches of science has resulted in many scientific truths established, as also, it is to be remembered, in many scientific paradoxes. As a basis of criticism, science is adequate as to how far science is found technically taught in the Scriptures. But one needs very little of it to know that the truth of the Scriptures declared from God is not presented with scientific nor scholastic learning. If it were, there would be the strongest presumptive evidence that it did not speak from God at all. Divine truth would be eclectic and not universal, —attainable only by the scholar, and not by all or any who sought God. And this would be the critic's idea of a revelation from God for the needs of the souls of men!
But the critic,—to judge from published writings,—far from recognizing, in the very manner in which subjects studied at schools are referred to in Scripture, consistency with a revelation from God, would place the character of the references in invidious comparison with the advanced knowledge of the present day. It is well to remember, that character of objection applies with equal force to the Master whom many critics in their profession affect to serve, as to the Scriptures which testify of Him from first to last.
The attitude taken by the critic may be learned from his own words:—" it has not been readily," says Prof. Jowett, “or at once, that mankind have learned to realize the character of the sacred writings. . . . It is the old age of the world only that has at length understood its childhood (or rather perhaps is beginning to understand it), and make allowance for its own deficiency of knowledge."
Whatever be the full meaning that this remark is intended to convey, the purport it bears is simple and plain enough to be understood. by all:—The wisdom and understanding of the world has already passed its ‘infancy' in which infantile ignorance was the source of infantile pride, and now in its old age it recognizes with assumed humility " its own deficiency." From this the plain inference is drawn that thus, by the present wisdom and understanding of the world, the deficiency of the revelation of God, given at the time of the world's infancy, must also now be recognized.
Could any word be more needed in such a day than the declaration that; "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God“?or "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? for after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Present day science undoubtedly is 'not found taught in the Scriptures, but when the critic uses the fact that science is not technically taught, to imply or openly state that the revelation of God is thereby defective, he condemns his position by his unwarrantable assumption.
The critic is beyond his capacity, whatever be the range of his knowledge—for which due honor must be accorded to him—since his acquired knowledge has no more formed the capacity for judging of a divine revelation, then the accurate knowledge of the last, or the education iris mind had acquired by careful attention to it, fitted the cobber for judging of artistic excellence.
Still, if scholarship gives no assurance of capacity for the appreciation of divine truth as such, yet those features which are peculiar and unique within the province of the critic's work demand his recognition and acknowledgment.
There is no excuse for the critic's failing to notice the harmony and consistency with the avowed purpose of giving a revelation of God, of all Scripture references to subjects that have been treated scientifically, as well as the complete subordination to that purpose of all such references.
The Contrast of Scientific Deductions From the Scriptures With the Scriptures Themselves
No better proof of the power and character of the Scriptures could be presented than the contrast between the labors of the most learned of their day upon the Scriptures, as tested by time, and the words of the Scriptures themselves.
The Scriptures not only endure, but the exactness of their words is brought into strong relief by the test brought upon them.
The labors of the learned on the contrary, pass out of date and are proved erroneous. Less than 400 years ago the best learning And research of the day were used to assign to creation its date. In the margins of our Bibles we have the results of the calculations to which Archbishop Ussher has committed his name and his knowledge. But what is worthy of notice is that lie leaves attached to the Scriptures it statement which is the declared precinct of his understanding of the Scriptures, and of the engagement of his learning upon them, and yet in out' day his statement is not only considered worthless by men of science but erroneous by students of Scripture, The contrast of the acceptance accorded to the word of one of the most learned men in his own time, with that given to it at present, is most instructive, especially when compared with the first statement found written in the Scriptures themselves. Science, with all its advance in the present day, not only has to other solution for the problem of the origin of the universe than that statement of Scripture, but all the wealth it has brought by its labor goes only to confirm the truth as it stands written in the Scriptures’ The statements of Scripture with reference to the phenomena that have at all times been the object of philosophic and scientific discussion, have no parallel in the literature the world has produced in the 'natter of dint they do state, of how they state it., and of what they do not state, In this regard they occupy it unique position which leaves it critic, on the principles of his critical acumen, without excuse, if the source. of such literature is not deemed by him worthy of sober thought and decisive judgment.
(1). A period of creation, the length of which is left wholly open and undefined.
(2). Following this, one of waste and desolation.
(3). From the formation of the present Adamic Earth by a new creative energy.
Standing out from the midst of criticism like the clear outline of the distant mountain peak from the haziness below, there, is always found some such striking evidence of the truth and stability of Scripture as to command attention and sober inquiry from all but the most biassed and frivolous, for the message it contains.