Adam in Harmsworth's Encyclopaedia

 •  3 min. read  •  grade level: 10
As the early parts of this cheap and comprehensive Encyclopedia have been sent for a notice, it falls in with the B.T. to examine how it stands toward Scripture, not in things topographic, or literary. And the father of mankind affords a fair sample in the first part. “To obtain anything like an adequate view of the relations and implications of this Biblical story we must subject it to literary analysis.” This will suffice to convince our readers that it is a human view, and essentially inadequate. Think of the apostle Paul's indignation if any Christian had so spoken or written! God's word subjected to “literary analysis”! No believer could allow the thought here coolly laid down as indisputable, because, not being taught of God, he is under the free-thinking fad. “It is now generally accepted [by unconverted men who treat the Bible like any other book] that the narrative is a combination of two different accounts [neither of which is believed by these skeptics] of the creation of man.” Now I flatly deny that God-fearing men accept anything of the sort. Not many have examined the question seriously and before God. But those who have are clear that the hypothesis of various documents is unfounded and owing to ignorance of the profound wisdom of inspired scripture, which employs the divine names according to the truth that requires each. “God” is employed for His originating all, in contrast with the creature; “Jehovah,” where He forms relations with man toward Himself, his fellows, or other creatures, &c. Here (in Gen. 2; 3) the two are joined for the trial of Adam morally as the head of earthly creation. After the fall it is regularly Jehovah (as generally in chap. 4, and Elohim as generally in chap. 5) according to the propriety of the case. And this runs right through the O.T. where not even these critics of the scissors can dream of different writers, as in the Psalms and the prophets. Thus the whim of “different accounts” is not only a weak guess, but it shuts out the instruction derived from learning God's mind in revealing Himself either in His abstract nature or in His relationships. It will be said that the language and the coloring differ too and bring in distinct matters with each divine aim. But this necessarily goes with the aspect God takes; and it confirms the principle of truth asserted here; whereas it has nothing to do with different writers. A mistake of this nature is fundamental, and must vitiate all the handling of the O.T. (except in outward points). The N. T. comes under the same principle: only the relationship with the Christian is “Father.” But here too “God” and “Father” are employed, as the case requires, quite independently of the figment of different documents. It is really a very foolish fancy. And one cannot but regret to see Biblical truth utterly sacrificed in both the new edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in this otherwise excellent cheap substitute. Worldly men are quite unreliable to write on what demands living faith. For “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:1414But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)).