A Day all around the World.
By J. H. Waggoner
I CANNOT withhold the expression of my gratification with the argument just presented by Bro. Andrews on the definite day on a round world. This question gave some trouble recently in California, where the fact is well known that a change in the reckoning is made at some point, to avoid confusion. But a solution of the apparent difficulty in preserving the definite count of days they did not have. Our opponents, who have tried to make great capital out of a simple fact, have plainly shown that they did not understand its bearings; they did not perceive that if their objection was valid, to carry it out fully would disarrange all dates, and throw every computation of time into confusion. And still they persist, against all their own caviling, to urge the claims of the definite first day of the week! Why? Evidently, because they have more confidence in facts than in their own theory, even though they do not understand the facts. I am happy to learn that in California, where the objection has been pressed upon the Sabbath-keepers, this argument of Bro. Andrews' is appreciated. But it cannot be expected that all will at once understand a profound argument where comparatively few have realized that any difficulty existed to be met, or that the objection was based upon a fact which must be, and now is, explained. But some say they do not understand this argument. One reason of this is, doubtless, because they read without sufficient thought or study. I will give an instance. Read the following sentence: “The first sunset in creation week was at that point farthest east at which the sun could be first seen.”
An intelligent reader was asked, toward what point the beholder was supposed to be looking, in this sentence, and replied, “Toward that point farthest east at which the sun could be seen.” But what is the subject? The first sunset. Was it ever known that a person looked toward the east to behold sunset? No. It needs no explanation to show that the observer is supposed to have been standing at the most eastern point at which the setting sun could be seen. But the connection or relation of things must be kept in mind or the whole argument will be lost. And now, to show that the fault is with the reader, and not with the argument, I will quote a familiar text of Scripture: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”
I venture the assertion that a majority of those who read this, unless their attention has been called to the point, believe that the wise men, looking toward the east, saw the star. But the contrary is true, for they followed the star westward. Of course they, being in the east, saw the star to the west of themselves. Where the question is one of relative position, as is the case of this argument on the commencement of the day, a mistake of the nature of that noticed above, so confuses the mind of the reader that the force of the argument is entirely lost to him. Read it with care; yes, study it point by point, and you will be thankful for the clear light, and be confirmed in your faith that we have the truth of God on the Sabbath question, which will prevail against every objection. J. H. WAGGONER.