THE SKEPTIC MET by G. W. A.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 4, 1860

THE SKEPTIC MET.

By G. W. A.

THE object of the following article is to answer, in few words, some of the most common objections to certain portions of the Bible. There is not, however, in reality any objection to the Bible. And those places which contain statements seemingly contradictory to other parts of the Bible, or to reason or nature are only so in appearance—they do not really exist. The Bible is the affectionate word of the Lord to dying men. It has salvation for its object, God for its author, and the truth without any mixture of error. And that person who reads it, believes it, and obeys it shall be made wise unto salvation—the Spirit of God shall so enlighten his mind that he shall know the truth, the truth shall make him free, and if he perseveres to the end, he will be a monument of saving grace to all eternity.

Having said this much respecting the Bible, we will now notice a catalogue of objections which are often an occasion of stumbling to such as inattentively read the Scriptures. And as we take up these points for the benefit of skeptical minds, we hope such will have interest and patience to follow us in our attempts at their solution. We shall only notice the most important, and take them in the order they occur in the Bible. And we will begin at

GEN. I. GEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE.

The objection here is, that the science of geology assigns a much more ancient date for the creation of the world than that contained in the Mosaic account.

To this we reply, that geology as a science (if we credit the statements of some of its teachers) is yet in its infancy, and in a state of rapid advancement. For a long time it has been coming nearer and nearer to the standard of Revelation, and perhaps further progress in this science will show a harmony between it and the Scriptures. But no class of scientific men are more hasty and rash in making assertions than some geologists. As a science it is not demonstrative, and its oracles are contradictory and clash with each other. Now whom shall we follow? Shall we take our stand with Buckland, who when in company with Cuvier, Le Duc, Dolomieu and others, tells us the traces of the deluge are indubitable, but in his "Bridgewater Treatise" presents this view in a modified form? Shall we follow Hugh Miller, when in his "Old Red Sandstone" he teaches that "the system began with an age of dwarfs and ended with an age of giants," but who in his "Footprints," another of his books, reverses his former theory, and at the very base of the system "discovers one of the most colossal of its giants," and instead of an ascending order of progressive development, asserts a descending order of progressive degradation? But there is one point upon which geologists are agreed, viz: There is not a geological theory extant which would not be overthrown, and the whole science revolutionized by the discovery of a single new fact. Mr. Miller admits ("Footprints," p. 313) that "it furnishes us with no clue by which to unravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation; these mysteries belong to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We attempt to theorize upon them and to reduce them to law, and all nature rises up against us in our presumptuous rebellion." Hear him further: "There are no calculations more doubtful than those of the geologist." "A stray splinter of cone-bearing wood, a fish's skull or tooth, the vertebra of a reptile, the humerus of a bird, the jaw of a quadruped,—all, any of these things, weak and insignificant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel too strong for us and for our theory. The puny fragment in the grasp of truth forms as irresistible a weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old, and our slaughtered sophisms lie piled up 'heaps upon heaps before it.'" This is the testimony of a man who is a geologist; and if one in the fore-front of its ranks admits that a "stray splinter of wood," or "wing bone of a bird" would be enough to "slaughter" the best system geologists ever devised, we shall be rather slow for a while yet to surrender our faith in the Mosaic account of the creation of the world. As Pres. Mahan says, "Admissions in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies constitute the highest kind of evidence."

GOD'S REPENTING. GEN. VI, 6.

The objection here is that the God of the Bible is represented as subject to human weakness, fickle and changeable.

We reply that this is not so, for God "is of one mind, and who can change him?" With him there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning." But in this passage we have God's resentment at man's wickedness. He did not see it as an unconcerned spectator, but as one injured and offended by it. He saw it as an affectionate father sees the folly and stubbornness of a rebellious and disobedient child, which not only displeases him, but grieves him. Such expressions as this is only speaking after the manner of men, a gracious condescension of heavenly things to our earthly, shallow apprehensions; just as we speak to children in their language, and in accommodation to their capacities, that we may the better convey our ideas and meaning to their mind. So God addresses us when he is said to "repent," he is "pressed" by our sins, "broken," "grieved," and here, "grieved to the heart." (See Amos ii, 13; Isa. xliii, 24; Eze. vi, 9). Repentance here implies a painful consciousness that the end does not correspond with the design, and denotes God's altering his conduct towards his creatures, either in the bestowing of good or the infliction of evil, which change is founded wholly on a change in us. Thus Gataker says, "God's repentance is not a change of his will, but of his work; repentance with man is a changing of his will."

A good illustration of God's repenting is found in 1 Sam. xvii: "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king," &c. That is, I placed him on the throne; I intended if he had been obedient to have established his kingdom. He has been disobedient; I change my purpose and the kingdom shall not be established in his family. This is what is meant by his repenting—changing a purpose according to conditions already laid down, or mentally determined. In Jer. xviii, 7-10 we have God's manner of procedure with nations. He there declares that when he speaks of establishing and enlarging a kingdom, if it does "evil" he will "repent" or change his purpose concerning the good wherewith he would benefit them; but at what instant he pronounces chastisement concerning a nation, if they are humbled he will "repent," or change his purpose concerning the judgments he would visit upon them. This is Heaven's universal rule. God foresees the bent of nations and gives prophecies to fit their circumstances, and when he deviates from his usual course of action, it is in accordance with conditions already laid down or mentally determined, and in common speech is often called "repenting." We next notice

GEN. VI, 14. NOAH'S ARK.

The objection here is, that the ark was by far too small to contain the numerous species of animals that escaped the waters of the deluge.

We reply to this objection in the language of Dr. Berg in his discussion with Joseph Barker. He says, "As to the dimensions of the ark, I will accept the capacity mentioned by my opponent, although there is good reason to suppose that the Egyptian cubit, measuring nearly twenty-two inches instead of the cubit measure of eighteen inches, was the standard recognized in the account. But taking the shortest cubit, and we have as the result, a vessel four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy-five feet broad, and forty-five feet high, presenting a capacity of one million five hundred and eighteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty cubic feet.

Reduced to the standard of modern measurement, we should have a vessel of forty thousand four hundred and thirteen tons burthen. A first rate man of war is between two thousand two hundred and two thousand three hundred tons burthen. The ark consequently possessed a capacity of storage equal to that of eighteen ships of the line of the largest class, which upon a moderate computation are capable of carrying twenty thousand men, with stores and provisions for six months consumption, besides eighteen thousand pieces of cannon!"

As to the number of beasts, it is not necessary to suppose that each species now known was represented; for naturalists are generally of the opinion that their number has greatly increased from the influence of climate food, intermixture of races, &c. The naturalist, Buffon tells us that all the various kinds of four-footed animals may be reduced to from two hundred to two hundred and fifty distinct species, including all varieties from the mouse to the elephant. Calmet calculates that all the four-footed beasts, including 3950 sheep (if necessary for the food of the carnivorous animals) would scarcely occupy more room than 120 oxen, 3730 sheep and 80 wolves; and that all the beasts might easily have been lodged in thirty-six stables, and all the birds in as many lofts allowing each apartment to be 52½ feet in length, 29 in width, and 13½ in height. The hold might contain 31,174 bushels of water; and there would be ample room for provisions for a much greater number than entered the ark—and for chambers, &c., for the family of Noah. Thus the mathematical calculations of learned men have abundantly proved that the ark was sufficiently capacious to contain all persons and animals said to have been in it, with sufficient food for each, for more than twelve months.

GEN. VI. THE DELUGE.

The objection here is that no such phenomenon as the flood ever occurred—that it is contrary to reason and science.

As we shall not be allowed to present testimony on this point from the Scriptures we must seek our evidence from some other quarter. Our first witness is "Horne's Introduction." He says, "No fact that ever occurred in the world is so well attested as the deluge, both by natural and civil history." Says Dr. Kurtz's "Sacred History," "Geology also furnishes the most decisive evidence of a general flood. The surface of the earth exhibits a deposit which succeeded a mighty and universal inundation." Chapman's "Principia," Vol. ii, No. 5 says, "The immense beds of oysters and other marine shells and substances which are found on the loftiest mountains of the highest elevation that man has yet been able to attain, not alone in one region or at one continent, but in all parts of the globe, give a positive proof that the summits of these mountains were once submerged by water." Such beds of marine deposits were found by Humboldt on the Andes more than fourteen thousand feet above the ocean's level. They are found on the summits of the Alleghanies, the Rocky mountains, the highest peaks of the Apennines, and on the towering Himalayas of Asia. It is very evident that the atmosphere or soils of those giddy heights could not have originated those oysters and other marine productions of which these shells, &c., are remains! Therefore, the fact is positive beyond evasion, that the waters of the ocean must once have flowed over those stupendous heights! For how else could these relics, which nothing but the ocean can produce get there? The skeleton of a whale was found on mount Sandhorn in Norway, at an elevation of more than three thousand feet above the present surface of his native element! A portion of another was found in Stappen, Finnmark, eight hundred feet above high-water mark. In the Royal College of Surgeons, London, are deposited the bones of deer and of horses found in masses which descended with the avalanches from an elevation on the Himalaya mountains, computed at not less than sixteen thousand feet. These animals could never have ascended the long, rugged way through the (so called) eternal snows to that lofty region where not only the intense cold, but the difficulty of breathing the rarefied atmosphere would cause speedy death to any known specimen of terrestrial animated nature!"

In harmony with this we mention the universal tradition of this event which has obtained among mankind in all ages. The Chaldeans Phenicians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Goths and Druids, the Persians, Hindoos, Burmese, Chinese, Mexicans, Peruvians and even the American Indians all bear testimony to this great fact ("Horne's Introduction"). On this point also testimony from the most eminent profane writers is not scarce. Berosus the Chaldean, Nicholas of Damascus, and Manetho the Egyptian, mention the ruins of a great ship among the mountains of Armenia in their day. Berosus gives the opinion of the Chaldeans respecting the flood. He says, "Very anciently the gods, being greatly offended at the wickedness of the human race, foretold to Xisuthrus that they intended to destroy the world by a deluge. Xisuthrus immediately set about building a ship of very great dimensions. After many years a prodigious vessel was constructed, and Xisuthrus with his family entered into it with a multitude of creatures which were to be preserved. The flood then came, the face of the whole earth was covered, and the vessel which carried the only surviving family of the human race was buoyed up and floated on the boundless deluge. The waters at length abated and the ship chanced to land on a mountain in Armenia called Ararat." ("Whelpsey's Compend.") If in this account we substitute the word Noah for "Xisuthrus," we shall discover that we have nothing more nor less than a blotted copy of the truth. We might multiply more evidence on this objection, but as it would only be a superfluity we pass to

GEN. XXII, 1. GOD'S TEMPTING ABRAHAM.

This is a point of small moment, but we bestow upon it a passing thought. Only those who read the Scriptures with superficial haste will encounter any difficulty here.

The English word "tempt" comes from the Latin tento, which signifies "to prove or try," and so we find it rendered in many ancient translations. Dr. Clarke gives us a literal rendering of the Hebrew here, which is very emphatic: "And the Elohim he TRIED this Abraham."

That is, God brought him into such circumstances as discovered and exercised his faith and love and obedience. God did not tempt Abraham by suggesting evil thoughts to his mind, but he brought him into such an ordeal or proof as effectually showed the ruling dispositions of his heart, and proved them to be very excellent.

GEN. XXII, 24. JACOB'S WRESTLING.

Some men of profane minds have had much merriment over this circumstance, calling it "Jacob's backhold with the Almighty," and many other things have they blasphemously said.

But we will examine it in the spirit of candor. What were the circumstances in the case? We find an ancient feud had existed between Jacob and Esau. And this had finally come to such a pitch, that Jacob at the instigation of his mother to save his life, had gone into a foreign land. God blessed him there so that on his return he could say, "With my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am become two bands." He hears that Esau his old enemy is coming to meet him with a guerrilla band of four hundred men. He sends on a present to him, and with much presence of mind disposes of his company. They pass over the ford Jabbok while Jacob stays behind. Here left alone in the silence of the night, in the open field, with his mind deeply absorbed with the perils that surround him, the patriarch suddenly finds himself seized by some unknown assailant. It is very likely that at first he thought it was one of Esau's four hundred men, who had come stealthily upon him, for he seems not to come as a friend, but as a foe. Jacob, by natural instinct, at once tries to repel the intruder, and seems determined by corporeal strength to throw him to the ground. The other seems to defend himself to his utmost power. How long this struggle lasted before Jacob discovered the real character of his opponent we do not know, but when he finds him to be a heavenly visitant he lays aside his carnal weapons, takes up the spiritual ones of supplication and prayer, and as the prophet says, "weeps and makes supplication to the angel." (Hos. xii, 4.) Although Jacob in this athletic contest seems to prevail, the angel as if to show him the actual insignificance of his efforts, or to give him Paul-like a thorn in the flesh lest this interview "should exalt him," then merely touches the patriarch, and lo! he is disabled in one of his limbs. Jacob still continues his energetic entreaty, begs for a "blessing" (he don't feel he is an equal any longer), and the angel changes his name, grants his petition, and tells him as a prince he has prevailed with God.

Thus, this remarkable transaction, instead of being an occasion of skepticism is a grateful Ebenezer to the tempted child of God.

EX. IV, 21. GOD'S HARDENING PHARAOH'S HEART.

We first inquire here, in what way did God harden Pharaoh's heart? If we look at the history of this man we shall find him to have been naturally a cruel, haughty, vindictive monarch; and that he had repeatedly hardened his own heart against the groans and cries of the oppressed Israelites, and completely shut the bowels of his compassion from them; and so God in a way of righteous judgment now hardens his heart against the conviction of Moses' miracles and the terrors of the plagues. But how? We answer, not by being the direct cause of his sin, but by withdrawing from him, in just punishment of his wicked course, the dews of his grace that might have softened his heart, and so suffering him to grow harder and harder. He had repeatedly resisted God's Spirit, had held Israel in the iron furnace, and now God gives him over to judicial blindness, and he rushes on to destruction. An old divine observes, "God does not harden men by infusing malice into them, but by not imparting mercy to them." Surely the case of Pharaoh need not be a stumbling-block to any, and here we leave him, a monument of the folly of fighting against God.

EX. XX, 5. VISITING THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN.

Here we find another sentiment which is a hill of difficulty to those of skeptical minds.

But we will look at it with a view to arrive at the truth. "Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children." Although no Calvinist, we see nothing here disreputable to the character of our God. We do not take the position with many learned men, that this text speaks directly of idolatry, and so belonged to the Jews. It did indeed belong to them, and also belongs to us, for it is in the bosom of God's universal law to all mankind. But who has not seen a fulfillment of this text in a thousand different forms? Every day's experience shows us children suffering for the sins, vices and follies of their parents, by hereditary disease, poor constitutions, bad education and example, bad name, intemperance, and a thousand other parental transgressions and disobedience of God's natural laws, so-called. Let not the skeptic be too hasty. Look at the text once more. "Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that HATE ME." Ah, here we have it. It is the "haters of God" who will have to suffer punishment for sin.

From this passage we learn that the effects of obedience and disobedience, blessings and curses, run a long time after the original actors are no more. How true this is in our own every-day observation! Take as an illustration a man who is hardened in sin and crime, and ten to one you will find on inquiry, that his ancestors were very much like him.

"Still God is just, and the justifier of all who believe in Jesus." The true sense of this passage is plainly recognized in the old Chaldaic Version: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the transgressing children, unto the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, when the children follow the iniquities of their fathers." This natural and easy construction removes every discrepancy from the text, and teaches that if the parents are transgressors of God's law, the children will follow their example. But if we understand it in a physiological sense, that the parent's sins rest upon the children, the cases of thousands prove it to be tremendously true.

EX. XXIV, 10. SEEING GOD FACE TO FACE.

The objection here is that numerous scriptures declare that "no man hath seen God," and as many more that he addressed himself to Israel "face to face."

We reply to this, 1. That no mention is ever made in the New Testament of seeing God, except in vision, which does not come into this controversy. 2. In many places in the Old Testament, where individuals speak of seeing God, the context shows it to be an "ANGEL." Thus in Judges xiii, Manoah says to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God," and yet this same being in this same chapter is thirteen times called an angel. The Hebrews were accustomed to speak of any of God's celestial ambassadors as seeing God, and so even the beloved John in the rapture of his mind on the isle of Patmos, fell down to worship at the feet of an angel [Rev. xxii, 8]. 3. God did reveal himself to his ancient people in a most wonderful manner. But did they literally behold the face of the great I AM? No. They witnessed the glory of that august Being; he did speak to them "mouth to mouth;" but as Moses expressly declares, "they saw no similitude." They did see the "Shekinah," which was always the symbol of God's immediate presence, the "cloud of glory," which was his representative, and to express that familiarity with which God revealed himself to Moses, he says, they talked "face to face." But Moses really never saw God's face, any more than we see the sun; we can see the light which radiates from that dazzling orb, and Moses and Israel beheld "the cloud of glory" which enveloped the Lord of hosts.

In the twelfth chapter of Numbers God declares how he revealed himself to Moses. He says, "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even APPARENTLY." With Moses God conversed by articulate sounds, in audible speech, in a familiar manner, as a man speaks to his friend, but the face of God was never unveiled to human gaze.

EX. XXXI, 17. GOD RESTED AND WAS REFRESHED.

The objection founded on this place is that the God of the Bible is a passible Being, subject to human infirmity.

It is replied, we understand this verse to signify that God, after he had perfected "the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that in them is," ceased from creating, and upon a review of the whole, pronounced them very good, and was satisfied. In an old English version, made about the year 1600, the verse reads thus, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and in the seventh he ceased from work." The expression, "refreshed," instead of implying that God was wearied or fatigued, merely indicates his joyful reflection over the works of creation.

NUM. XXXI. MOSES AND THE MIDIANITES.

Without stopping to repeat what is said of this matter by Voltaire and Co., we bestow a few thoughts upon it.

There had been a battle between Israel and the Midianites, and Moses expostulates with the officers of the army on their return for sparing the women and children alive. We do not indeed read that an express command had been given to that effect, but it was doubtless implied in the general order to avenge Israel on the Midianites. And as these very women had been the principal instruments of seducing the people into the worship of Peor, it was fair to infer that they were not to be spared. Matthew Henry observes that "God had put to death the adulterers of Israel by the plague, and now it was fit that the adulteresses should be put to death by the sword." It is to be remembered that in all probability these same women had been concerned in the abomination at Peor, and if they were spared the same revolting scenes would be in danger of being enacted over again, and thus bring a new plague or judgment upon the people. In taking the lives of the male children only, there are reasons of prudence and mercy. While the female children might be spared and become bond-women and servants (a thing justified only in such an age), the others, the males, as they grew up would endanger the safety of the commonwealth by rebellion to avenge the destruction of their ancestors. Thus in looking at the execution of this severe penalty we see blended both justice and compassion, and can exclaim, "Just and true are all thy ways, thou King of saints!"

DEUT. VII, 1. DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITES.

The objection here is that Moses' God was a being of cruelty and delights in slaughter and bloodshed.

We answer, In all of God's dealings with the children of men, love and mercy appear as the leading attributes. Four hundred years before this God told Abraham that his posterity should possess the land of Canaan in their fourth generation. But why not before? "For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet FULL." Here is the reason. God would not dispossess them of their land, bad as they were, until their cup of iniquity run over—until like those before the flood, "the imagination of their heart was only evil and that continually." "But," says the skeptic, "were there no innocent little children among all those vast multitudes? Is this the God of the Bible?" We answer, are there no innocent little children to suffer when the so-called "god of nature" sends his chastisements? One quarter of the human family die before they are seven years old. Is the God of nature just? Does the God of nature spare little children when he sends earthquakes, pestilence, famine, whirlwind, tempest and a thousand other dread ills? Have these little children transgressed his laws? Let not infidelity vaunt herself, for out of her own mouth she stands condemned.

DEUT. XIV, 21. JEWS SELLING GENTILES DEAD ANIMALS.

Great exceptions are often taken to this precept, and some think it was a barbarous statute to say the least of it.

We reply, that to those who are uninformed respecting the food and manners of the heathen nations, this may look like a carnal ordinance. But when we enlighten ourselves respecting their customs, the Jews' practice will not be censured. If an ox or sheep got cast and was found dead, the Jew would not eat it, because its blood had not been shed. There was a statute forbidding the eating of blood, and mankind had long been taught that it would make an atonement for their sins, as it had respect to the blood of Jesus Christ. But the Gentile—the Hittite, the Amorite, etc., had no such barrier; they could eat an animal which died of itself, and they might be glad even to get it for a price—moreover, they were not obliged to buy what the Jew would not eat; let the skeptic bear this fact in mind. There are people now in the world who eat horses, frogs, locusts, etc., as the Danes, French and Arabs; would it be wrong in us to assist them to their favorite dish? Certainly not. Neither was it wrong for the Jew to sell things to Gentiles which the law prohibited him from eating.

JOSH. X, 12. SUN AND MOON STANDING STILL.

In examining this most wonderful phenomenon, we shall consider it in the light of a miracle and none other. There are two ways to explain it; one by supposing the rays of the sun to be supernaturally prolonged, and the other that the earth actually ceased its diurnal motion around its own axis. Either would be a miracle, and would require the interference of Almighty power. Prof. Bush inclines to the former, and remarks that "the more probable explanation in our opinion is, that the phenomenon related was merely optical; that the rotary motion of the earth was not disturbed; but that instead of this, the light of the sun and moon was supernaturally prolonged by the same laws of refraction and reflection that ordinarily cause the sun to appear above the horizon when he is in reality below it. He who created the heavenly luminaries, and established the laws which regulate the transmission of light, may at this time have so influenced the atmosphere through which the sun's rays passed as to render his disk still visible long after the time when in ordinary circumstances it would have disappeared." In speaking on the phrase, "sun stand thou still," Mr. Bush adds, "The verb in the original (dom) generally rendered cease, rest, be still, keep silence, properly implies cessation from action or noise rather than from motion. Dr. Clarke understands Joshua as saying, Sun be silent, be inactive—that is, restrain thy influence so that the earth may not revolve round its own axis. The skeptic objects to this whole affair on the ground that "such a cessation in the daily motion of the earth would endanger the globe and disorder every planet in the system." We answer that such "err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." And it would be degrading to the perfections of the Almighty to suppose that he had so bound himself by the laws which he has given for the preservation and direction of universal nature that he could not change them, alter their effects, or suspend their operations when greater and better effects in a certain time or place, might be produced by such a temporary change or suspension. The planetary system is the great clock-work of our Creator, and he may suspend for a time any or all of their movements a thousand times easier than a skillful man could moor a ship or stop a train of cars.

JUDGES I, 19. JUDAH AND THE CHARIOTS OF IRON.

"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountains; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? Spiritualists especially have been quite jocose over this verse, but for once, certainly, they have clapped a little too soon. A good critic in the Hebrew tongue remarks that these verses are improperly connected. The first clause, "The Lord was with Judah," should terminate the preceding verse, and this gives the reason of the success of that tribe. "The Lord was with Judah and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath," &c. Here is a complete period; the remaining part of the verse refers either to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which compelled him to withdraw his support. When the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord and served Baalim, God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes and thorns in their sides. This is the turn given to the verse by the Chaldee Paraphrast: "And the Word of Jehovah was in the support of the house of Judah, and they extirpated the inhabitants of the mountains, but afterwards when they had sinned, they were not able to extirpate the inhabitants of the plain country, because they had chariots of iron." They were now left to their own strength, and their adversaries prevailed against them. G. W. A.*