Scientific men, of all people, should be the last to complain of
_change_ in views, seeing that what was science two hundred years ago is
now (much of it) exploded nonsense.
There is no harm whatever in changing our views about the meaning of
difficult passages--provided we never let go our hold on the central
truth, and put the error to our own account, not saying that the Word
itself is wrong.
It may, in this connection, be at once observed that any particular
explanation, or that one which I propose presently to suggest, of the
first chapters of Genesis, may not commend itself to the reader, and yet
the general argument I have adduced will hold good notwithstanding.
All that I care to contend is, that science does not contradict a
syllable of the narrative on _one_ possible interpretation, and that
changes in view as to interpretation are no arguments against the truth
of the passage itself.
CHAPTER XII.
_METHODS OF INTERPRETING THE NARRATIVE--ASSUMPTIONS OF MEANING TO
CERTAIN TERMS._
Returning, then, to the narrative in the Book of Genesis, I think we may
take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed
form, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we
should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with
our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was
in earlier times.
Pages:
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160