{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64500/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64500","id":"gutenberg_64500","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64500","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Biology"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1871 George P. Bacon edition by David Price.\n\n                                                                   [No 11.\n\n                         BIOLOGY VERSUS THEOLOGY.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                THE BIBLE\n                 IRRECONCILABLE WITH SCIENCE, EXPERIENCE,\n                       AND EVEN ITS OWN STATEMENTS.\n\n\n                                BY JULIAN.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201cFelix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas\n    Quique metus omnes et inexorabile fatum\u2014\n    Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari.\u201d\n\n                                                                   VIRGIL.\n\n    \u201cKnow, then, thyself\u2014Presume not God to scan;\n    The proper study of Mankind is Man.\u201d\n\n                                                      POPE\u2019S ESSAY ON MAN.\n\n    \u201cIf it be possible to perfect mankind, the means of doing so will be\n    found in the Medical Sciences.\u201d\n\n                                                                DESCARTES.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  Lewes:\n                 GEORGE P. BACON, STEAM PRINTING OFFICES.\n\n                                  1871.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                                                           PAGE.\nINTRODUCTION                                                   3\nPART I.\u2014SCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH SCIENCE.\n  (1)  The Mosaic Cosmogony                                    5\n  (2)  The Fall                                               11\n  (3)  The Flood                                              13\nPART II.\u2014SCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE.\n  (Miracles)                                                  16\n  (1)  Pre-historic Man                                       21\n  (2)  Increase of Man                                        24\n  (3)  Armies of the Jews, and numbers slain in               26\n  battle\n  (4)  Incredible Statements                                  28\nPART III.\u2014THE BIBLE IRRECONCILABLE WITH ITSELF.\n  (a)  Historic Errors                                        31\n  (b)  Erroneous Figures                                      33\n  (c)  Misstatements                                          39\nPART III.\u2014SECOND DIVISION.\u2014SCRIPTURE CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE.\n  Contradictory Texts                                         46\nCONCLUSION                                                    61\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\n\u201cTHE myths of paganism,\u201d says Professor Huxley, {3} \u201care as dead as\nOsiris or Zeus, and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the\nknowledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the coeval\nimaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by\nwriters whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be\nunknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate; but even at this\nday are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the\nauthoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the justice of\nscientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of things, and\namong them of species.\n\n\u201cIn this 19th century, as at the dawn of modern physical science, the\ncosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher\nand the opprobrium of the orthodox.  Who shall number the patient and\nearnest seekers after truth . . . whose lives have been embittered and\ngood name blasted by the mistaken zeal of bibliolaters?  Who shall count\nthe host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the\neffort to harmonise impossibilities,\u2014whose life has been wasted in the\nattempt to force the generous new wine of science into the old bottle of\nJudaism?  It is true that if philosophers have suffered, their cause has\nbeen amply avenged.  Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of\nevery science, as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and\nhistory records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly\nopposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding\nand crushed, if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.  But orthodoxy\nis the Bourbon of the world of thought: it learns not, neither can it\nforget; and though at present bewildered and afraid to move, it is as\nwilling as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the\nbeginning and the end of sound science, and to visit with such petty\nthunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl those who refuse to\ndegrade Nature to the level of primitive Judaism.\u201d\n\nWe purpose, in this pamphlet, with all possible brevity, to show that\nScripture is irreconcilable with science, experience, and even with its\nown statements.\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\nSCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH SCIENCE.\n\n\n(1.)  _The Mosaic Cosmogony_.\n\n\nIT is not our intention to go with any minuteness into the thrice-told\ntale of the antagonism between the Mosaic cosmogony and the revelations\nof geology.  That only five days intervened between the creation of\nheaven and that of man is contradicted by every stratum of the earth.\n\nWe readily admit that the word \u201cday\u201d is used in Scripture in a very vague\nsense, and that even the limiting phrase \u201cevening and morning\u201d by no\nmeans circumscribes the interval to twenty-four hours.  As the sun did\nnot even exist till the fourth of these days, the three preceding ones\ncould not possibly have been divided by its setting and rising.\n\nIn like manner it may be admitted that Daniel\u2019s \u201cvision of the evening\nand morning\u201d (viii., 26) covers a period of 2,300 days, and his \u201cseventy\nweeks\u201d (ix., 24) may be 490 years, that is seventy weeks of years; but\nall this gives very little relief to the real difficulties.  It is not\ntrue that there ever was a period like that called by Moses \u201cthe third\nday;\u201d a period when the earth was drained, the sea gathered into its bed,\nthe rivers and lakes confined to their proper boundaries, grass growing\non the mountains, trees in the forests, fruits in the vineyards, and all\nthe vegetable kingdom complete; yet no fish in the waters, no creeping\nthing on the earth, no bird in the air.  Even in the Cambrian period may\nbe traced the rudiments of animal life; and in the Silurian, long before\nany trace of land plants can be detected, certain molluscs were so\nabundant that the period of this formation has been distinctly called\n\u201cThe age of brachiopods.\u201d\n\nNext to the Silurian or mollusc period comes the Devonian or \u201cage of\nfishes,\u201d when the seas literally swarmed with inhabitants, and it is not\ntill we arrive at the coal formation that we come to the \u201cvegetable age.\u201d\nAnd what were these vegetables? principally ferns and mosses, a rank\nproduction, which can in no wise answer to the description: \u201cThe earth\nbrought forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding\nfruit after his kind . . . and the evening and the morning were the third\nday.\u201d\n\nBut of this enough.  Come we to the physical features of the heavens and\nthe earth according to the writers of the Old and New Testaments.\n\nThe earth is represented by these writers as immovable in the centre of\nthe universe, and the heavenly bodies are described as revolving round\nit.  The clouds (_rakia_) are supposed to be a solid body sustaining an\nocean of water similar to the seas: \u201cGod said, let there be a firmament\n(_rakia_) in the midst of [or between] the waters, and let it divide the\nwaters [of the sea] from the waters [of the clouds], and it was so.\u201d\nThis solid firmament, or roof of the earth, is said to have windows or\ncasements in it, which are opened to let the rain fall through.\n\nThe New Testament makes no advance upon these primitive notions.  We are\ntold (Matt, iv., 8) that the devil on one occasion took Jesus to a high\nmountain, and showed him thence \u201call the kingdoms of the world.\u201d  Of\ncourse the writer supposed the world to be a flat surface, the whole of\nwhich could be seen from one spot, if of sufficient elevation.  In like\nmanner the solidity of the clouds is taken for granted, for thrones are\nset upon them, and Christ, it is said, will show himself hereafter\n\u201csitting on the clouds,\u201d attended with his court of angels.\n\nWe grant that many expressions of daily use will not bear a close\nanalysis.  Thus we talk of being \u201ccharmed\u201d and \u201cenchanted\u201d without the\nremotest idea of incantation; and when we say \u201cthe sun rises and sets\u201d we\nignore the active character of these phrases.  These, and hundreds of\nother words, have acquired a conventional meaning: thus charmed means\n\u201cgreatly delighted,\u201d and the phrases \u201crising in the east\u201d and \u201csetting in\nthe west,\u201d applied to the sun, mean simply that it shows itself at\ndaybreak in the east, and as the day closes disappears in the west.\n\nThis conventional use of words is a very different matter to the\nendorsing of vulgar errors.  To say that the sun rises and sets can\nmislead no one.  It teaches nothing beyond an optical fact, and can in no\nwise justify such teaching as this: The earth is a vast plane, buoyed up\non a bed of water; and under this water is the region of hell, where\nSatan rules supreme over the fallen angels.  The clouds are a solid roof\nsustaining an aerial ocean, the fountain of our rain; and above this is\nthe region of heaven, where God rules as an earthly potentate, and where\nare mansions, streets, rivers, and trees, after the fashion of this\nearth.\n\nIt is said again, if Moses had written like a modern geologist, no one\nwould have understood him.  Apply this to Newton, or any early teacher of\na new science.  What would be said of Newton, if he had taught the myths\nof Scandinavian mythology under a similar plea?  If his discoveries of\nlight and gravitation were not new, they were no discoveries at all; but\nif they were new they were unknown.  It is the part of a teacher to\nteach, to correct errors, and not to perpetuate them; to tell what is not\nknown, and not confirm the folly of ignorance and superstition.\n\nOnce more.  It is said that the object of the Bible is to teach religion\nand not science.  Granted.  And the object of an astronomer is to teach\nastronomy, of a geologist to teach geology.  What then?  Is the\nastronomer and geologist free to revel in all sorts of errors provided\nthey do not affect his special science?  No one would advance such a plea\nexcept for a sinister purpose.  But admitting it for the sake of\nargument, what is gained by the admission?  The express object of the\nfirst chapter of Genesis is to teach science.  It professes to tell us\nhow the world was made; and all its teaching is wrong.  The object of\nGenesis vii. and viii. is to teach history.  It professes to tell us how\nthe world was destroyed by a flood; and the teaching is all wrong.  The\nobject of Genesis xi. is to teach ethnology.  It professes to tell us how\nmen became dispersed over the earth, and how it is that different nations\nspeak different tongues; and the teaching is all wrong.  It is no\njustification to plead that Moses was not skilled in geology, history,\nand ethnology.  If he knew nothing about these matters, why did he\nprofess to teach them, and why give it out that what he taught was told\nhim by God?  If God is the God of truth he can no more teach false\nscience than false morals; it is equally untruthful to falsify a\nscientific or historical fact, as to falsify a moral precept or church\ndoctrine.\n\nIt is said that the writers of Scripture were inspired by divine wisdom\nto write nothing but truth.  Now either the world was made in six days or\nit was not; either the flood covered the whole world or it did not;\neither the sun stood still at the bidding of Joshua or it did not; either\nBalaam\u2019s ass spoke Hebrew and the serpent in the garden spoke the\nlanguage of Adam, or they did not.  If these things are not positive\nfacts they are fictions, and could only deceive as they still do.  It is\ninconceivable that Professor Airy or Huxley, knowing certain facts,\nshould write a book and wholly ignore that knowledge.  It would be\npuerile in the extreme if they were to plead in excuse for such folly\nthat they were writing on another subject.  The true question is this:\nwere they knowingly stating fiction and falsehoods as veritable facts?\nIf they knew that man was not made of dust, nor woman of a rib taken out\nof Adam while he was asleep; if they knew that the world was not made in\nsix days, but affirmed that it was; if they knew that the serpent was not\ndoomed to crawl on the ground and eat dust because the devil chose to\nassume its shape, but said that it did, then are they altogether to\nblame, and it is a matter wholly indifferent whether they were writing\nscience or theology.  So with the \u201cinspired penmen.\u201d  They profess to\nwrite truth, to write facts, and if the words they utter are not truths,\nand the events they record are not facts, it is quite beside the question\nwhether they pertain to the immediate object of their books or not.\n\nLastly, it is said that science at present is unsettled, and therefore it\nis too early to pronounce upon the scientific teaching of the Bible.  No\ndoubt there are questions in science still _in nubibus_, and others _sub\njudice_, but what of that?  Because a science is still not fully\ndeveloped, is it worth nothing? has it no voice, no authority?  It is\nstill doubtful whether some of the nebul\u00e6 are unfinished stars, or stars\nso thickly clustered together that at this distance they look like a\n\u201ccloud.\u201d  Because this question is not fully determined, must we ignore\nthe fact that the earth is a globe; that the planets roll round the sun;\nthat the clouds are due to evaporation, and rain to a change of\ntemperature?  The Bible says the earth is a plane, and the clouds a solid\nflooring; that the sun, moon, and stars are set in the atmosphere between\nthe upper and lower waters.  We are told to suspend judgment on these\npoints, because there are problems of astronomy and geology yet unsolved.\nThis indeed is clinging to a hopeless hope; it is the obstinacy of a\nGambetta, who finding no help in man, dreamt in his enthusiasm that the\nstars in their courses would fight for France against the Prussians.\n\nTo return to the Mosaic notion of creation.  The writer tells us that man\nwas made in the image of God\u2014a male and a female.  \u201cLet us make man in\nour image, after our likeness.  So God created man in his own image; in\nthe image of God created he him; male and female created he them.\u201d  This\nseems to imply an Isis as well as an Osiris, a female as well as a male\ndeity, and no doubt Moses, who derived his inspiration from the Egyptian\npriests, believed this sexual divinity.  But what is meant by \u201cthe image\nand likeness of God?\u201d  We are told over and over again that God has no\nimage, no bodily form, and we are forbidden to make any likeness of any\ncreature and look on it as a likeness of God.  Theologians tell us the\nlikeness referred to is righteousness and true holiness.  But why say\n\u201cthe image and likeness?\u201d _image_ seems to point to bodily form.\nBesides, Adam was not like God in holiness and true righteousness, for he\nhearkened to temptation, and if he was \u201clike God,\u201d it implies that Satan\nmight delude even God, and that God might by possibility fall like Adam.\n\nHaving made man, the writer says: \u201cGod ended his work\u201d (Gen. ii., 2).  He\nmade man and ceased the work of creation.  Strange, that the writer\nshould say this, and yet in the very same chapter contradict the\nstatement, by the \u201cnew creation\u201d of a woman!  The dogma, however, that\nthe creative work of God was sealed up, never to be re-opened when man\nwas made, is in direct antagonism to the whole reading of the rocks.\nGeology shows us worlds of extinct vegetables and animals, the types of\nwhich, in one geological period differed entirely from those which\nexisted at a succeeding one, and every anterior period had a flora and a\nfauna wholly unlike any of those with which we are familiar.  There are\nhosts of creations at every era, and there has never been a period from\nthe mystical \u201cBeginning,\u201d when the creative force has ceased from its\noperations.  At one period we see nothing superior to shell-fish and\nsea-worms, and for a time the work of creation seems ended; but another\nset of rocks unfold themselves, and show us myriads of molluscs,\nespecially of the arm-footed kind, trilobites and graptolites,\nstone-lilies and corals.  Again a change comes over created things:\nmountains are upheaved, but no grass grows upon their sides, the ocean\nbed is contracted, and the waters are tenanted by innumerable swarms of\nfishes, for the most part unlike any which now exist.  This dynasty of\nthe fishy tribe gives place in time to the \u201cage of ferns and mosses,\u201d and\nthe lizard race makes its appearance; but it is not till we come to the\n\u201csecondary group of rocks\u201d that we meet with the fish-lizards and the\npredacious plesiosaur, the bird-beaked saurian, and the labyrinthodon.\nAges roll on, ages past all calculation, and new families of molluscs,\nfishes, and reptiles put in their appearance for the first time:\nammonites and belemnites among the molluscs; eryons and horse-shoes among\ncrustaceans; pterodactyls, teliosaurs, steneosaurs, and megalosaurs among\nreptiles, with here and there a sort of opossum, the first type of the\nmammal family.  In the air flew the giant pterodactyl; on the dry land\nstalked the ponderous megalosaurus; in the sea whole hosts of marine\nlizards pursued their carnivorous instincts.  Huge turtles crept along\nthe muddy coasts, and strange fishes swam in the deep ocean; but no man\nexisted; no flocks fed upon the mountains; no birds carrolled in the\ngroves.  The lordly lion commanded not in the forest; the majestic eagle\nwas not the king of birds.  The master spirits were saurians, whose sway\nwas universal; and this brings us to the third great era, that of the\ntertiary rocks.  This third series of rocks contain fossils more and more\nnearly allied to existing plants and animals; we meet with mammals in\nconsiderable numbers, but by far the largest number of them are\nthick-skinned, and, as a rule, they were both more bulky and longer in\nthe legs than those which now exist.\n\nComing at last to the age of man and existing species, we still find the\nwork of creation has not ceased.  Every new manufacture brings forth some\nnew form of plant or animal, so that creative force can no more cease\nfrom operation than any other form of force.  If God is the Creator he\nmust create; there can be no _was_ or _has been_ with deity; deity must\nof necessity be always the universal _Now_, the great _I am_.  Infinite\nlove must always be loving, for love without loving is no longer love.\nInfinite power must always be potential, for to remit the potentiality of\npower is to lose the power.  Power and force are not latent faculties,\nbut active only.  In man it is otherwise, because man, as man, has a\nbeginning and therefore an end, and the works of such a creature must\nhave the same limits; but power, as power, cannot possibly begin and end;\nif it has a beginning that beginning must be the result of _previous_\npower, which is absurd; and if it has an end it is no longer power, which\nis a contradiction.\n\nMan is the creature of a day, and when the day is over it can be said of\nman he _was_, and of the works of man they _once were_.  As with man\nthere is a past, so must there be a future.  To every _was_ there must\nbelong a _shall be_.  Man, therefore, can be an inventor, a doer, a\nmaker, and cease inventing, doing, making, as he can cease living, or\nexhaust the limit of his faculties; but God cannot be a creator one day\nand not another, a doer yesterday and not to-morrow, an agent at one time\nand not another, or his works would have a past, and if a past a future\nalso; and whatever has a past and future must belong to time; nay more,\nwhatever has a past and future must of necessity be finite, limited, and\nimperfect.  If God is infinite, the great \u201cI Am,\u201d the \u201csame yesterday,\ntoday, and for ever,\u201d it can never be said of His operations they once\nwere, but are now ended; He was once a Creator, but is so no longer; His\npower to create was once active in its potentiality, but has ever since\nbeen in abeyance.  Every faculty of the infinite, every act and attribute\nmust itself be infinite, with no remission, and no shadow of turning.  To\nsay that God ended His work of creation on the sixth day and ceased from\nHis labour, is to predicate change in the unchangeable, limitation in the\ninfinite, rest in activity, repose in motion.  It is to humanise deity,\nmortalise immortality, temporise eternity, limit infinity, and make a\npast to the everlasting \u201cNow.\u201d  It is to make God a man, differing only\nin degree; eternity time, differing only in extension; the ever present a\nmere _now_ between a \u201cwas\u201d and a \u201cwill be.\u201d  Facts, therefore, as well as\nreflection must show the untruth of the dogma that for six days God was a\ncreator, and then ended His work, and ceased from His labour.\n\n\n\n(2.)  _The Fall_.\n\n\nAs a supplement to the cosmogony, comes the legend of the Fall.  Of\ncourse, the object of this tale is to account for the fancied\nimperfection of the works of God.  The gist of the matter is this: Adam\nand Eve were commanded to abstain from a certain tree growing in Eden.\nThis abstinence was to be the test of their obedience.  The devil tempted\nEve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and Eve induced Adam to do the same.\nIn consequence of this disobedience, God cursed the serpent whose form\nSatan had assumed;\u2014he cursed the ground, causing it to bring forth thorns\nand thistles; cursed Eve in her instincts of love and maternal functions,\nand Adam in assigning him the toil of working for his daily bread.  Over\nall came the sentence of death: \u201cBy one man sin entered into the world,\nand death by sin\u201d (Rom. v., 12).\n\nAccording to this legend, \u201cdeath is the wages of sin.\u201d  It was Adam\u2019s\napostacy that brought both sin and death into the world, but neither sin\nnor death can possibly be due to such a cause.  Adam\u2019s apostacy could not\nbring \u201csin\u201d into the world.  _The very act of disobedience is a proof\nthat_ \u201c_sin_\u201d _already existed_.  The sin preceded the overt act, was the\ncause of it, and the cause must inevitably exist before its effect.  It\nwas sin that produced apostacy, and not apostacy which produced sin.\nTake the case of Cain: It is said that Cain slew his brother Abel.  What\nwould be thought of the logician who should affirm that because Cain slew\nAbel, hatred was introduced into the heart of man, and that death should\nfollow as a perpetual punishment?  Should we not reply, it was because\nCain hated Abel that he rose up and slew him?  The passion of hatred\npreceded the act of murder.  It was malice aforethought, and if anything\nresulted from the misdeed, it was not hatred but contrition, not thoughts\nof evil but thoughts of bitter grief.  Hatred was the cause of murder,\nand murder the parent of sorrow.  So with Adam and Eve.  If there had not\nbeen already \u201can evil heart of unbelief,\u201d there never would have been an\nact of disobedience.  Eve sinned, not because she was innocent, but\nbecause she was sinful.  She disobeyed, not because she was obedient, but\nbecause her heart \u201cwas not right with God.\u201d  The bare act was nothing,\nthe sin was there already, and if she had never eaten of the tree, the\nthought of her heart would have been sin.  It is not true, therefore,\nthat sin is the consequence of Adam\u2019s apostacy, inasmuch as it produced\nthe apostacy itself.  By one man\u2019s disobedience sin did _not_ enter into\nthe world, neither is it true that death is \u201cthe wages of sin.\u201d\n\nBelow the surface of the earth for the depth of some six or eight miles,\nthousands and millions of once living creatures lie buried in the rocks;\ncreatures which lived and died before man had any being.  Of these\ncreatures, myriads were carnivorous; and one specimen, at least, has been\ndisinterred of a fossil animal inclosed in the body of another, by whom\nit had been devoured for food.\n\nHence, death existed long, long before the very creation of man; millions\nupon millions of animals were buried in the rocks before Eve was made of\nthe sleeper\u2019s rib.  So says geology, and what is the testimony of\nphysiology?\n\nEvery leaf and blade of grass, every drop of water, and even the\ninvisible air, are crowded with insects and animalcules; insomuch that\nnot a leaf can be eaten, not a drop of water can be drank, not a gasp of\nair can be inhaled, without destroying the life of some insect creatures.\nIf, however, only one insect or animalcule died before the Fall; if by\nthe effect of earthquake or volcano, the force of tempest, the rending of\nrocks, the slip of an avalanche, the fall of a tree, or even by accident,\none animal lost its life, the point is proved; for that one animal at\nleast died, and therefore death was not the consequence of a disobedience\nnot yet incurred.\n\nAgain, it is well known that carnivorous beasts and birds of prey have an\nanatomy adapted to their predacious habits.  Their teeth or beak, their\npaws or talons, their whole structure and digestive organs, prove that\nthey live on carrion, and a lion could no more eat straw like an ox, than\nan ox could eat carrion like a lion.  If, therefore, there was no death\nbefore the Fall, we are reduced to one or other of these dilemmas: Either\nthere were no animals that lived on prey, or else at the Fall all\npredacious animals were wholly recreated, their teeth and jaws were\nre-constructed, their beaks and talons, their organs of deglutition and\ndigestion; in short, their entire anatomical structure.  A gratuitous\nassertion wholly incapable of proof, and contradicted by every animal\nfossil in the pre-Adamite world.\n\n\n\n(3.)  _The Noachian Flood_.\n\n\nWhat we said of the cosmogony we repeat under this head also: it is not\nour intention to enter upon this subject at any length.  It has been\nproved to demonstration that no single trace of such a cataclysm can be\ndetected in the rocks or features of the earth; but all these rocks and\nall these features bear their testimony against such an event.\n\nNo doubt the stratified rocks speak of the agency of water, but that\nagency was not the deluge.  No doubt the gravel and the boulders found so\nextensively accumulated over the northern hemisphere were carried from\ntheir native places by the force of water; but that water was not the\nflood.  No doubt traces of marine animals may be discovered on every high\nmountain, no matter how far that mountain may be distant from the main\nocean; but these fossils were not deposited there by the breaking up of\nthe great deep and the 40 days of incessant rain which fell upon the ark.\nThese fossils extend downwards for some six or eight miles in depth, and\nhow could a flood of some few months in duration make such a deposit?\nThe fossils of the rocks are all deposited in the nicest order; those of\none period are never mixed with the fossils of another.  No antiquarian\ncould sort his specimens with more order.  No museum could observe more\nmethod in its arrangements.  A deluge would sweep down everything in\nconfusion and bury plants, animals, and minerals in one common ruin; such\nis not the character of the rocks\u2014every fossil reveals the rocks from\nwhich it was dug, and every rock will tell the searcher what fossils he\nmay expect to find there.\n\nWe are told that the animals taken into the ark were the same as those\nwhich existed on the earth when the flood came, and that the animals\npreserved by Noah were the parents of existing species; but the fossils\nof the rocks are wholly different to any existing specimens of plant or\nanimal.  Shell fish are found upon inland mountains, but not the shell\nfish of our present system.  Bones of animals are found far from the\nnative haunts of the living creatures, but they are altogether strange\nbones, and never belonged to the animals of the ark.  They are all relics\nof extinct species, and amongst all the fossils no trace of man can be\ndetected.  No trace of the houses built by Cain and his offspring.  No\ntrace of the iron and brass instruments forged by Tubal-Cain and his\ndescendants.  We find traces of the most delicate leaves of plants,\ntraces of birds, and beasts, and creeping things; but none of man, or of\nthe works of man.  If the same flood swept away both man and beast, bird\nand fish, reptile and insect, tree and boulder, how is it we never find\nthem buried in the same bed\u2014overwhelmed in the same grave?  Demonstration\ncould not go further.  The whole earth from its lowest depth to its\nsurface denies the universality of the flood, and not one particle of\nproof can be pointed out in confirmation of the legend.\n\nMoses says that the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Gen.\nvii., 11).  He believed that there was a subterranean abyss of water\nunder the earth, {14a} and the Rev. William Kirby, in one of the\n\u201cBridgewater Treatises,\u201d {14b} actually attempts to justify this notion.\nIt would be an insult to the understanding of our reader to waste\narguments on such a hypothesis.  It is enough to state it, and it must\nfall with the weight of its own worthlessness.\n\nAgain.  Moses says, \u201cAnd the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth,\nand all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.\nFifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail, and the mountains were\ncovered\u201d (Gen. vii., 19, 20).  Moses says the depth of the water was 15\ncubits, and that all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were\ncovered.  Of course the writer was ignorant of that simple principle,\nknown now to every schoolboy, that water finds its level.  He supposed\nthat it would follow the irregularities of the earth\u2019s surface, here\ninvesting a mountain and there dipping into the valleys, so that a\nuniform depth was preserved throughout, the highest hills being covered\nwith a depth of 15 cubits like the valleys.  We must, per force, believe\nthis, or we are driven to the more unlikely hypothesis, that Moses\nsupposed a level of some 30 feet deep of water would suffice to cover the\nloftiest mountains. {15}  Whichever solution is taken, the inference is\nthe same\u2014that the statement is wholly irreconcilable with science.\n\nOnce more.  After the waters had prevailed for about a year, Noah sent\nforth a dove, and the dove came back to the ark with an \u201colive leaf\nplucked off\u201d (Gen. viii., 11).  This olive tree withstood the pelting\nrain, withstood the rush of the subsiding water, withstood the wind that\ndrove the waters back to their abyss; but what is stranger still, it\nblossomed under water, and when its head was left towering above the\nflood which enveloped its trunk, its branches had put forth leaves.\nProbably the grass was not injured by the flood, as the beasts were\ndismissed from the ark to find their own food.  Strange that trees and\nherbs, covered with a depth of 30 feet of water, should grow just as well\nas in the sunshine; but small inconsistencies of this sort are as nothing\nto the glaring impossibility of the whole legend.\n\nMany other examples of a similar contrariety might be added, but the mere\nmultiplication of evidence can serve no useful purpose when enough has\nbeen brought forth to establish the point in question.  We might refer to\nthe miracle of Joshua (x., 12.) in proof of the vulgar notion that it is\nthe sun which moves over the earth, not the earth round the sun; we might\ndirect attention to Gen. ix., 13, in proof that Moses supposed the\nrainbow to be a miraculous exhibition of God\u2019s power in confirmation of\nhis covenant with Noah; or we might dwell on the 2nd Epistle of Peter\n(iii., 10\u201312) to show that the prince of the Apostles believed that the\nheavens could be burnt with fire, like the roof of a house, and the\nelements be melted by fervent heat.  We might cite a whole host of verses\nto prove that the Scripture writers believed the earth to be a vast plane\nwith an abyss, and the whole rigidly fixed on a solid foundation wholly\nimmovable.\n\nOr we might turn to the physiological notions of the Bible writers to\nshow that they were no more in advance of the period than their notions\nof astronomy, geology, and general history.  They referred intellectual\noperations to the kidneys or reins:\u2014\u201cMy reins instruct me in the night\nseason\u201d (Ps. xvi., 7).  The affections they ascribe to the heart, and\nbodily pain to the bones.  They believed epilepsy to result from\ndemoniacal possession; that mandrakes provoked fecundity in women (Gen.\nxxx., 14\u201316; Cant. vii., 13.); that peeled withes, placed before pregnant\newes, would affect the colour of their lambs (Gen. xxx., 37.); that ants\neat corn and lay up for themselves a store for winter (Prov. v., 6.);\nthat bees can be generated from a dead carcase (Judges xiv., 8.); that\nfalling meteors or stars prognosticate evil (Ezek. xxxii., 7.; Matt,\nxxiv., 29.); that spittle contains a charm to cure blindness and other\nmaladies (John ix., 6, 7.; Mark vii., 33\u201335.; viii., 23, 24.); and that\nthe stars exercise an influence on the lot of our life (Judges v., 20).\nBut to enumerate all the instances of contrariety between Scripture and\nscience would occupy more than all the pages of the present pamphlet;\nsuffice it to say, that every false notion of the age is endorsed as an\ninspired fact, and no single error is corrected, or new truth brought to\nlight.  We must now leave this part of our subject and proceed to the\nnext division.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\nSCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE.\n\n\nIt is not our intention to dwell at any length upon what are termed the\nmiracles of Scripture.  Of course they are contrary to experience, but\nthen they are acknowledged miracles, and those who believe such things\npossible satisfy their minds by the persuasion that He who made the laws\nof nature can suspend them at will, or can introduce some new factor at\nneed to bring about preternatural results.\n\nThus, if any one were to object to the statement made in the Book of\nNumbers (xxii., 28.) respecting the ass of the Prophet of Pethor, which\nspoke like a man, and knew the will of Jehovah better than his master,\nthe answer would be, the Lord, who made the ass, could make it talk also.\nAgain, if any one were to say that Peter could no more walk on the sea\nthan any other man, the reply would be, that Jesus was a divine being,\nand sustained his rash disciple by His omnipotent power.  So, if anyone\nwere to demur to the chariot and horses which fetched Elijah from the\nbanks of the Jordan, and carried him through the air to that mysterious\ncountry called by the Hebrews \u201cheaven,\u201d he would be told\u2014well, I hardly\nknow what he would be told, but certainly the miracle was substantially\nrepeated when the crucified but risen Christ mounted through the air\nwithout either chariot or horses, and followed Elijah to the same\nmysterious region.\n\nNot a few of the \u201cmiracles\u201d of the Bible appear quite purportless, mere\nexhibitions of super-human power; but, as they are miracles, nothing more\ncan be said.  What end could be answered by that miracle performed by the\nbones of Elisha, recorded in the Book of Kings?  It is said that the\nMoabites were burying a man, and being disturbed, cast the dead body into\nthe grave of Elisha; but when it touched the bones of the prophet, it\n\u201crevived and stood upon its feet\u201d (2 Kings, xiii., 21).  In fact the\nrestoration of life is certainly the commonest of all miracles.  We have\nthe widow\u2019s son restored to life by Elijah; the son of the widow of Nain;\nthe daughter of Jairus; Lazarus, Jesus, and the many saints which came\nout of their graves after the resurrection, and appeared unto many\n(Matthew xxvii., 52, 53).  Shakespeare was quite mistaken when he spoke\nof the grave as \u201cthat bourne from which no traveller returns.\u201d  Many have\nreturned, but what is passing strange is that none have left any record\nof the land of shadows, and no curiosity seems ever to have arisen in any\nliving being to learn from these resuscitated ones the secrets of the\ndead.  This certainly is contrary to human experience.  If some now in\ntheir graves were to go to London and \u201cappear unto many,\u201d they would be\nbeset with questions\u2014questions of infinite interest, questions of untold\ninfluence; but of all the numerous dead who came to revisit the earth,\nnot one has left behind a single item of information, and if we except\nLazarus and Jesus, not even the name of anyone has escaped.  Some are\ncalled \u201csaints;\u201d but were these saints taken from Paradise, and sent to\nlive again in this \u201cvale of tears?\u201d  One was a Moabite, was he snatched\nfrom the \u201cburning lake\u201d to live a new life and die a second time in\nbattle?  It is past finding out; and truly so contrary to experience, so\naltogether strange, so objectless, so incredible, that those who relate\nsuch things must bear the responsibility.\n\nBut if several of the scripture \u201cmiracles\u201d are mere wanton exhibitions of\nsuper-human power, not a few others are puerile in the extreme.  Witness\nthat of Elijah beating the Jordan with his cloak to make himself a\npassage across the river (2 Kings, ii., 8), a \u201cmiracle\u201d repeated by\nElisha, after the ascent of the Tishbite (2 Kings, ii., 14).  Witness the\ntale told of Elisha respecting the woodman\u2019s axe: The woodman dropped his\naxe in the river, and Elisha attracted the iron head to the surface of\nthe water, merely by \u201ccasting a stick into the river\u201d (2 Kings, vi., 6).\nWitness the petty wrath of the Shunamite against the children of Bethel.\nThese thoughtless children mocked him, saying, \u201cGo up, bald-pate!\u201d and\nthe enraged prophet \u201ccursed the children in the name of the Lord,\u201d when,\nlo! \u201ctwo she-bears out of the wood tare forty-and-two of them.\u201d  In\nregard to Elisha, however, it must be said that his miracles outnumber\nall the rest of the miracles of the Old Testament put together, and they\nare none of them free from serious objection.\n\nThe whole argument generally advanced in support of the miracles of Jesus\nis singularly weak.  It is said that miracles were needful to show that\nJesus was the \u201cSent of God;\u201d that the working of miracles is the seal of\nthe Almighty to the credentials of Christ, as Nicodemus pleaded (John\niii., 2), \u201cNo one can do these miracles which thou doest, except God be\nwith him,\u201d and Christ himself endorsed the same plea when he said to the\ndisbelieving Jews, \u201cBelieve me for my works\u2019 sake\u201d (John xiv., 11).  It\nis notorious that false prophets, and even Satan himself, are said to be\nworkers of miracles.  It is said that miracles are performed to deceive\nand lead astray, as well as to convince and lead to God.  In fact\nmiracles prove nothing\u2014neither mission from God, nor approval of God, nor\nthe truth of a doctrine, nor the power of God working in the person who\nperforms them.  They are restricted to the Jews, and nobody knows\nanything of the historians who have avouched them.  Thus the great\nmiracle workers of the Old Testament were Elijah and Elisha; but no one\nknows who wrote the Books of Kings, which describe their wonderful works,\nnor whether those records were compiled before or after the Captivity.\nThe miracles of Christ are recorded in four Gospels, and who were the\nauthors of these memorials?  Luke was no eye-witness\u2014he himself\nacknowledges that his Gospel was compiled from several existing ones (i.,\n1\u20134); but we are nowhere told by what guiding power he made his\nselection, nor why his compilation is better or more worthy of credit\nthan the originals.  Mark, like Luke, was no apostle, and no one knows\nwho he was, when he wrote, or where his Gospel was written.  The very\nfact that he was the John Mark referred to in the Acts (xii., 25) is a\nmere conjecture, and even if admitted would not prove that he was one of\nthose who \u201ccompanied\u201d with the apostles from the baptism to the\nresurrection.  The Fourth Gospel, like the First Epistle of John, is\nnotoriously doubtful, as Bretschneider has shown in his \u201cProbabilia;\u201d\nparts are certainly spurious, and the whole seems to belong to the latter\nhalf of the second century. {19}  We are, therefore, reduced to one\nGospel\u2014that of Matthew\u2014and even of this it may be said, that no one knows\nwhether it was written in Greek or Hebrew, for no one has seen the\noriginal.  It is certain that parts of our present text are\ninterpolations, and although it would appear that Matthew wrote what is\ntermed the \u201cLogia\u201d (or sayings of Christ), it is far from certain that\nthe \u201cLogia\u201d is the same as our First Gospel.  The fact seems to be this:\nthat Matthew noted down the discourses and parables of Christ; and\nunknown authors from time to time added to the original work, till\nultimately it assumed its present form and proportions.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that our present canon of the New Testament was\nnot established till the year 494; the canon recognised at the council of\nLaodicea (360\u20134) repudiated the Book of Revelations.  The primitive\nChristians never refer to any book of the New Testament, and few\nquotations from it were made by the apostolic fathers.  It is not till\nthe close of the second century that we meet with any definite and\ndistinct mention of New Testament Scriptures at all.  Eusebius recognises\nas canonical books the four Gospels and Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and\nthe first Epistles of John and Peter; but he considers the rest of the\nbooks as doubtful; and speaks of others as equally worthy of credit or\nrather discredit, such as the Acts of Paul, the Book of the Shepherd\n[Hermas], the Kerugma of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Clementine\nEpistles, the Doctrines of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews;\nall these, except the first are mentioned by Iren\u00e6us, Clement of\nAlexandria, and Origen, on whose authority our selection of Canonical New\nTestament Scriptures mainly depends.\n\nIt is not a little strange that none of the books cited by the authors of\nthe Bible as their authority form any part of our canonical Scriptures.\nThus Joshua (x., 13) and the prophet Samuel (2 bk., i., 18) refer to the\n\u201cBook of Jasher;\u201d Moses (Nos. xxi., 14) refers to the \u201cBook of the Wars;\u201d\nthe Chronicles refer to the \u201cBook of Nathan the Prophet,\u201d the \u201cProphecy\nof Ahijah the Shilonite,\u201d the \u201cVision of Isaiah,\u201d the \u201cVision of Iddo the\nSeer,\u201d the \u201cBook of Shemaiah the Prophet,\u201d the \u201cBook of Iddo concerning\nGenealogies,\u201d the \u201cLamentations of Jeremiah for king Josiah,\u201d and the\n\u201cStory [history] of Iddo\u201d (2 Chron., ix., 29; xii., 15; xiii., 22;\nxxxii., 32; xxxv., 25); the writer of the first book of Kings (xiv., 19,\n29) to the \u201cDiary of the Kings of Judah,\u201d and to another of the \u201cKings of\nIsrael;\u201d {20a} in 1 Kings iv., 29\u201333, we have mention of several works of\nSolomon unknown to us; in Acts, vii., 42, allusion is made to the \u201cBook\nof the Prophets;\u201d Paul refers more than once to his \u201cown Gospel\u201d (Rom.,\nii., 16; xvi., 25); {20b} and Jude (14) to the \u201cBook of Enoch,\u201d none of\nwhich form any part of our Bible.\n\nIn regard to the New Testament the number of books professing to set\nforth the words and deeds of Christ was very numerous, even when the\nGospel of Luke was compiled, and when the canon was fixed by \u201cuninspired\u201d\nauthority, the claimants were legion.  The present selection was made by\npersons wholly incompetent to weigh evidence, and their only rule was\nwhat they arbitrarily judged to be orthodox, which, of course, means in\nagreement with their own religious opinions.  This being the case, on\nwhat does the testimony of miracles rest? certainly not on eye-witnesses,\nnot even on the authority of contemporaries.  Paley says the men suffered\npersecution and even death in proof of their belief, but Paley has no\nground for this assertion: first, because he knows nothing about any of\nthe four Evangelists, and cannot tell whether they suffered persecution\nor not; and, secondly, he cannot know whether the names attached to these\nevangelists are real names or not.  But allowing Paley\u2019s assertion to be\ntrue, what is gained by it?  It is by no means true that a willingness to\nsuffer is a proof of truth.  It may be a proof of obstinacy, of\nconviction, or even of cowardice, but can be no proof of truth.  A boy\nwho has stolen from a schoolfellow will often suffer greatly to maintain\na lie; indeed the expression, \u201cit was worthy a better cause,\u201d is a\nproverbial proof that men suffer and labour for the wrong as well as for\nthe right.  Allowing, therefore, that the early disciples did suffer, it\nproves nothing, and certainly it will not prove the truth of the gospel\nnarratives.  It is now admitted by all biblical scholars that large parts\nof our Gospels are interpolations, some of the epistles are known to be\nspurious, and probably the only part of the New Testament at all worthy\nof credit is that taken from the \u201cLogia,\u201d or sayings of Christ.  But we\nhave run somewhat from our subject.  In stating that Scripture\ncontradicts experience, we would wholly set aside miracles, and limit our\nexamples to matters more tangible.  Our first observations shall be\nrespecting the Mosaic account of prehistoric man.\n\n\n\n(1.)  _The Biblical prehistoric man not reconcilable with historic\nexperience_.\n\n\nThe writer of the Book of Genesis represents Cain as a tiller of the\nground.  His son was Enoch, who built a city called Enoch; and during the\nlifetime of Adam lived Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, all sons of Lamech.\nThe first of these was the \u201cfather of such as dwell in tents,\u201d the second\nthe inventor of both \u201charp and organ,\u201d and the third a forger of \u201cevery\nartifice in brass and iron.\u201d\n\nThe Flood came and swept away the whole race of man except the arkites;\nbut the grandsons of Noah were Mizraim, Cush, and Canaan, sons of Ham;\nAsshur, Elam, Lud, Madai, Javan, and Tiras, the founders of the\nEgyptians, Cushites, and Canaanites, the Assyrians, Elamites or Persians,\nLydians, Medes, Ionians, and Thracians; while Canaan and Cush gave birth\nto Sidon, founder of the Sidonians, and Nimrod the despot, who founded a\nvast empire, \u201cthe beginning of which was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calah\nthe great city.\u201d\n\nHere we are introduced to agriculture from the very beginning: Adam\ntilled the garden of Eden; Cain, the first earth-born man, was a farmer;\nand Noah, the representative of the new race, was the planter of a\nvineyard.  While Adam still lived we have tents invented, musical\ninstruments, and \u201cevery artifice in brass and iron;\u201d while Noah was still\nalive we have the fathers born of all the great empires, which have to\nthe present day perpetuated their names.  Is this credible?  Is it not\nrather of a piece with the old system of taking the names of places,\ncities, and empires, and concocting personages to account for them?  We\nall know that the ancient Greeks and Romans did so; we all know that\nGeoffrey of Monmouth has done as much for our own country.  Thus Britain,\nCornwall, Devon, and so on, suggested the mythical heroes, Bryt, Corin,\nand Debon.  The people or place suggest the name, and the founder is a\nmere myth.  It is wholly irreconcilable with all the experience of\ngeology and history, that the very first families of the earth should be\nfounders of empires, inventors of brass and iron works, tents and musical\ninstruments, tillage and vine dressing; in fact, the men immediately\nfollowing Adam and Noah were like those which Moses had seen in Egypt,\nand he never dreamt of a more primitive race. {22}\n\nNow, what says science and history of prehistoric man?  The earliest\ntraces of which we have authentic record prove that men lived in caves,\nnot cities like that of Enoch; they lived by hunting and fishing, not by\nagriculture and breeding sheep, like Cain and Abel; far less by\nvine-dressing, like Noah.  They had small hands, for the implements found\ngive room for only three fingers of an ordinary man; their skulls were\nlong, and their legs more nearly allied to the monkey type.\n\nThere is no trace in the pal\u00e6olithic period of any such human beings as\nMoses describes; none even in the next period, styled by Sir John Lubbock\nthe later or \u201cpolished stone age,\u201d like Tubal-Cain, a \u201cworker in brass\nand iron,\u201d none like Jubal, who could \u201chandle the harp and organ.\u201d  Long,\nlong before the \u201cage of bronze\u201d dawned upon the earth, ages upon ages of\na ruder and still ruder race lived and passed away; a race whose\ninstruments were stone, first rough and subsequently smooth and polished.\n\nIt is impossible in the present state of human knowledge to determine\nwhat length of time elapsed before the pal\u00e6olithic age glided into the\nneolithic, but it must have been very great, and even then the rude life\nwhich presents its records to observation shows that man was far removed\nfrom the Mosaic description of the immediate children of Cain and\ngrandsons of Noah.  There were no builders of cities, no founders of\nempires; but as we ascend higher and higher from the drift, we trace a\ncertain knowledge in pottery and a goodly skill in working up stone into\nwarlike and other implements.  The gallery graves of the earth, even in\nthe latest age of the neolithic period, resemble Eskimo huts more than\nregular cities and palaces, and it is not till we arrive at the evening\nof this long day that we discover any trace of herdsmen and tillers of\nthe soil.\n\nAll this vast history of man finds no place in the Book of Genesis.  As\nthe writer of that book knew nothing of the rocks and their mighty\nrevelations, he knew nothing of man but in the state of civilised\nsociety.  The one and the other are wholly irreconcilable with the logic\nof facts, and deserve no higher place than the wild legends of India and\nChina, Greece, Rome, and our own Britain.  What would Sir John Lubbock\nsay to the legend: that Noah the first man, so to speak, was a\nvinedresser; that within a century his offspring were building a tower,\nthe top of which was to reach the skies, a tower described as a most\nfinished and extraordinary work of art?  What would he say to the\nstatement that primitive man, long before the neolithic or even\npal\u00e6olithic period produced the founders of such grand empires as\nBabylon, Assyria, Persia, and old Greece?  It is an insult to our\nunderstanding, a contradiction to our eyes, a gainsaying of the\ninfallible records of the rocks, to place credence in such legends.  They\nare palpably untrue, wholly impossible, and as wholly irreconcilable with\nhistory and the experience of facts. {23}\n\n\n\n(2.)  _The Scripture accounts of the increase of man wholly\nirreconcilable with experience and history_.\n\n\nWe shall confine our remarks under this head to three instances\u2014the\nbuilders of Babel, the age of Abraham, and the Exodus from Egypt.  Other\ninstances will doubtless recur to the reader, but the scope of argument\nwould be much the same in every example.\n\nThe builders of Babel are placed about 100 years after the flood.  The\ngeneral impression left by the Bible account is, that the race of man was\npretty numerous.  \u201cThe whole earth,\u201d says the writer, \u201cwas of one\nlanguage and one speech.\u201d  This would not be said of a clan or a nation,\nbut must refer to several nations.  It would be absurd to call Sussex or\nKent \u201cthe whole earth,\u201d nor less so to say it was all of \u201cone language\nand one speech.\u201d  It would be scarcely less impertinent to say all\nEngland, or all France, spoke one and the same language.  But to say that\nall Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, England, and Sweden, spoke one\nlanguage and used one speech would be far otherwise.  When, therefore,\nthe historian makes the statement that \u201cthe whole earth was of one\nlanguage and one speech,\u201d he virtually says there were several different\nnations, and a good round number of peoples.  The writer continues\u2014\u201cAnd\nit came to pass as they (?) journeyed from the east they found a plain in\nthe land of Shinar and dwelt there,\u201d and they \u201cmade bricks\u201d (!) and used\n\u201cslime for mortar,\u201d and said one to another, \u201cLet us build a city, and a\ntower whose top may reach to heaven;\u201d but the Lord scattered them abroad\nfrom thence upon the face of all the earth. [Gen. xi., 1\u20139.]\n\nNow, at the abatement of the flood the earth contained just four men and\nfour women.  According \u201cto experience,\u201d a population under the most\nfavourable circumstances possible may double itself in 25 years; {24} but\nlet us take the increase of the prolific race of Abraham, which,\naccording to Scripture authority, doubled itself in 20 years [Gen. xlvi.,\n27].  This would make the entire population of the earth at the\ndispersion 256 souls.  Suppose half males and half females, we get 128 of\neach sex, and supposing one-third to be adults and two-thirds children,\nwe have somewhat less than 43 adult males, and this was the entire\npopulation of grown men in \u201cthe whole earth.\u201d  These 43 men \u201cwere all of\none language and one speech.\u201d  These 43 men \u201cmade bricks,\u201d and said one\nto another, \u201clet us build a city and a tower whose top shall reach to\nheaven,\u201d and the speech of these 43 was confounded, and the two score and\nthree were \u201cscattered over the whole earth.\u201d  Nothing of comment need be\nadded.\n\nThe next event we would advert to is the period of Abraham.  There were\nthen several large empires and populous nations.  Egypt had its regular\ncourt and standing army; Nineveh was older still; China and India were\ncertainly advanced in organisation.  We read of nine kings who made war\n\u201cin the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea\u201d [Gen. xiv.]; some of the\nGreek states, as Argos and Attica, were founded; and Etruria must have\nbeen in its hey-day.  This would demand a population of some hundreds of\nmillions at the least; but what was the fact, according to the Bible\nreading?\n\nNoah was scarcely dead when Abraham was born; some calculate that he had\nbeen dead two years, while others think the two lives overlapped each\nother.  As Noah was 950 years old at death, and 600 when he entered the\nark, we are not left to conjecture respecting the interval, which, of\ncourse, was 350 years.  There were four men and four women when the flood\nceased; and suppose the increase to be the extraordinary one of doubling\nfive times in a century, we have 256 souls at the end of the 1st century,\n8,192 at the close of the 2nd, and one-and-a-half million at the death of\nNoah; say two millions at the birth of Abraham, a population inferior to\nthat of Lancashire, and only two-thirds that of London.  These two\nmillions are supposed to have furnished forth several large empires, most\nof which would require more than the whole number.  Again we leave the\nsubject without adding a word of comment.\n\nThe number of the Exodus has already been considered in No. 8 of this\nseries.  It is given by the author of the book as 600,000 \u201cfighting men\u201d\nor adult males; and if the women equalled the men, and the children were\ntwo to one, we have 600,000 adults of each sex, and 1,200,000 children of\neach sex, somewhat more than three-and-a-half millions, say three\nmillions.  The increase of 70 souls in 215 years, although oppressed by\ntaskmasters, and although for 80 years of the time the decree of Pharaoh\nto put to death every male infant at birth, was supposed to be in force.\nTaking the same rate as that given above, the 70 at the close of the\nfirst century would have been 2,240, and 124,540 at the time of the\nExodus.  Allowing the children to be twice as many as the adults, this\nwould give us 6,703 as the number of \u201cfighting men,\u201d or, in round\nnumbers, 6,000 instead of 600,000.\n\nPresuming the Bible text to be correct, the three millions led by Moses\ninto the wilderness would require daily for food 3,000 oxen and 30,000\nsheep, that is allowing half-a-pound of food per head.  Of course meat\nmight be replaced by bread, but it would not decrease the difficulty to\nhave corn to carry across the Red Sea.{26a}  As it was 45 days before\nmanna was supplied, the fugitives must have driven before them 1,135,000\nsheep, and 135,000 oxen.  Hence there were three million of men, women,\nand children, a mixed multitude of camp followers, more than a million\nsheep, and 135,000 head of oxen to lead in flight across the Red Sea,\nwith the horsemen and chariots of Pharaoh in pursuit.  Of course, on the\nreduced scale of 6,000 instead of 600,000, all this would be divided by\n100; and although there would still remain above a thousand oxen and\neleven thousand sheep, the numbers would be much more manageable; but the\nwriter of the Book of Exodus is responsible for the larger numbers, and\nwith them only are we concerned. {26b}\n\n\n\n(3.)  _The armies of the Jews_, _and the numbers slain in war\nirreconcilable with experience and history_.\n\n\nAkin to the above is the extravagant numbers given in Scripture of the\nfighting men mustered on several occasions by the petty kingdom of Israel\nbefore it was divided, and of the still more petty states of Judah and\nIsrael after the revolt of the ten tribes.  The whole undivided kingdom\nwas nominally 60 miles broad, and 140 miles long, less than the county of\nYorkshire.  Much of this never came into the power of the Hebrews, and\nmore than three-fourths was desert.  After the division each kingdom was\nabout the size of Norfolk and Suffolk. {27a}\n\nLet us first take two examples of the undivided kingdom.  At the close of\nDavid\u2019s reign, the number of fighting men is given (2 Samuel, xxiv., 9)\nas 1,300,000; and, after the revolt, Abijah, grandson of Solomon, is said\nto have headed an army of 400,000 chosen men against Jeroboam, who had\n800,000 men under him.  This gives 1,200,000 fighting men in two petty\nkingdoms, the aggregate of which was less than the principality of Wales.\nBut what will be said of the sequel? the 400,000 men under Abijah slew\n500,000 of the enemy! with swords and bows!! {27b}\n\nThe late unhappy, but gigantic contest between Germany and France, makes\nus pretty familiar with war, the size of armies, and the number slain by\nthe most murderous instruments ever used by man.  Suppose Gambetta had\nsaid 400,000 Frenchmen had slain 500,000 Prussians, should we believe it?\nSuppose he had said that 500,000 out of 800,000 had fallen by the sword,\nshould we believe it?  It is wholly irreconcilable with experience, and\nmost incredible.\n\nCome we now to an example or two of the divided kingdom.  The kingdom of\nJudah was about equal in area to the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk,\nbut what are we told of its army?\n\n[2 Chronicles, xiv., 8.]  Asa, grandson of Rehoboam, King of Judah, had\n300,000 heavy-armed troops, and 280,000 light-armed, nearly 600,000, and\n\u201call mighty men of valour!!\u201d\n\n[2 Chronicles, xvii., 14\u201318.]  Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, had an army of\n1,160,000 soldiers, \u201call mighty men of valour!\u201d\n\n[2 Chronicles, xxv., 5, 6.]  Amaziah, King of Judah, had 300,000 \u201cchoice\nmen, handling spear and shield, above 20 years old,\u201d and a mercenary\ncontingent of 100,000 Israelites, which he hired for 100 talents of\nsilver (\u00a334,200).\n\n[2 Chronicles, xxvi., 12\u201313.]  Uzziah\u2019s army consisted of 307,500 trained\nsoldiers \u201cunder 2,600 chief officers.\u201d\n\nNo such armies as these correspond with our experience.  Compare the\narmies of Europe with those of these petty princes, and see how wholly\nirreconcilable are these statements to the plain unvarnished statements\nof dry facts.\n\nWe have given one instance of slaughter under Abijah, king of Judah, and\nwill now add one example of Pekah, king of Israel.\n\n[2 Chronicles, xxviii., 6, 8.]  Pekah is said to have slain in one day\n120,000 valiant men of Judah, and to have carried away captive 200,000\nsouls, with much spoil.\n\nMr. Cardwell proposes to raise our army to 108,000 men.  \u201cThis,\u201d says\n_The Times_, \u201cis more than twice as large as the largest army ever taken\ninto battle by Wellington, and three times as large as [the English\ncontingent of] that with which he conquered at Waterloo.\u201d  What would\n_The Times_ say of the armies of Judah and Israel?\n\nWhere there is no motive for exaggeration the numbers are much more\nmodest.  Thus the army of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, no doubt, was\nvery formidable, but it dwindles to nothing compared to the gigantic\narmies of Judah and Israel.  The army of the \u201cgreat king\u201d amounted only\nto 185,000 men (2 Kings, xix., 35); if Judah could muster its million or\neven half million of valiant men, all in the prime of life, there was no\nneed of a miracle to lay the invaders in the dust.\n\nWe will conclude this part of our subject with a few examples of\nincredible statements, which cannot be classed under the foregoing heads.\n\n\n\n(4.)  _Incredible Marvels or Statements_.\n\n\nJoshua, vi., 20.\n\n\nA procession of priests is said to have walked round the fortifications\nof Jericho, and when they blew with their trumpets \u201cthe walls fell down\nflat.\u201d\n\n\nJudges, iii., 31.\n\n\nShamgar, we are told, slew 600 of the Philistines with an ox-goad.  Doeg,\nthe Edomite (1 Sam., xxii., 18), \u201cwith his own hand,\u201d slew in one day 85\npersons \u201cwho wore a linen ephod,\u201d besides \u201call the men and women,\nchildren and sucklings, asses, oxen, and sheep,\u201d of the town of Nob.\nAbishai, David\u2019s brother-in-law (2 Sam., xxiii., 18), slew 300 with his\nown spear; but Adino, the Eznite, (v. 8), slew with his own hand in one\nbattle 800 men (!)  Impossible as these statements undoubtedly are, they\ndwindle into insignificance before the exploit attributed to Samson\n(Judges, xv., 16), who, \u201cwith a new jawbone of an ass,\u201d slew 1000\nPhilistines (!!).  A thousand men laid low by one with no other\ninstrument than an ass\u2019s jaw (!!); but the marvel does not end here, for\nwhen Samson had thrown away his weapon, \u201cthere came water from a hollow\nplace in the jaw,\u201d and the thirsty Samson drank thereof to revive his\nfainting spirit.\n\n\nRuth, iv., 21, 22.\n\n\nBoaz was great grandfather of David, and the mother of Boaz was Rahab the\nharlot.  In this brief space is to be crowded all the events recorded in\nthe book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the book of Ruth, and part of the\nFirst Book of Samuel, a period of about 400 years.\n\nTake a familiar case.  George III. was grandfather of our Queen, and he\nwas grandson of George II.  This exactly corresponds with the text; but\n400 years would carry us back not to George II., but to Edward IV.  What\nwould be thought of an historian who said that Edward IV. was the father\nof Queen Victoria\u2019s great grandfather?  But the statement referred to is\nidentical thereto.\n\n\n1 Kings, xx., 30.\n\n\nWe are informed by the writer of the book of Kings that some of the\nrouted host of Benhadad fled to Aphek, when a wall fell, and by its fall\ncrushed to death 27,000 of them (!).\n\n\n2 Kings, i., 9\u201312.\n\n\nElijah is said to have brought fire from heaven by his bare word, and by\nthis means were consumed two companies sent to arrest him, each company\nconsisting of 50 men.\n\n\nJonah.\n\n\nThe prophet Jonah is said to have been swallowed by a whale.  Presuming\nit possible for a whale to swallow a man, no man could live three days\nand three nights in the belly of a fish, and then be cast by it on dry\nland.\n\n\nDeuteronomy, viii., 4.\n\n\nMoses tells us that in forty years\u2019 time the \u201craiment of his three\nmillion wanderers\u201d waxed not old, and though marching all that time about\nthe hot desert, \u201ctheir feet did not swell\u201d from the scorching sand.\n\n\n1 Chronicles, xix., 6, 7.\n\n\nHanun of Ammon sent 1000 talents of silver (\u00a3342,000) to Mesopotamia, for\nthe hire of 32,000 chariots (!!).  Is not this wholly at variance with\nsober history?  Is it credible?  In the parallel account given in 2 Sam.\nx., 6, there is no mention of these 32,000 chariots of war.\n\n\n2 Chronicles, xiv., 9.\n\n\nIt is stated that Mareshah, in Judea, was invaded in the reign of Asa, by\na million Ethiopians and 300 chariots (!!).\n\nThese are a few specimens of the unhistoric character of the history of\nthe Old Testament.  We will add one or two instances of the equally\nincredible statements of the wealth of Bible Kings.\n\n\n2 Samuel, viii., 7; 1 Chronicles, xviii., 7.\n\n\nHadarezer\u2019s army is represented to have been furnished with shields of\ngold.  We read occasionally of some rich prince, like Glaucus, having\ngolden armour, but never of a whole army being equipped with golden\nshields.  We are told also that Solomon made 300 shields of gold for the\ntemple; but these were mere ornamental plates, \u201c3 pounds of gold went to\none shield,\u201d the value of these was not above half-a-million of English\nmoney, they were mere playthings compared to those in Hadarezer\u2019s army (1\nKings x. 17).\n\n\n2 Chronicles, vii., 5.\n\n\nAt the dedication of the temple, we are informed that Solomon \u201coffered in\nsacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep.\u201d  Compare this with the\nsacrifice of Hezekiah, \u201c70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs\u201d (2 Chron.\nxxix., 32).\n\n\n1 Chronicles, xxii., 14.\n\n\nThis profusion of wealth, unexampled as it may be, is wholly eclipsed by\nking David, who laid up for Jehovah about 7,000 millions sterling (!!);\nthat is to say, a million talents of silver and 100,000 talents of gold;\nin English money 342 millions sterling in silver, and 5,500 millions\nsterling in gold.  Truly the principality of Wales could never compete in\nwealth with this Pactolus of a kingdom! {31}  Come we now to our last\ndivision.\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\nTHE BIBLE IRRECONCILABLE WITH ITSELF.\n\n\nWe shall subdivide this head into two parts.  Under the first we will\nbring forward biblical blunders or misstatements, and under the second\npositive contradictions.\n\nThe two former parts of this paper were concerned with the dogma of\n_general_ inspiration; this part looks to the _verbal_ inspiration of the\nBible.  There surely can be no safe mean between verbal inspiration and\nno inspiration at all.  Give up the verbal inspiration and the wedge is\nintroduced which must inevitably destroy the whole dogma; but if one\nsingle blunder can be pointed out, that one blunder will be fatal to the\nnotion of verbal inspiration.\n\nAs the errors of Scripture are very numerous, nothing like an exhaustive\nlist can be included in a small pamphlet like this, but every end will be\nserved by the instances subjoined, which we have arranged in groups, for\nthe purpose of preserving something like order.\n\n\n\n(_a_.)  _Historical Errors_.\n\n\n2 Sam. xxi., 8.\n\n\nThe first example we would bring forward refers to Saul\u2019s daughter\nMichal, who is called in the book of Samuel \u201cthe wife of Adriel.\u201d  Now,\nAdriel did not marry Michal (Saul\u2019s youngest daughter), but Merab.\nMichal married first David and then Phalti.\n\nThis will be evident by a reference to 1 Sam. xviii., 19, 27, where it is\nsaid: \u201cWhen Merab, Saul\u2019s daughter, should have been given to David, she\nwas given to Adriel to wife.  And Michal, Saul\u2019s daughter, loved David;\nand Saul gave him Michal, his daughter, to wife.\u201d\n\nDuring the persecution, David fled from the presence of the king, and\nSaul then \u201cgave Michal to another husband, whose name was Phalti\u201d (1 Sam.\nxxv., 44).  It is, therefore, an historical error to call Michal the\n\u201cwife of Adriel.\u201d\n\n\n2 Chron. xv., 17.\n\n\nSpeaking of Asa, king of Judah, the chronicler says, his \u201cheart was\nperfect all his days, [but] the high places were not taken away out of\nIsrael.\u201d  Where Israel obviously ought to be Judah.  The kingdom of David\nwas divided into Judah and Israel, and Asa had nothing whatever to do\nwith the latter.\n\nA similar blunder occurs in 2 Chron. xxi., 3, where Jehoshaphat is called\n\u201cthe King of Israel,\u201d whereas he was King of Judah, as will appear\nevident from 1 Kings, xxii., 41, where it is said \u201cJehoshaphat, son of\nAsa, began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab, king of\nIsrael.\u201d  (_See also_ 2 Chron. xxiii., 2.)\n\nAnd again, 2 Chron. xxviii., 27, we have the same error repeated; for,\nspeaking of Ahaz, king of Judah, the writer says, \u201cthey buried him in\nJerusalem, but brought him not into the sepulchres of the Kings of\nIsrael,\u201d meaning the kings of Judah.\n\n\n2 Chron. xxi., 12.\n\n\nHere we have a very glaring error.  Elijah is represented as sending a\nthreatening letter to Jehoram, king of Judah; but the Tishbite had been\n\u201ctaken up to heaven in a chariot of fire\u201d during the reign of\nJehoshaphat, Jehoram\u2019s father; and the prophet alluded to should be\nElisha, and not Elijah.\n\nThe blunder arises from a confusion in the mind of the chronicler between\nJehoram king of Israel, and Jehoram king of Judah.  This will be\nunderstood by turning to 2 Kings, viii., 20, where the revolt of the\nEdomites, which preceded the \u201cthreatening letter,\u201d is narrated.  The\ntranslation of Elijah is given six chapters further back, viz. 2 Kings,\nii., 11.\n\n\nMatt, xxvii., 9.\n\n\nThe writer is speaking of Judas, who returned the money casting it down\nbefore the priests.  This money was used for the purchase of a field to\nbury strangers in, and the Evangelist adds: \u201cThen was fulfilled that\nwhich was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying: \u2018They took the 30 pieces\nof silver . . . and gave them for the potter\u2019s field.\u2019\u201d  These are not\nthe words of Jeremiah at all, but of Zechariah. (xi., 12, 13.)\n\n\nMark ii., 26.\n\n\nHere we have an historical error made by Christ himself.  The disciples\nhad been blamed for plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day; whereupon\nJesus retorted\u2014\u201cHave ye not read what David did when he had need and was\nan hungered . . . how he went into the house of God in the days of\nAbiathar, the High Priest, and did eat the shew bread?\u201d  The High Priest\nalluded to was not Abiathar, but Ahimelech.  The account will be found 1\nSam. xxi., 1\u20136.  \u201cThen came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the [High] Priest\n. . . and said to him . . . give me [the] five loaves [under thine hand]\n. . .  And the priest answered . . . \u2018There is no common bread under mine\nhand, but [only] the hallowed bread, . . .  So the priest gave him [the]\nhallowed bread.\u201d\n\n\nActs, vii., 15, 16.\n\n\nHere again we have an unpardonable historical error.  The writer says:\n\u201cSo Jacob died, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and\nlaid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons\nof Emmor.\u201d  This was not Abraham, but Jacob.  Abraham bought of Ephron\nthe Hittite, the field of Machpelah (_see_ Gen. xxiii., 16, &c.); it was\nJacob who bought the \u201cparcel of a field at the hand of the children of\nHamor [Emmor], Shechem\u2019s father, for 100 pieces of money.\u201d  (Gen.\nxxxiii., 19; and Joshua, xxiv., 32.)\n\n\n\n(_b_.)  _Erroneous figures_.\n\n\nThese are so numerous it is universally allowed that no dependence is to\nbe placed upon them; but the instances subjoined are sufficiently\nstriking, and in any book except the Bible would be termed errors.\n\n\nJoshua, xv., 21\u201332.\n\n\nHere the writer says that twenty-nine cities towards the coast of Edom\nwere awarded to the tribe of Judah, and he gives the names; but if any\none will count the names set down he will find they amount to\nthirty-eight.\n\nThe enumeration occupies twelve verses, two of which contain four names,\nand the other ten verses three each.\n\n\nJudges, xii., 6.\n\n\nThis is a very gross error or exaggeration.  The writer says that 42,000\nEphraimites were slain at the passage of the Jordan, because they \u201ccould\nnot frame to pronounce\u201d the word Shibboleth aright.  By turning to the\ncensus (Numbers, xxvi., 37) it will be seen that the entire population of\nthe tribe was only 32,500, and by comparing this census with the previous\none it will be further seen that the tribe of Ephraim was on the\ndecrease, but even in its palmiest days it never amounted to 42,000.\n(_See_ Numbers, i., 33.)\n\n\n2 Sam., xv., 7.\n\n\nHere we have the tale of Absalom\u2019s revolt.  Having murdered his\nhalf-brother Amnon, he fled to Gesher, the court of his grandfather; but\nafter the lapse of three years he was permitted to return to Jerusalem,\non condition that he kept away from court for two years.  At the\nexpiration of this time he became reconciled to the aged king, and\n\u201ctarried forty years,\u201d when he revolted.\n\nThis of course is a blunder.  The whole reign of David was only forty\nyears, and this was towards its close.  Probably \u201cforty years\u201d should be\nforty _days_, but the correction is only a guess, and the text is\nresponsible for the mistake.\n\n\n1 Chron., i., 13\u201315.\n\n\nThe First Book of Chronicles begins with a genealogy from Adam down to\nDavid.  The subject occupies several chapters, but any attempt to\nreconcile the numerous genealogies of Scripture is quite hopeless.  Let\nany one, for example, take the two tables of Matthew and Luke, and it\nwill presently appear how little they correspond; or take the genealogy\nof Simeon given in Gen., xlvi., 10, and 1 Chron., iv., 24, and compare\nthem together; or that of the sons of Benjamin given in Gen., xlvi., 21;\n1 Chron., vii., 6; and 1 Chron., viii., 1.  In Genesis his sons are said\nto be ten, in Chron., vii., they are three, in Chron., viii., they are\nfive.\n\n\n1 Chron., ii., 14.\n\n\nOne would have thought that no diversity could possibly exist respecting\nDavid, the favourite king; but what is the fact?  The Bible writers agree\nneither respecting his father\u2019s family nor his own.\n\nThe reference given above states David to be \u201cthe seventh son of Jesse;\u201d\nbut in 1 Sam., xvi., 10, 11, he is represented to be the eighth son.  The\nwriter says, \u201cJesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel; and Samuel\nsaid: Are these all thy children? and (Jesse answered) there remaineth\nyet the youngest, and he keepeth the sheep.\u201d\n\nSimilarly, in regard to the sons of David, compare 1 Chron., iii., 6\u20138,\nand 1 Chron., xiv., 5\u20137, with 2 Sam., v., 15\u201316.  If anyone had known\nabout David one would suppose that Samuel would have been that man, but\nSamuel says only seven sons were born to David in Jerusalem, whereas the\nchronicler says he had nine, viz., (1) Ibhar, (2) Elishua, (3) ELIPHELET,\n(4) Nogah, (5) Nepheg, (6) Japhia (7), Elishama, (8) Eliada, (9)\nELIPHELET.  It will be seen that the name Eliphelet occurs twice in the\nBook of Chronicles but only once in the book of Samuel.  The other name\nomitted by the prophet is Nogah.\n\nNow we are upon the subject of genealogy we would direct attention to two\nother examples.  In 1 Chron., iii., 22, we read that the \u201csons of\nShemaiah [were] Hattush, Igeal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six;\u201d but\nonly five names are given, so that \u201csix\u201d should have been _five_.\n\nThe other example is 1 Chron., vii., 14\u201315, compared with Numbers,\nxxvii., 1.  The chronicler says: The children of Manasseh were first\nAshriel, and \u201cthe name of the second was Zelophehad, who had daughters;\u201d\nbut the author of the book of Numbers says Zelophehad was the \u201cson of\nHepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh,\u201d and\nthat no mistake may possibly exist respecting the Zelophehad referred to,\nthe writer expressly mentions that it was the Zelophehad who had \u201cthe\ndaughters.\u201d  (_See_ verse 7.)\n\n\n1 Chron., vi., 57\u201360.\n\n\nHere the chronicler enumerates the cities given to Aaron, and says: \u201cAll\ntheir cities were 13;\u201d but according to the list subjoined the number\nshould have been eleven.\n\n\n2 Chron., xxi., 20.\n\n\nWe are told that Jehoram at death was 40 years old.  \u201cHe was 32 when he\nbegan to reign, and reigned eight years.\u201d  Next chapter [xxii., 2] we are\ntold that his son, who immediately succeeded him, was 42 years old when\nhe began to reign; so that Ahaziah was two years older than his father.\n\nWhat makes the blunder worse is this: Ahaziah was the youngest of several\nchildren [2 Chron., xxi., 17 {36}]; but the blunders do not end even\nhere, for we are furthermore informed [2 Chron., xxii., 8] that Jehu\n\u201cslew the Princes of Judah [even] the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah,\u201d\n_i.e._, the grandsons of Jehoram.  The number thus slain was 42 [2 Kings,\nx., 13\u201314], only the author of the book of Kings does not call them\ngrandsons, but \u201cbrethren of Ahaziah.\u201d  Let whichever of these records be\naccepted, the error is equally palpable.  If the princes slain by Jehu\nwere the brothers of Ahaziah, then Jehoram, who died at the age of 40,\nhad 43 sons, the youngest of which was 42 years old at his father\u2019s\ndeath.  If, on the other hand, the princes referred to were the\ngrandchildren of Jehoram, then had he 42 grandsons at the age of 40.\n\n\n2 Chron., xxviii., 7.\n\n\nThis is another example similar to the one above.  Zichri, we are told,\nwas \u201ca mighty man of Ephraim,\u201d and he \u201cslew Maaseiah, the son of king\nAhaz.\u201d  In the 1st verse of the chapter we are informed that \u201cAhaz was 20\nyears old when he began to reign, and he reigned 16 years;\u201d so that his\nage at death was 36, and he was succeeded by Hezekiah, his son.\n\nThe next chapter [2 Chron., xxix, 1] opens thus\u2014\u201cHezekiah began to reign\nwhen he was 25 years old;\u201d so that Ahaz at the age of 20, had at least\ntwo sons, one of which was grown to man\u2019s estate, and the other was half\nthe age of his father.  We read of early marriages, but it is most\nunusual for any father to have a son at the early age of four or five,\nand it is more likely that the chronicler is in error than that such an\nevent should be rigidly true.\n\n\n2 Chron., xxxiv., 1.\n\n\nA similar statement is made respecting Josiah, who had four sons, and at\nleast two wives before he was 16.  His four sons were Johanan, Jehoiakim,\nZedekiah, and Shallum [1 Chron., iii., 15].  Shallum, his youngest son,\nsucceeded him [Jer. xxii., 11]; this young man was also called Jehoahaz,\nif the author of the book of Chronicles may be relied on [2 Chron.,\nxxxvi., 2].\n\nHe was 23 years old at his father\u2019s death, and as Josiah died at the age\nof 39, Shallum was born when his father was 16 [2 Chron., xxxiv., 1].  He\nreigned only three months, and was then succeeded by Jehoiakim, an elder\nbrother, who was 25 years old [2 Kings, xxiii., 30]; so that Josiah was\nonly 14 when his second son was born.  His eldest son Johanan must have\nbeen above 26 years of age, and this would make Josiah under 13 at the\nbirth of his first-born.\n\nNow, the age of hundreds of persons have been given in the Bible, but no\nsingle example can be found to induce a belief that the Jews were\nprecocious fathers.  We never find it said that so and so was 4 or 5, 10\nor 12 years old, and begat sons and daughters.  The age stated is about\nthe same as with ourselves, and there is every reason to believe that the\ninstances referred to above are oversights.\n\n\nEzra i., 7\u201311.\n\n\nThis shall be the last example under this division of our subject, though\nfar more remains behind than we have here brought under notice.\n\nIn this passage Ezra gives the number of gold and silver vessels restored\nby Cyrus.  They are the sacred vessels carried by Nebuchadnezzar into\nBabylon, and the number restored is estimated at 5,400; but the articles\nspecified amount to only 2,499.  There were 30 gold chargers, and 30 gold\nbasins, 1,000 silver chargers, with 1,000 other vessels in silver, 410\nsilver basins, and 29 knives.  The deficiency, therefore, is 2901.\n\nThis miscalculation is sufficiently strange, but the statement becomes\ninfinitely more astounding when we read the account given us in the book\nof Kings respecting the spoliation of these vessels [2 Kings, xxiv., 13].\nIt is said that Nebuchadnezzar \u201ccut in pieces all the vessels of gold\nwhich Solomon had made.\u201d  This was in the reign of Coniah or Jehoiachin.\n\nIn the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Zedekiah the captain\nof the Babylonian army \u201cbroke in pieces\u201d the brazen vessels, but took the\nbrass; and he broke in pieces the gold and silver vessels, but took the\ngold and silver with him to Babylon.  So that the gold and silver vessels\nwere twice reduced to metal [2 Kings, xxv., 13\u201316].  Jeremiah [lii.,\n17\u201323] enters into minute details.\n\nThese vessels seem to have possessed a wonderful recreative power.  They\nwere always being taken away to supply a temporary want of money, yet\nwere always in the temple ready for a new spoliation.\n\n(1)  Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of king Rehoboam, \u201ctook away\nthe treasures of the house of the Lord; he even took away _all_; and he\ntook away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made\u201d [1 Kings, xiv.,\n25\u201326].\n(2)  Asa followed the example of Shishak, for he also \u201ctook _all_ the\nsilver and gold left in the treasures of the house of the Lord\u201d to give\nto Benhadad king of Syria. [1 Kings, xv., 18.]\n(3)  Jehoash, king of Judah, could not take away Solomon\u2019s vessels of\ngold and silver, because they were gone already, but he \u201ctook all the\nhallowed things that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah had dedicated, and\nhis own hallowed things, and all the gold found in the treasures of the\nhouse of the Lord . . . and sent it to Hazael king of Syria.\u201d [2 Kings,\nxii. 18.]\n(4)  Jehoash, king of Israel, also \u201ctook _all_ the gold and silver, and\nall the vessels found in the house of the Lord,\u201d and returned to Samaria\nwith his spoils. [2 Kings, xiv., 14.]\n(5)  Ahaz, king of Judah, wanted money, and followed the example of his\npredecessors, for he also \u201ctook the silver and the gold found in the\nhouse of the Lord,\u201d and sent it to the king of Assyria. [2 Kings, xvi.,\n8.]\n(6)  We have not to tarry long before we come to Hezekiah, who \u201cgave the\nking of Assyria all the silver found in the house of the Lord,\u201d and \u201ccut\noff the gold from the doors and pillars to give to the king of Assyria.\u201d\n[2 Kings, xviii., 15\u201316.]\n(7)  Once more the temple was spoiled, before we come to the final\nspoliations by the king of Babylon, in the 8th year of Jehoiachim king of\nJudah.  This has been alluded to already.\n\nIt will be observed that it is not always said that the vessels were\ntaken out of the temple, but in several of the spoliations it is said\nsimply that the treasures were taken out of the house of the Lord; by\nturning, however, to 1 Kings, vii., 51, it will be seen that the\n\u201ctreasures\u201d include the vessels, for we are told that \u201cthe silver, and\nthe gold, and the vessels, did Solomon put among the treasures of the\nhouse of the Lord.\u201d\n\nHence Shishak took away all the treasures of the temple, all the silver\nand the gold and the vessels that Solomon had placed there.  If _all_ in\nthis case means less than all we have Asa to follow, who took away \u201call\nthat was left.\u201d  Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Jehoash, made new\nvessels and hallowed things, but Jehoash gave all these to Hazael king of\nSyria; and though all the treasures were given away already, the king of\nIsrael makes a raid on the temple and carries off to Samaria \u201call the\nvessels\u201d both of silver and of gold; Ahaz does the same; Hezekiah takes\nall the silver vessels and cuts off all the gold ornaments of the doors\nand pillars.  After this comes Nebuchadnezzar, who finds all the vessels\nof Solomon somehow still treasured in the temple, and seizing on them he\ncuts them to pieces, but they are not yet destroyed nor even lost, for\nsome 10 or 11 years afterwards Nebuzzar-adan, captain of the guard of the\nking of Babylon, lays his hand on the sacred vessels, and took them \u201cin\ngold and in silver\u201d to Nebuchadnezzar.  Ezra tells us the number amounted\nto 5400, but how they could be given to so many, cut to pieces and\nrepaired, sent to Assyria, Samaria, and Syria, yet be all wonderfully\nfound safe and sound in a temple in Babylon, is, to say the least, past\nunderstanding.  Come we now to another class of errors.\n\n\n\n(_c_.)  _Misstatements_.\n\n\nExod. vi., 3.\n\n\nGod is represented as saying: \u201cI appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nby the name God Almighty [El Shadday], but by my name JEHOVAH was I not\nknown to them.\u201d\n\nNow the name Jehovah occurs over and over again in the Book of Genesis,\nand has given rise to the Jehovistic and Elohistic controversy, made\nfamiliar to English readers by Bishop Colenso.  Abraham, we are told,\nbuilt an altar to Jehovah near Bethel [Gen. xii. 8.], and another in\nHebron [Gen. xiii., 18.] but stranger still, when the sacrifice of Isaac\nwas stopped, the patriarch called the spot Jehovah-Jireh [Gen. xxii. 14].\nHow could he call it so, if the very name Jehovah was unknown to him?\n\n\nExod. xvii., 8\u201313.\n\n\nThe children of Israel had scarcely entered the \u201cwilderness\u201d when the\nAmalekites came to oppose them.  A severe battle ensued, in which the\nIsraelites were at first worsted, but ultimately the foe was \u201cput to the\nsword.\u201d\n\nThe whole history leads to the belief that the people left Egypt unarmed.\nThey were slaves, and it is not at all likely that Pharaoh would have\nsuffered 600,000 slaves to carry swords.  It is very true that our\nEnglish version says \u201cthe children of Israel went up _harnessed_ out of\nthe land of Egypt\u201d [Exod. xiii., 18.], but the marginal reading is \u201cby\nfive in a rank,\u201d which seems the more probable.  No time was given for\npreparation, for the people were \u201curgent to send them away in haste,\u201d\nthey had not even time to prepare food before they left, but \u201ctook their\ndough before it was leavened\u201d [Exod. xii., 34].  Having crossed the Red\nSea, they would have no opportunity of procuring swords, so that this\nbattle must remain a mystery.\n\n\n1 Sam. xvii., 54.\n\n\nHere we are told that David, having cut off the head of Goliath, \u201ccarried\nit to Jerusalem.\u201d  How could this be, seeing that Jerusalem at the time\nwas in the hand of the Jebusites, and did not fall into the hand of the\nIsraelites till several years afterwards?  When David slew the giant he\nwas a mere stripling, say 15 or 16 years of age, but when he took\nJerusalem from the Jebusites he was above 30. [2 Sam. v., 6.]\n\n\n2 Sam. vii., 12, 13, 16.\n\n\nThe prophet Nathan is commanded by God to say that the Lord \u201cwill set up\nhis seed after him, and establish the kingdom of David for ever;\u201d and\nagain \u201cthine house and thy kingdom,\u201d says Nathan, \u201cshall be established\nfor ever, thy throne shall be established for ever.\u201d  What is the fact?\nSolomon reigned 40 years, but towards the close of his reign, sat on a\nvery tottering throne; no sooner did Rehoboam succeed than 10 parts out\nof 12 revolted; and in 380 years more the kingdom of Judah had ceased to\nexist; so that the repeated promise of Nathan that the kingdom should\nendure for ever proved altogether a failure.\n\n\nJeremiah, xxxv., 18, 19.\n\n\nPrecisely the same promise was made to the Rechabites, with precisely the\nsame results: \u201cThus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, because\nye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father [to drink no wine],\nJonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for\never.\u201d  Great efforts have been made to show that the Rechabites still\nexist; but I apprehend that few scholars will place any reliance on the\nconflicting accounts.  Brett professes they are in Hungary; Niebuhr says\nthey are in Medina; the \u201cBible Cyclop\u00e6dia\u201d asserts that they live in\nMecca; the missionary Wolff maintains that they live near Jerusalem;\nSignor Pierotti affirms that he found them in the vicinity of the Dead\nSea.\n\n\n1 Kings, xxii., 19\u201323; 2 Chron. xviii., 22.\n\n\nWe are here told that God himself sent lying spirits into His prophets,\nnot by way of punishment, but in order to mislead; so that, admitting\ncertain books to have been written by prophets, and even that God sent\nHis \u201cspirit\u201d to inspire them, it by no means follows that the books are\nworthy of credit.  It is not enough to be a prophet, it is not enough to\nbe moved by the spirit, it is not enough that the spirit comes from God,\nwe must ourselves decide the all important question whether the spirit is\na \u201clying spirit\u201d or the \u201cspirit of truth.\u201d  The two kings Ahab and\nJehoshaphat enquired of the prophets whether or not they should make war\nagainst the Syrians, 400 prophets agreed in the answer, go, for \u201cthe Lord\nwill deliver them into your hands.\u201d  Nothing could be plainer, nothing\nmore decisive; but Michaiah says, don\u2019t believe the prophets, \u201cfor the\nLord has put a lying spirit into all their mouths\u201d to compass the\ndestruction of the two kings.  Here were 400 who said \u201cgo,\u201d and one who\nsaid \u201cno,\u201d the prophets have been deceived by a spirit of falsehood.  Is\nit at all credible that the God of truth would employ spirits of untruth\nto go upon his missions?  How can it be said that God abhors lies when he\nemploys lying spirits as his ministers?  But, without doubt, the lying\nprophet is recognised in Scripture, for besides these 400 we have the\nlamentable tale of the old prophet of Bethel, who told the prophet of\nJudah to go home with him, declaring that the Lord had sent him, but \u201che\nlied,\u201d and the prophet of Judah was slain by a lion for trusting the word\nof his brother prophet [1 Kings, xiii., 18].  There is an inconsistency\nin all this revolting to common sense; and so, indeed, is there in the\nnotion of the parliament referred to in the book of Job [ii., 1], \u201cthere\nis a day when the sons of God present themselves before Jehovah, and\nSatan is present amongst them,\u201d and God speaks to Satan and employs him\nto do His bidding.  Paul says there is no fellowship between God and\nBelial, light and darkness, and he is right.\n\n\n2 Kings, iii., 15\u201320.\n\n\nElisha said to the king of Israel, \u201cThe Lord will deliver the Moabites\ninto your hands,\u201d and that Israel should smite \u201cevery fenced city of\nMoab, and every choice city.\u201d  None of this prophecy came true, and why?\nBecause the king of Moab, when \u201che saw the battle was too sore for him,\nsacrificed his eldest son on the wall for a burnt offering.\u201d  The\nIsraelites, seeing this, were panic struck, fled, and left the prophecy\nunfulfilled [_see_ verses 26, 27],\n\n\n2 Chron. xvi., 1.\n\n\nThere is some great mistake here.  \u201cIn the thirty-sixth year of the reign\nof Asa,\u201d says the chronicler, \u201cBaasha, King of Israel, came up against\nJudah, and built Ramah;\u201d but what says the book of Kings?  \u201cIn the third\nyear of Asa, King of Judah, began Baasha to reign over Israel, and he\nreigned twenty-four years\u201d [1 Kings, xv., 33]; if this latter statement\nis correct Baasha died in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Asa,\nand could not have waged war against him nine years afterwards.\n\n\nDan. i., 1.\n\n\nThe writer says that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, laid siege to\nJerusalem in the _third year of Jehoiakim_; but Jeremiah says [xxv., 1.]\nthat the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim was the _first_ of Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s\nreign.  So that he was not king at all in the \u201c3rd year of Jehoiakim.\u201d\n\n\nMatt., i., 17.\n\n\nMatthew says, \u201call the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen;\nand from David to the captivity are fourteen; and from the captivity to\nthe birth of Christ are fourteen.\u201d  This is true in no sense.  The\n\u201cperiods\u201d are quite unequal in length; the \u201cgenealogies\u201d are not alike in\nnumber; and fourteen in no case is correct.  According to Bible\nchronology the first period was 911 years, the second 497, and the third\n584.\n\n\nJohn, i., 18.\n\n\nThe evangelist says\u2014\u201cNo man hath seen God at any time;\u201d similarly we read\nin Exodus [xxxiii., 20], \u201cThere shall no man see my face and live.\u201d  How\ndoes this agree with Gen. xxxii., 24\u201330, where Jacob is said to have\nwrestled all night with a mysterious being, and \u201ccalled the name of the\nplace Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life is\npreserved.\u201d  Sarah also \u201clooked upon God\u201d when she was told that her\nhusband would have a son [Gen. xvi., 13].  Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and\nAbihu, with the 70 elders of Israel \u201csaw the God of Israel . . . they saw\nGod, and did eat and drink\u201d [Exod. xxiv., 9\u201311].  Moses was on two\noccasions 40 days with God, and saw his \u201csimilitude,\u201d and spake to him\n\u201cmouth to mouth\u201d [Numbers, xii., 8].  Numerous other instances will occur\nto every reader; if anything is revealed in Scripture more positively\nthan another, it is that God has appeared to many, from Adam to John,\ntalked to them familiarly, and they have lived.\n\n\nJohn, xxi., 25.\n\n\nJohn says, \u201cThere are also many other things which Jesus did, the which,\nif they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself\ncould not contain the books that should be written.\u201d  I will not go this\nlength respecting the mis-statements and errors of Scripture; but it\nwould be no exaggeration to say, if all were written down, this pamphlet\nwould not contain them.\n\n *** _We will conclude this part of our subject with one or two errors of\n                            a different sort_.\n\n\nDeut. i., 1.\n\n\nThe writer says\u2014\u201cThese are the words which Moses spake to all Israel on\nthis side Jordan, in the plain over against the Red Sea.\u201d\n\nAt the time he was as near Jordan, and about as far from the Red Sea as\nhe well could be.  The expression \u201cOn this side Jordan\u201d means in this\nverse _east_ of the river, but after the Israelites had come into the lot\nof their inheritance, \u201cthis side Jordan\u201d meant _west_ of the river, and\neast of it was called \u201cbeyond Jordan\u201d [Joshua, ix., 1, 10].\n\n\nJudges, vii., 3.\n\n\nThis is another geographical error.  It is stated that Gideon ordered it\nto be proclaimed throughout his host that all who had no stomach for the\npending fight with the Midianites were at liberty to depart early from\nMount Gilead.\n\nNow, the encampment of Gideon was in the valley of Jezreel, west of the\nJordan; whereas Mount Gilead is beyond Jordan, far away from the site of\nthe battle.\n\n\n2 Chron. xx., 35\u201337.\n\n\nThis is a third example of geographical confusion, similar to those\nmarvellous blunders of old Homer.  The chronicler says that Jehoshaphat\nbuilt ships in \u201cEzion-gaber to go to Tarshish.\u201d  Ezion-gaber was a\nharbour in the Red Sea, and Tarshish is generally supposed to be\nTartessus, the famous Ph\u0153nician emporium near the mouth of the\nGuadalquiver, and not far from the modern Cadiz.  It was far more than\nthe navigators of Jewry could have accomplished to sail from the Red Sea\nto Spain, and certainly Jehoshaphat would not have chosen that harbour\nfor building ships for the Mediterranean.\n\n\nProv. vi., 6\u20138; xxx., 25.\n\n\nSolomon says: \u201cGo to the ant, thou sluggard\u2014which provideth her meat in\nthe summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.\u201d  No doubt it was a\nvulgar error of very wide diffusion that ants feed upon corn, and lay up\na store of grain in harvest time for winter use.  Pliny, \u00c6lian, Ovid,\nVirgil, Horace, {44} and several in our own country, have endorsed the\ninstruction of Solomon, but what is the real fact?  In the first place,\nants are dormant in winter; and in the next place, they do not feed upon\ncorn, but chiefly on animal food.  What Solomon and others supposed to be\ngrains of corn are in reality the cocoons which they bring out of their\nnests in fine weather to air, and after they have exposed them to the sun\nthey carry them back again.  Efforts have been made to prove that there\nis a species of ant which lives on grain; but even if such could be\nfound, it is not the exception, but the rule which must characterise the\nanimal.  No one would say to a person, you are \u201cwhite as a rose,\u201d or\n\u201cblack as a cherry;\u201d though there are white roses and black cherries.  In\nall proverbial expressions and general allusions, the ordinary character\nis referred to, and not the exceptions.\n\n\nMatt, xiii., 31, 32; Mark, iv., 31, 32.\n\n\nJesus said: \u201cA grain of mustard-seed . . . is the least of all seeds, but\nwhen it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so\nthat the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.\u201d\n\nIt is not correct that the \u201cgrain of mustard is the least of all seeds.\u201d\nMany seeds are smaller, as that of the foxglove and tobacco plant; nor is\nit correct that mustard anywhere grows into a tree, \u201cso that the birds of\nthe air come and lodge in the branches thereof.\u201d\n\nThe exaggeration in the corresponding verse of the second Gospel is even\ngreater than that of Matthew.  Mark says: \u201cIt is less than [any of] the\nseeds that be sown in the earth . . . but becometh greater than all\nherbs, and shooteth out great branches.\u201d\n\nHere, again, critics have come forward to prove that the mustard seed of\nthe text was not mustard seed, but something else.  Some one fancies he\nhas discovered a seed which better answers the description, and says\nJesus did not mean mustard, but the seed of the critic.  Such puerile\ndefence does more harm than good.  Moses did not mean \u201csix days\u201d by _six\ndays_; Joshua did not mean that the \u201csun was to stand still,\u201d when he\ncommanded it so to do; Solomon did not mean \u201cants\u201d by _ants_; nor Jesus,\n\u201cmustard-seed\u201d by _mustard seed_.  In fact, words have no meaning, but\nmay be fitted with a sliding scale to fit the wishes and knowledge of\nevery reader.  The dishonesty of this practice is palpable, and any\nsystem which needs such shoring should be suffered to fall through its\nown weakness.\n\n\n1 Chron. iv., 17; and 1 Chron. vii., 14.\n\n\nBeing on the subject of blunders, we would commend our readers to the two\nverses referred to above\u2014\u201cThe _sons_ of Ezra were Jether, Mered . . . and\nJalon; and _she_ bare Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah.\u201d\n\nAgain.  \u201cThe _sons_ of Manasseh [were] Ashriel, whom _she_ bare . . . and\nthe name of the second was Zelophehad.\u201d  I know not if the reader can\nunderstand these verses; I must candidly confess I am wholly unable to\nattach any meaning whatever to them.\n\nAnother puzzle will be seen in Ecclesiastes, vii., 27\u201329, but probably\nthe translation is in great measure responsible for the obscurity of this\npassage.  The preacher says: \u201cBehold, this have I found, counting one by\none to find out the account; which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not:\none man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I\nnot found.\u201d  It would be no easy matter to make out what the preacher\n\u201chas found,\u201d which requires such a blowing of trumpets.  The original\nHebrew may throw some light upon his meaning, but I am certain that if\nany candidate for the civil service had written those verses, no examiner\nwould commend their perspicuity.\n\n\n\nPART III.\u2014SECOND DIVISION.\nSCRIPTURE CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE.\n\n\nIn the former part of this division numerous examples have been brought\ntogether to prove that the scope of Scripture in one place is not\nreconcilable with the statement given in another; it now remains to go\none step further, and show that one Scripture positively contradicts\nanother.  In the former part the passages alluded to are obviously in\nerror; in this part one text will be contrasted with another\ncontradictory text, but it will not be possible to pronounce which is\nright, or whether both are not equally in fault.  It will suffice in many\ncases simply to set one statement against another statement in separate\ncolumns, and leave the reader to form his own judgment; but in some few\ninstances a remark or two will be given to point out the scope of the\nerror to which attention is directed.\n\n        Gen. vi., 19, 20.                     Gen. vii., 2.\n\nThe direction given by God to       This plain, positive direction is\nNoah was\u2014\u201cOf every living thing     altered in the very next chapter,\nof _all flesh_, two of every sort   and a distinction is made between\nshalt thou bring into the ark       clean and unclean animals: \u201cOf\n. . . they shall be male and [its]  every clean beast thou shalt take\nfemale; of fowls after their        to thee by _sevens_, the male and\nkind, and of cattle after their     his female.\u201d\nkind, of every creeping thing of\nthe earth after his kind, _two of   Seven pairs (or 14 animals) is a\nevery sort_ shall come unto thee    very wide deviation from the\nto keep them alive.\u201d                direction, two only of every sort\n                                    shall be taken into the ark to\nNothing can be more explicit.  It   keep them alive.\nis even expressly said that the\n_cattle_ were not to exceed two;\nit was to be two \u201cof _all_\nflesh;\u201d two of \u201cevery sort.\u201d\n  Gen. xlvi., 27; Deut. x., 22.              Acts, vii., 14.\n\nIn the books of Moses we are more   By what authority does the martyr\nthan once told that all the souls   Stephen increase this positive\nof the house of Jacob which came    assertion by the addition of five\ninto Egypt were \u201cthree score and    more? saying \u201call the kindred [of\nten.\u201d                               Jacob which came into Egypt] were\n                                    three score and 15 souls.\u201d\nWe read in Gen. xlvi., 26, that the number, exclusive of Joseph and\nhis two sons, who were already in Egypt, and of Jacob himself, the\nfounder of the race, \u201call the souls were three score and six;\u201d but\nincluding these four, the number amounted to \u201cthree score and ten.\u201d\nBy adding together the names set down in Gen. xlvi., 15, 18, 22, 25,\nit will be found that the number amounts to 70; the five, therefore,\nadded by Stephen, had no existence.\n     1 Sam., xxx., 1\u201310, 17.              1 Chron., xii., 20\u201322.\n\nThe Amalekites burnt Ziklag, and    How is this transaction recorded\ndrove off the women as captives.    by the chronicler?  When David\nThree days afterwards David and     reached Ziklag, eight captains\n\u201chis men\u201d came to the place and     \u201cof thousands\u201d came to him, and\nsaw the calamity which had          helped him against the Amalekite\nbefallen it.  David consulted the   raiders, and so many men flocked\nephod, and was told to pursue the   to his standard to help him, that\n\u201crovers,\u201d for he should not only    his army was \u201ca great host, like\novertake them, but should recover   the host of God.\u201d\nall that they had taken captive.\n\u201cSo David went, he and the _six     Certainly it seems very\nhundred men_ that were with him,    improbable that 400 men should be\nand came to the brook Besor.\u201d       able to extirpate the whole army\nHere David left behind 200 of the   of the Amalekites which must have\nmen, and with the remaining 400     been pretty numerous, seeing 400\novertook the spoilers, and          men mounted on camels managed to\nextirpated them, for \u201che smote      escape; but these 400 are spoken\nthem from the twilight even unto    of as mere ciphers, for David and\nthe evening of the next day, and    his men slew all the whole army,\nthere escaped not a man of them,    except these [few] young men who\nsave 400 who fled on camels.\u201d       were on camels.\n         2 Sam., ii., 10.                    2 Sam., ii., 11.\n\nIshbosheth, the rival king of       In the very next verse we are\nDavid, is said to have reigned      informed that David reigned\n_two years_; and during these two   _seven years and a half_ over\nyears, David reigned over Judah     Judah only, during all which time\nonly.                               Ishbosheth reigned over the rest\n                                    of the tribes.\n       2 Sam., viii., 4, 5.                1 Chron., xviii., 4.\n\nDavid, says the writer of this      In the corresponding passage\nbook, took from Hadadezer, (?)      recorded in the book of\nKing of Zobah, 1,000 chariots,      Chronicles, we are told that the\nand _seven hundred_ horsemen, and   number of horsemen was not 700,\n22,000 footmen.                     but _seven thousand_.  The name\n                                    of the king is here called\n                                    Hadarezer.\n        2 Sam., x., 6, 18.                 1 Chron., xix., 18.\n\nHadarezer hired 33,000 Syrians to   In the book of Chronicles David\noppose David; but David came        is said to have slain _seven\nagainst the allied army and \u201cslew   thousand_ men, which fought in\n_seven hundred chariots_ of the     chariots, and forty thousand\nSyrians, and forty thousand         _footmen_.\n_horsemen_.\u201d\n        2 Sam., xxiv., 9.                   1 Chron., xxi., 5.\n\nThe \u201cfighting men\u201d at the close     In the book of Chronicles the\nof David\u2019s reign are stated in      number of fighting men is even\nthe book of Samuel to have been     more astounding.  It is given as\n1,300,000 (!); of these 800,000     1,570,000; of which 1,100,000\nwere of Israel, and 500,000 of      belonged to Israel, and 470,000\nJudah.                              to Judah.\n        2 Sam., xxiv., 13.                 1 Chron., xxi., 12.\n\nWhen David numbered the people, a   According to Chronicles, the\nchoice of three evils was given     choice was: _three_ years of\nhim.  According to Samuel, the      famine, and not seven.\nevils were: _seven_ years of\nfamine, three months pursuit by\nhis enemies, or three days\u2019\npestilence.\n        2 Sam., xxiv., 24.                  Chron., xxi., 25.\n\nIn the book of Samuel, David is     In the book of Chronicles, he is\nsaid to have given to Araunah for   said to have given for it 600\nthe threshing-floor _fifty_         shekels of _gold_ [\u00a3547 10s.].\nshekels of _silver_ [\u00a35 13s.\n6d.].\n        1 Kgs., vii., 26.                   2 Chron., iv., 5.\n\nAccording to the book of Kings,     According to the book of\nSolomon\u2019s brazen laver held 2,000   Chronicles, it held 3,000 baths\nbaths [15,000 gallons].             [about 22,500 gallons].\n        2 Kgs., viii., 26.                 2 Chron., xxii., 2.\n\nThe writer of the book of Kings     We are here informed that Ahaziah\ntells us that Ahaziah was 22        was 42 when he began to reign,\nyears old when he began to reign,   and not 22.  Both agree in the\nand he reigned one year.            length of his reign.\n         2 Kgs., xiv., 7.                 2 Chron., xxv., 11\u201312.\n\nIn the book of Kings, Amaziah is    In the book of Chronicles he is\nsaid to have slain 10,000           said to have slain twice that\nEdomites in the Valley of Salt.     number: 10,000 he smote, and\n                                    10,000 he cast down from the top\n                                    of a rock, whereby \u201cthey were all\n                                    broken in pieces\u201d (!)\n        2 Kgs., xxiv., 8.                  2 Chron., xxxvi., 9.\n\nThe author of the book of Kings     The author of the book of\ntells us that \u201cJehoiachin was       Chronicles says that \u201cJehoiachin\n_eighteen years_ old when he        was _eight years_ old when he\nbegan to reign, and [he] reigned    began to reign, and he reigned\nin Jerusalem three months.\u201d         three months and ten days in\n                                    Jerusalem.\u201d\n       1 Chron., xxii., 14.                1 Chron., xxix., 4.\n\nDavid, we are here told,            In this chapter the bequest is\nbequeathed to Solomon for the       stated to have been only 3,000\ntemple the fabulous sum of          talents of gold, and 7,000 of\n100,000 talents of gold, and a      silver.  This would amount to\nmillion talents of silver.  In      \u00a3166,650,000 English money.  A\nEnglish money this would be seven   good round sum for a petty state\nthousand million sterling (say      not bigger than Yorkshire, but\n7,000,000,000!).                    still considerably reduced from\n                                    that given in the previous\n                                    record.\n        2 Chron. iii., 15.                Jeremiah lii., 21, 22.\n\nAccording to the chronicler the     Jeremiah tells us the shaft of\nheight of the two pillars made by   each was only 18 cubits high.  He\nSolomon for the temple was 35       agrees in the height of the\ncubits in the shaft, on which was   chapiter (five cubits).\na chapiter of five cubits.          According to Jeremiah the entire\nAltogether about 80 feet!!          height was about 40 feet, or half\n                                    that of the chronicler.\n      Jeremiah lii., 28\u201330.                   Ezra ii., 64.\n\nThe \u201cprophet\u201d informs us that the   Ezra states that of the captives\ntotal number of captives taken      taken to Babylon only 42,360 were\nfrom Judah to Babylon was only      willing to return.  All the rest\n4,600.  A modest number enough,     preferred to remain where they\ncompared with the number of         were.  No doubt Ezra would give\nfighting men, which averaged        us to understand that more\n300,000, according to the Bible     remained in Babylon than went up\nhistorians.                         to the land of their fathers.\nThe \u201cprophet\u201d has made a mistake in his sum.  The three captivities\nwere 3,320 + 832 + 745=4,897, not 4,600.  One is puzzled to\nunderstand how 4,000 captives should have so stripped the kingdom as\nto leave it a wilderness; we find hundreds of thousands falling in a\nsingle battle without exhausting the country at all.\n        Matt. xvii., 1\u20132.                     Luke ix., 28.\n\nHere we read \u201cAfter _six_ days      Luke says \u201cAbout an _eight_ days\nJesus taketh Peter, James, and      after . . . he took Peter, John,\nJohn, and bringeth them up into a   and James, and went up into a\nhigh mountain . . . and was         mountain, and was transfigured.\u201d\ntransfigured before them.\u201d\n          Mark vi., 40.                       Luke ix., 14.\n\nMark says of the 5000 who were      Luke says that Jesus directed his\nfed with five barley loaves and     disciples \u201cto make them sit down\ntwo fishes: \u201cThey sat down in       by fifties in a company.\u201d\nranks, by hundreds and by\nfifties.\u201d\n\nThese last two examples are not very weighty, but in a book which\nprofesses to be inspired, and demands unreserved and unconditional\nbelief, we expect minute accuracy.  The argument we advance is\naccumulative.  Probably no book of good reputation has so many\ncontradictory passages as the Bible; the examples referred to in this\npamphlet form but a small part of what might be brought forward, if we\nallowed ourselves a larger space.\n\nThe examples given above are more or less connected with figures.  The\nrest of the examples to be stated are independent of such sources of\nerror.  A few shall be given in detail and others in parallel columns.\n\n\nGen., i., 27.\n\n\nAdam and Eve, we are here told, were created on the sixth day.  The words\nare quite explicit, \u201cmale and female created he them, and God blessed\nthem . . . and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.\u201d\n\nWe are little prepared to hear in the very next chapter that God did not\ncreate them a male and female on the sixth day, and of course did not\nbless them.  What is still more strange is that the chapter opens with\nthe words: \u201cThus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host\nof them, and on the seventh day God _ended_ his work which he had made.\u201d\n\nAccording to v. 21 we find that God did not rest from his work at the\nclose of the sixth day, nor was his work ended, nor was woman yet made;\nfor after this \u201crest,\u201d or during this \u201csabbath,\u201d we are not told which,\nAdam being thrown into a deep sleep, one of his ribs was abstracted, and\nout of this rib was Eve made.\n\n\nGen., iv. 14.\n\n\nAfter Cain had killed his brother Abel he was \u201cdriven by God from the\nface of the earth;\u201d and Cain said: \u201cMy punishment is greater than I can\nbear . . .  I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it\nshall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.\u201d\n\nOne would suppose from this that the world was populated at the time, and\nnot that Cain was the first-born of the human race.\n\n\nGen., xlix., 10.\n\n\n\u201cThe sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.\u201d  We are told\nthat Shiloh [_the peaceful one_] means \u201cthe son of peace,\u201d the Messiah,\nJesus Christ.  If so, how thoroughly did facts contradict this prophecy.\nJudah had no sceptre till David\u2019s time, 650 years after these words were\nspoken; it held the sceptre 460 years, and it departed from Judah 580\nyears before Shiloh came.\n\n\nExodus, xx.\n\n\nThe chapter contains the decalogue read in the Anglican churches every\nSunday morning.  Moses broke the first pair of stone tables, but having\nprepared two others Jehovah \u201cwrote upon them the words that were on the\nfirst tables.\u201d\n\nBy comparing Exod. xxxiv. with Exod. xx., it will be found that there is\nvery little resemblance between the first and second decalogue.  Only\nthree of the ten commandments are at all alike, the other seven of the\nfirst pair of tables find no counterpart in the second.\n\n\n1 Sam., ix., 2.\n\n\nSaul is called \u201ca choice young man and a goodly,\u201d yet had he at the time\na son in man\u2019s estate.\n\n\n1 Sam., xv., 7\u201320.\n\n\nSaul positively affirms that he had \u201cutterly destroyed all the\nAmalekites, except Agag,\u201d and him Samuel \u201chewed to pieces.\u201d  Some twenty\nyears after this extirpation, David is appointed to destroy the very same\npeople, and he also \u201csmote them from the twilight even unto the evening\nof the next day, and there escaped not a man of them, save 400 young men,\nwhich fled on camels.\u201d  (1 Sam. xxx., 17.)  (_See also_ 1 Chron., iv.,\n41\u201343.)\n\n\n1 Sam., xvi., 18.\n\n\nWhen David was introduced to king Saul, he is described as \u201ca mighty\nvaliant man, and a man of war;\u201d but in the next chapter he is called a\n\u201cstripling unpracticed in arms,\u201d and unused to armour.\n\nIn the former of these two chapters (v. 21), he is represented as Saul\u2019s\ncompanion, who \u201cstood before the king, and Saul loved him greatly;\u201d in\nthe latter (xvii., 55, 56), he becomes a stripling wholly unknown to the\nmonarch and his officers, for Saul asks Abner \u201cwhose son is this youth?\nand Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell.  And Saul\nsaid, Inquire whose son the stripling is.\u201d  Yet this stripling was a\n\u201cmighty man of valour,\u201d who had actually been Saul\u2019s \u201carmour bearer\u201d and\nbeloved companion.  He had lived with Saul, had played to him in his\nmoody fits, and charmed away his ill-temper, had been a cause of jealousy\nto the king, who had even tried to kill him, and yet neither Saul nor\nAbner had ever seen him or known his name.\n\n\n2 Sam., viii., 17.\n\n\nThe writer says there were two high priests during the rebellion of\nDavid, one elected by Saul and the other by David: they were, \u201cZadok son\nof Ahitub, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar.\u201d\n\nIf anyone will read the narrative with tolerable care he will see that\nAhimelech was dead, having been slain by Doeg when he put the city of Nob\nto the sword (1 Sam. xxii., 18); besides Ahimelech was not the son but\nthe father of Abiathar, (1 Sam. xxii., 20; xxiii., 6), and the father of\nAhimelech was Ahitub, a \u201cfact\u201d repeated three times in as many verses, in\n1 Sam. xxii., 9\u201312.\n\nThis blunder about Ahimelech has been copied into other places, for\nexample, 1 Sam. xx., 25; 1 Kings iv., 4; 1 Chronicles xviii., 16, but\nthere cannot be a shadow of doubt that Abiathar, and not Ahimelech, was\nthe high priest appointed by David: first, because Abiathar fled to David\nfor safety; secondly, because he was the high priest during the entire\nreign of David; and finally, because he was deposed by Solomon, who told\nhim he would have put him to death if he had not served before David. (1\nKings ii., 26.)\n\n\nJeremiah, xxii., 29, 30.\n\n\n\u201cO earth, earth, earth!\u201d exclaims the prophet, \u201chear the word of the\nLord\u2014Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man [Coniah] childless.\u201d\n\nAccording to 1 Chronicles, iii., 17, 18, Coniah, or Je-coniah had eight\nsons, viz: Assir, Salathiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jecamiah,\nHoshama, and Nedabiah.\n\n\nJeremiah, xxxvi., 30.\n\n\nJehovah told Jeremiah that Jehoiakim \u201cshould have none to sit on the\nthrone of David:\u201d but we are told (2 Chronicles xxxvi., 8) that his son\nsucceeded him, and after his son his brother.\n\n\nEzekiel, xxx., 13.\n\n\nThis and the two following chapters speak of the conquest of Egypt by\nBabylon.  The writer says that the country should be made desolate from\nnorth to south, and that there should be \u201cno more a prince of Egypt.\u201d\n\nNot one word of this corresponds with the known history of Egypt.\nHerodotus does not give the slightest hint of such a calamity.  Merchants\nfrequented the country without interruption long after that, and if the\npeople had been scattered, the cities utterly wasted for 40 years, and\n\u201cno king had succeeded to the throne,\u201d it must have been known.  The\nsilence of historians on this point is a most conclusive proof that the\nlogic of fact did not accord with the word of prophecy.\n\nThe same may be said of the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea.  No history\nconfirms this tale, and no king of Egypt can be made to tally with the\ncatastrophe.  But Egypt was not an insignificant kingdom like Judah,\nwhich no one knew about; it was the foremost kingdom of the world, and if\none of its kings had been drowned in the sea with all his host, some\nmention must have been made thereof.\n\n\nGENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\n\nTake another example.  Both Matthew and Luke labour to prove the\ngenealogy of Christ from David.  Luke traces Joseph to Adam, through\nDavid (iii., 23\u201336), and Matthew gives the descendants of David down to\n\u201cJoseph, the husband of Mary.\u201d  The object of both is to show that Jesus,\nthrough Joseph, came in the direct line, and was therefore of the lineage\nof David.\n\nThe interpolated miraculous conception, abandoned by biblical scholars,\n{53} utterly stultifies the purpose of these pedigrees.  Matthew and Luke\n\u201cprove\u201d that Jesus was of the lineage of David because Joseph, the\nhusband of Mary, was in the direct line.  The miraculous conception goes\nto show that Joseph was _not_ the father of Jesus, and consequently that\nJesus was not of the line of David at all.  Here, then, is a dilemma:\u2014_if\nJesus was the son of Joseph his divinity must be given up_; _if he was\nnot the son of Joseph_, _he was not of the line of David_, _and his\nMessiahship must be given up_.\n\nBy casting an eye over the two genealogies, it will be seen that they\ndiffer in all points except at certain nodes, and the usual answer is,\nthat Luke\u2019s is the pedigree of Joseph, and Matthew\u2019s that of Mary.  But\nthere is not the slightest indication of this difference in the Gospel\ntext; both profess to give the genealogy of Joseph.  Matthew says, \u201cJacob\nbegat _Joseph_, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born\u201d (i., 16);\nthere cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is meant for the pedigree of\nJoseph, the husband of Mary.  If not, the genealogy was that of Rahab the\nharlot, for verse 5 tells us that Boaz was the husband of Rahab, of whom\nObed was born.  So again in verse 6, Bathsheba is given as the wife of\nDavid, and mother of Solomon.  Luke says (iii., 23), Jesus was [as was\nsupposed] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli; and does not even mention\nMary.  The three words in brackets are a mere gloss, and could not have\nbeen written by Luke, as they would destroy the very thing he was trying\nto prove: Jesus was the son of Joseph, Joseph of Heli, and Heli was a\ndescendant of David, Abraham, and Seth.  If Jesus was not really the son\nof Joseph, why trouble himself to show that Joseph was in the line of\nDavid, Abraham, and Seth?\n\nBut it is quite evident that Matthew and Luke supposed Jesus to be the\nson of Joseph.  So did the neighbours of Joseph and Mary, for they said\n(Matt, xiii., 55), \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s son?\u201d  It never oozed out\nin his native village that Mary\u2019s son was other than her son in the usual\ncourse of nature.  Even Mary herself says to Jesus \u201cthy father and I have\nsought thee sorrowing\u201d (Luke ii., 48); Mary calls Joseph the father, and\nnot the reputed father, of Jesus, and never seems to have had a shadow of\ndoubt about it.  So was it with the disciples; their adherence to Jesus\nhad nothing to do with his divinity.  They none of them ever hint at such\na notion.  Philip said to Nathaniel \u201cWe have found him of whom Moses\nspoke, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph\u201d (John i., 45); not Jesus of\nNazareth, the son of Jehovah, but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.\nAll were anxious to prove his lineage from David, and none cared to set\naside so very important a point.  Of course they spoke of him as\n\u201cChrist,\u201d but Christ was merely an accepted title for \u201cKing of the\ntheocracy,\u201d and in order that Jesus might be the \u201cChrist,\u201d it was\nabsolutely essential that he should be a descendant of David. {54}  _The\ninterpolated legend of the miraculous conception is a fatal blunder_,\n_and if accepted would utterly destroy the claim of Jesus to the\nMessiahship_.\n\n          Gen., ii., 17.                    Gen., iii., 17\u201319.\n\nThe Lord God said to Adam, \u201cof      Unto Adam God said, \u201cBecause thou\nthe tree of the knowledge of good   hast eaten of the tree of which I\nand evil thou shalt not eat of      commanded thee not to eat [not\nit; for _in the day_ that thou      _thou shalt surely die_, but] in\neatest thereof thou shalt surely    the sweat of thy face shalt thou\ndie.\u201d                               eat bread, till thou return unto\n                                    the ground.\u201d\nTwo things strike us in reading the latter passage: (1) Adam did not\n\u201csurely die\u201d _on the day_ he ate of the forbidden fruit; and (2)\nthere is not the slightest hint to justify the common dogma that\n_death_ was the penalty incurred by Adam, but simply _toil_\u2014toil\n_till_ he died.  \u201cIn the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread\n_till_ thou return unto the ground.\u201d\n\nOn the subject of death it may be here remarked that the scripture\nmakes mention of thousands and hundreds of thousands, who are not to\ndie at all.  We have the case of Enoch (Gen., v., 24), the case of\nElijah (2 Kings, ii., 11), and all the inhabitants of the earth who\nwill be alive \u201cat the last day\u201d (1 Corinthians, xv., 51).  Either\ndeath is not \u201cthe wages of sin,\u201d or these persons are not of the race\nof Adam.  The \u201ccurse\u201d is not transmitted to them; if not to them, why\nto others?  And what becomes of the dogma of Adam and Christ as\nfederal heads?  The whole theory is utterly overturned.\n1 Kings viii., 9; 2 Chron. v. 10.            Hebrews ix., 4.\n\nThe historic books of the Old       The writer of this book affirms\nTestament agree in the fact that    that besides the tables of the\nthere was \u201cnothing in the ark       covenant, there were in the ark\nsave the two tables which Moses     \u201cthe golden pot that had manna,\nput therein at Horeb.\u201d              and Aaron\u2019s rod that budded.\u201d\nThe pot of manna and Aaron\u2019s rod ought to have been in the ark,\ninasmuch as Moses was told to place them there (Exod. xvi., 33, 34.;\nNumbers xvii., 10); but this is only another instance of the\ninconsistency complained of.\n     1 Kings, xxii., 48, 49.              2 Chron. xx., 35, 36.\n\nThe writer tells us that            In the Book of Kings we are told\n\u201cJehoshaphat made ships of          that Jehoshaphat would not allow\nTarshish [_i.e. Spanish             Ahaziah to join in the adventure\ngalleons_] to go to Ophir for       to Ophir.  The chronicler says\ngold. . . .  Then said Ahaziah to   that \u201cJehoshaphat joined Ahaziah\u201d\nJehoshaphat, let my servants go     in making these galleons.\nwith thy servants in the ships,\nbut he would not.\u201d\n       2 Kings, ix., 11\u201313.                   Hosea, i., 4.\n\nThe royal historian distinctly      Hosea says: \u201cThe Lord said I will\nsays that Jehu was expressly        avenge the blood of Jezreel upon\nraised by God to the throne of      the house of Jehu, and (because\nIsrael to extirpate the wicked      he extirpated the house of Ahab)\nhouse of Ahab, and \u201cavenge the      I will cause to cease the kingdom\nblood of the prophets shed by       of the house of Israel.\u201d\nJezebel.\u201d\n        2 Kings, ix., 27.                  2 Chron., xxii., 9.\n\nThe book of Kings informs us that   The chronicler says he was caught\nwhen Jehu fell on the race of       by the agents of Jehu \u201chid in\nAhab, Ahaziah \u201cfled to Megiddo,     Samaria,\u201d and being taken captive\nand there died.\u201d                    to Jehu, was then slain.\n         2 Kings, x., 17.                  2 Kings, x., 11, 12.\n\nHere the slaughter of the house     Here it is placed in Jezreel, and\nof Ahab is placed in Samaria.       _after_ Jehu had slain \u201call that\n                                    remained of the house of Ahab,\n                                    all his great men, and his\n                                    kinsfolk, and his priests . . .\n                                    he arose and departed and _came\n                                    to Samaria_.\u201d\n\n                                    This agrees with Hosea, i., 4,\n                                    cited above.\n       1 Chron., xi., 1\u20133.                  2 Sam., ii., 1\u201311.\n\nOn the death of Saul we are here    Here we are informed that David\ntold that \u201cThen _all Israel_        and his men went to Hebron at the\ngathered themselves to David unto   death of Saul, \u201cand the men of\nHebron, saying, . . . thou shalt    _Judah_ came and anointed him\nbe ruler over . . .  Israel . . .   king over the house of Judah.\u201d\nand David made a covenant with\nthem in Hebron . . . and they       But Abner took Ishbosheth, son of\nanointed David king over Israel.\u201d   Saul, and made him king over all\n                                    _Israel_.  David was for seven\n                                    years and six months king over\n                                    the house of Judah only.\n       2 Chron., xxiv., 22.                2 Chron., xxiv., 25.\n\nJoash, it is said, \u201cremembered      Here we are told that Joash slew\nnot the kindness of Jehoiada [his   not the _son_ of Jehoiada, but\nfoster father], but slew his        the _sons_; for the servants of\n_son_,\u201d _i.e._, Zechariah the       Joash conspired against him not\nHigh Priest, see v. 20.             for the blood of Zechariah, but\n                                    \u201cfor the blood of the sons of\n                                    Jehoiada.\u201d\n        2 Kings, xii., 13.                 2 Chron., xxiv., 14.\n\nWhen Jehoash repaired the temple    The chronicler contradicts this\nhe placed a money-box beside the    assertion point blank, and\naltar for voluntary                 affirms that with the money so\ncontributions, but (says the        collected \u201cwere made vessels for\nwriter) there was not money         the house of the Lord, vessels to\nenough collected to make \u201cbowls     minister and to offer, and\nof silver, snuffers, basins,        spoons, and vessels of gold and\ntrumpets, nor _any_ vessels of      silver.\u201d\ngold or silver.\u201d\n      2 Chron., xxxiii., 15.               2 Kings, xxiii., 6.\n\nManasseh is represented as having   But in the reign of Manasseh\u2019s\ntaken the strange gods and idols    grandson, whose name was Josiah,\nout of the house of the Lord . . .  these strange gods and idols were\nand of having \u201ccast them out of     still in the temple, for Josiah\nthe city.\u201d                          \u201ctook them out of the house of\n                                    the Lord . . . and stamped them\n                                    to powder.\u201d\n        Psalm, lxxii., 20.                1 Chron., xvi., 7\u201336.\n\nWe read, here \u201cthe prayers          Here is given a psalm which the\n[_i.e._, the psalms] of David,      chronicler says \u201cDavid delivered\nthe son of Jesse, are ended.\u201d       first.\u201d  From verse 8 to 22 is\n                                    Psalm cv., 1\u201315; the next 11\n                                    verses are Psalm xcvi.; and the\n                                    remaining verses are Psalm cvi.,\n                                    1, 47, 48.\n\n                                    In the \u201cheadings\u201d 18 of the\n                                    psalms, after the lxxii., are\n                                    ascribed to David, viz., ciii.,\n                                    cviii., cix., cx., cxxii.,\n                                    cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii.,\n                                    cxxxviii., cxxxix., cxl.\u2013cxlv.\n          Matt., i., 23.                      Matt., i., 16.\n\nMatthew says the birth of Jesus     The son of Mary was Jesus, called\nfulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah    the Christ.\n(vii., 14), \u201cBehold a virgin\nshall conceive and bear a son,\nand shall call his name Emmanuel\u201d\n[God with us.]\n(1)  The child referred to by Isaiah was to be still an infant when\nRezin and Pekah should be cut off.  Isaiah says, \u201cBefore the child\n[Emmanuel] shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, [Syria\nand Israel] shall be [deprived] of both her kings.\u201d  It required no\ngreat penetration to foretell that the league of Ahaz with\nTiglath-pileser the great king, would soon annihilate the petty\nprinces of Damascus and Israel.\n\n(2)  All scholars, both Jewish and Christian, agree that the child\nreferred to was the expected infant of Isaiah himself.  Within two\nyears Pekah fell by the hand of Hoshea, and Resin by the sword of the\nAssyrians.\n\n(3)  The Jews affirm that the word virgin [_almah_] does not of\nnecessity mean a maiden or unmarried woman.  If Isaiah in the text\nreferred to his wife, she was already mother of at least one child\ntwo years old.  Joel, i., 8, applies the word to a _widow_ advanced\nin life: \u201cLament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband\nof her youth,\u201d _see_ Prov., xxx., 19.\n         Matthew, v., 1.                      Luke, vi., 17.\n\nJesus \u201cseeing the multitude went    Jesus came down with his\nup into a _mountain_, and when he   disciples, and _stood_ in the\nwas _set_, he opened his mouth      _plain_, and said: &c.  [Here\nand taught the people.\u201d  [Here      follow the beatitudes.]\nfollow the beatitudes.]\n        Matt., viii., 28.            Mark, v., 1, 2; Luke, viii., 26,\n                                                   27.\n\u201cWhen [Jesus] was come to the\nother side [of the lake] into the   \u201cWhen they came over unto the\ncountry of the _Gergesenes_,        other side of the sea into the\nthere met him _two_ possessed       country of the _Gadarenes_, there\nwith devils, coming out of the      met him out of the tombs a\ntombs.\u201d                             certain man which had devils a\n                                    long time.\u201d\n        Matt, xx., 20, 21.                   Mark, x., 35\u201337.\n\n\u201cThe _mother_ of Zebedee\u2019s          \u201cJames and John the _sons_ of\nchildren . . . said unto [Jesus],   Zebedee came unto [Jesus] saying,\ngrant that these my two sons may    grant unto us that we may sit one\nsit, the one on thy right hand      on thy right hand and the other\nand the other on the left in thy    on thy left in thy glory.\u201d\nkingdom.\u201d\n        Matt., xxii., 46.                    Mark, xii., 34.\n\nHere we are told that Jesus         Mark gives a different version.\npuzzled the Pharisees with the      He says a certain scribe asked\nquestion, \u201cHow can Christ be        Jesus, \u201cWhich is the first\nDavid\u2019s son, seeing that David      commandment of all?\u201d  And when\ncalls him _lord_?\u201d  \u201cAnd no man,\u201d   Jesus answered the scribe well,\nadds the writer, \u201cfrom that day     adds, \u201cNo man after that durst\nforth, durst ask him any more       ask him any question.\u201d\nquestions.\u201d\n                                              Luke, xx., 40.\n\n                                    Luke agrees with neither of his\n                                    brother evangelists.  He states\n                                    the matter thus: The Sadducees\n                                    tell Jesus of a woman who married\n                                    seven times, and ask whose wife\n                                    of the seven she would be in the\n                                    resurrection.  After Jesus had\n                                    replied, some of the scribes\n                                    remarked, \u201cMaster, thou hast well\n                                    said,\u201d and Luke adds, \u201cafter that\n                                    they durst not ask him any\n                                    question.\u201d  Which is right would\n                                    be hard to say.  Only one can be\n                                    so.\nMatt., xxvi., 6, &c.; Mark, xiv.,           John, xii., 1, &c.\n              3, &c.\n                                    John places this anointing in the\nMatthew and Mark say that Jesus     house of Lazarus, and says the\nwas banqueting in the house of      woman\u2019s name was Mary, who took a\nSimon the Leper, when a woman       pound of spikenard for the\ncame and anointed him with          purpose.\nspikenard.\nThere cannot be a doubt that all these refer to the same event or\ntradition.  It was just prior to the \u201centry into Jerusalem\u201d which\nbrought about the trial and condemnation.  It is wholly incredible\nthat this anointing with spikenard should have been done twice at\nabout the same time.\n        Matt., xxvi., 34.                    Mark, xiv., 30.\n\nJesus said to Simon Peter:          Jesus said: \u201cVerily I say unto\n\u201cVerily I say unto thee that this   thee that this day, even in this\nnight _before the cock crow_,       night, before the cock crow\nthou shalt deny me thrice.\u201d         _twice_, thou shalt deny me\n                                    thrice.\u201d\nSee also Luke, xxii., 34; and\nJohn xiii., 38.\n        Matt., xxvi., 73.                   John, xviii., 26.\n\nMatthew describes the third         John says it was not \u201cthey that\n\u201cdenial\u201d thus: \u201cAfter a while       stood by,\u201d but \u201cone of the\ncame _they that stood by_ and       servants of the High Priest,\nsaid to Peter, surely thou art      whose ear Peter [had] cut off.\u201d\none of them, for thy speech         This servant said, \u201cDid not I see\nbewrayeth thee.\u201d                    thee in the garden with him,\u201d and\n                                    not that \u201cthy speech bewrayeth\nMark and Luke give substantially    thee.\u201d\nthe same account.\n         Matt, xxvi., 74.                   Mark xiv., 68\u201372.\n\nMatthew, in accordance with his     Mark has another tale to make\ndictum, makes Simon Peter deny      good, and says that Simon Peter\nthrice any knowledge of Jesus,      denied once, and the cock crew\nand, having so done, \u201cimmediately   once; after this Peter denied\nthe cock crew.\u201d                     twice more, and then the cock\n                                    crew a second time.\n         Matt, xxvii., 5.                     Acts, i., 18.\n\nMatthew says that Judas, after he   Simon Peter says, \u201cThis man\nhad betrayed his master, \u201cwent      [Judas] purchased a field with\nand hanged himself.\u201d                the reward of iniquity, and\n                                    falling headlong, he burst\n                                    asunder, and all his bowels\n                                    gushed out.\u201d\nSimon Peter says that Judas bought a field with the money he received\nfrom the priests.  The evangelist says he flung the money down in the\ntemple, and the priests bought with it the potter\u2019s field to bury\nstrangers in.  What is meant by \u201cfalling headlong\u201d is very difficult\nto make out.\n       Matt, xxviii., 2\u20135.                   Mark xvi., 4, 5.\n\nMatthew tells us that an angel      Mark says the stone was rolled\n\u201crolled back the stone from the     away, and the visitors on\ndoor of the sepulchre, and sat      \u201centering into the sepulchre saw\nupon it; and the angel said,        [the angel] sitting on the right\n\u2018Fear not . . .\u2019\u201d                   side.  And he said,\u201d &c.  Luke\n                                    [xxiv., 4] says there were _two\nJohn xxi., 1.  We are told that     men_ who _stood_.  They had\nMary saw two angels _sitting_;      \u201cshining garments,\u201d and they\none at the head and the other at    said, \u201cWhy seek ye the living\nthe feet.                           among the dead?\u201d\n   Mark x., 46; Matt, xx., 29.               Luke xviii., 35.\n\nMark says, and Matthew agrees       Luke says it was not on leaving\nwith him, that Jesus met with       Jericho, but as he was about to\nBartimeus, the blind beggar, on     _enter_ the city.\n_leaving_ Jericho.\n          Mark xiv., 69.                     Luke xxii., 58.\n\nIn regard to the second denial of   Luke tells us the person was not\nSimon Peter, Mark says \u201cA _maid_    a woman, but a man; and Peter\nsaw him again, and said to _them    answered \u201cMan, I am not,\u201d _i.e._,\nthat stood by_, this is one of      not one of the disciples.\nthem.\u201d\n          Luke, ix., 1.                     Luke, ix., 38\u201340.\n\nHere we read that Jesus \u201ccalled     We are hardly prepared in the\nhis twelve disciples together,      same chapter to hear that the\nand gave them power and authority   disciples had _not_ power to cast\nover _all_ devils, and to cure      out devils, and cure diseases,\n[all] diseases.\u201d                    for a man says to Jesus, \u201cMaster,\n                                    a spirit taketh my son and\n                                    teareth him; and I brought him to\n                                    thy disciples to cast it out, but\n                                    they could not.\u201d\n          John xix., 6.                      John xviii., 31.\n\nWhen Jesus was brought before the   This is very strange, seeing the\nRoman procurator, Pilate said to    Jews had just said to Pilate, \u201cIt\nthe Jews, \u201cTake ye him, and         is not lawful for us to put any\ncrucify him.\u201d                       man to death.\u201d\nWould any Roman procurator have told the Jews to crucify a criminal,\nknowing that it was strictly forbidden by the Roman senate?\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nThe apology that a certain degree of variance is a proof of independent\ntestimony is quite beside the present question, and so is the argument of\nDr. Whately about Napoleon.  No doubt half-a-dozen correspondents\ndescribing any event in the late war would dwell on different incidents,\nand see matters from different stand-points; one would have a bias\ntowards the French and another towards the Prussians, one would be cast\nin a Tory mould and another would have Radical proclivities, one would\nsee with military eyes and another with the eyes of a civilian, one would\nlook towards the end and another would limit his vision to the present\naction; but who claims for these correspondents divine inspiration? who\nbelieves that they are all baptized into one spirit, and that the spirit\nwhich guides them has guaranteed that they shall speak the truth, the\nwhole truth, and nothing but the truth?  They write as human beings, with\nfallible judgments, and all the prejudices of caste, education, interest,\nand special advocacy; with so many things to bias judgment, no doubt\nthere will be considerable variety of statement, but all this in no wise\napplies to the Bible writers\u2014they are not supposed to write from any of\nthese motives, but to be guided and directed by one and the same motive,\nand all to be led by the Spirit of unerring truth.  With such writers\nthere may be considerable verbal difference, but no substantial variety;\nthere may be shades of variety, and different incidents may strike\ndifferent eye-witnesses, but there can be no positive contradiction, and\nthe same incident cannot be described as two antagonistic facts.  If\nSamuel was right when he affirmed that David took from the king of Zobah\n700 horsemen, the chronicler was wrong when he said the number was 7000.\nIf the chronicler was correct in saying that Jehoiachim was only eight\nwhen he ascended the throne, his brother chronicler was in error when he\ndeclared that he was eighteen.  If Jesus was the son of Joseph and Joseph\na descendant of David, then Jesus was of the lineage of David; but if he\nwas the son of quite another line he was not of the line of David.  If\nthe writer of the book of Kings was right in saying that no vessels of\ngold and silver were made of the money collected in the temple by\nJehoash, the writer of the book of Chronicles could not be correct in\nsaying that all sorts of gold and silver vessels were made therefrom.  If\nMatthew was right in saying that the soldiers arrayed Jesus in a \u201cscarlet\nrobe,\u201d Mark and John were wrong in pronouncing it to be a \u201cpurple\ngarment;\u201d and if Jesus said to Peter, before the cock crow thou shalt\ndeny me thrice, he did not say before the cock crow _twice_ thou shalt\ndeny me thrice.  If the writers were eye and ear witnesses, and if the\nguiding Spirit of God brought to their remembrance what Jesus said and\ndid, such discrepancies could not have occurred.\n\nThese contradictions, and their number is legion, are not the shades of\nvariety, the verbal differences of independent writers of truth, they are\nirreconcilable statements, one of which must be wrong, and if both claim\nto be guided by the Spirit of Infallible Truth, their claim cannot be\nallowed.  It cannot be true that 22 is 42 and 7000 the same as 600; but\ngive up inspiration and place the Bible on the same platform as any other\nancient record, then everyone is at liberty to weigh its statements and\nto hold fast just so much as is consistent with the advanced knowledge of\nscience, the general scope of experience, and the harmony of history.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nSUBJECTS OF TWELVE OF THE SERIES.\n\n\nNo. 1.\u2014\u201cOn the Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle.\u201d  By R.\nLEWINS, M.D., Staff Surgeon-Major to Her Majesty\u2019s Forces.\nNo. 2.\u2014\u201cThe Physical Theory of Animal Life.\u201d  A Review by JULIAN.\nNo. 3.\u2014\u201cThe Nature of Man Identical with that of other Animals.\u201d  By\nJULIAN.\nNo. 4.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or \u201cChrist and the Christian Idea,\nviewed from a Biological standpoint.\u201d  By JULIAN.\nNo. 5.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or \u201cThe Mosaic and Christian Ideas\nwholly without Originality.\u201d  By JULIAN.\nNo. 6.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or \u201cLife on the Basis of Hylozoism.\u201d\nBy JULIAN.\nNo. 7.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or \u201cIdentity of the Vital and Cosmical\nPrinciple, according to DR. LEWINS.\u201d  By JULIAN.\nNo. 8.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY\u2014\u201cThe Mission of Moses,\u201d from the German\nof Schiller.  Annotated by JULIAN.\nNo. 9.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY\u2014\u201cChrist not divine nor his death\nvicarious.\u201d  By JULIAN.\nNo. 10.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY\u2014\u201cThe Cur\u00e9 Meslier and his Will,\u201d from\nthe German of Strauss, with Preliminary Remarks by JULIAN.\nNo. 11.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY\u2014\u201cThe Bible irreconcilable with science,\nexperience, and even its own statements.\u201d  By JULIAN.\nNo. 12.\u2014BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY.\u2014\u201cThe Dinner of the Count de\nBoulainvilliers from Voltaire,\u201d with an Introduction by JULIAN (_in the\npress_).\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{3}  _Lay Sermons and Reviews_.  This paper, \u201cOn the Origin of Species,\u201d\nwas originally published in the \u201cWestminster Review,\u201d of April, 1860.\n\n{14a}  Job xxxviii., 8.\n\n{14b}  \u201cOn the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God as manifested in the\ncreation of animals, and in their history, habits, and instincts,\u201d by the\nRev. William Kirby, M.A., F.R.S., rector of Barham.\n\n{15}  The common Hebrew cubit was about 22 inches.  The \u201croyal cubit\u201d was\nthree inches longer.  The Roman cubit was 18 inches.\n\n{19}  See Dr. Davidson\u2019s _Introduction to the New Testament_.  Baur,\nZeller, Hilgenfeld, &c., take the same view.  See also \u201cBiology _versus_\nTheology,\u201d No. I.\n\n{20a}  It is obvious that the Book of the Kings, whether of Judah or\nIsrael, is not the record called the first and second Book of Kings in\nour Bible, for it is not unfrequently referred to in the Chronicles, for\n\u201cthe rest of the acts\u201d of certain kings, but the account in our Books of\nKings, in some cases at any rate, is far more meagre than that of the\nChronicles.  To give one example: 2 Chron. xxvii., 7, refers us for a\nmore detailed account to the book of the \u201cKings of Israel and Judah,\u201d but\nthe record given in 2 Kings, xv., 36\u201338, is far less ample than that of\nthe Chronicler.  It is no less certain that the book called \u201cThe\nChronicles of the Kings of Israel\u201d cannot be our books of Chronicles,\ninasmuch as they wholly omit the Kings of Israel, and speak only of the\nKings of Judah.\n\n{20b}  Perhaps this expression may mean \u201cthe general scope of his\npreaching,\u201d and not a book.  It may go for what it is worth, and can in\nno wise affect the question at issue.\n\n{22}  Take two examples of this etymology.  HEBREW is supposed to be\nderived from Heber, sou of Salah, great-grandson of Shem, who is called\n\u201cthe father of all the children of Heber\u201d (Gen. x., 21\u201324); but Abraham,\nthe 6th remove from Heber, is called a Hebrew after he crossed over into\nCanaan (Gen. xiv., 13).  The more probable derivation of the word is\n_heber_ (an emigrant, one that has crossed over); if so, Abraham was\ncalled a _hebrew_ because he was a sojourner who had crossed over into\nthe \u201cland of promise.\u201d\n\nAgain, CANAAN is said to have been so called from Canaan son of Ham, and\nCanaan\u2019s eldest son was, according to the same authority, Sidon, founder\nof the Sidonians, and his other sons were founders of the Hittites,\nJebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites,\nZemarites, and Hamathites (Gen. x., 15\u201318).\n\nAll this is most improbable, although in keeping with the practice of\nancient chroniclers.  Modern historians find more probable derivations in\nsome local peculiarity or suggestive characteristic.  Thus Argos, in\nGreece, is mythically derived from Argos, its 4th king; but Strabo tells\nus the word means _a plain_.  Devonshire is not a corruption of Debon\u2019s\nshare or lot (_Faery Queen_ ii., 10), but of the Saxon _defn-afon_ (deep\nwater).  Similarly Canaan means _low lands_, as opposed to \u201cAram\u201d (the\nhighlands), and being suited to commerce from its nearness to the coast,\nthe word in time became a general term for \u201ca trader.\u201d\n\n{23}  Arphaxad was born \u201ctwo years after the flood\u201d [Gen. xi., 10]; at\nthe age of 35 he had a son, Salah [v., 12], in thirty more years Salah\nhad his son Eber, and before Pelez was born, which was 34 years later,\nthe Dispersion had taken place.\n\n{24}  It may be safely asserted that population, when unchecked,\nincreases in a geometrical progression of such a nature as to double\nitself every 25 years.\u2014_Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, vol. xviii., p. 3, col.\nPractically, such an instance is rare, if not wholly uninstanced.  Take\nthe increase of England and Wales as an example.  In 1377 it was\n2,092,978, in 1483 it was 4,689,000; in the 100 years, ending with 1800,\nthe population had increased from 5,475,000 to 8,675,000; and in the\ncentury ending with 1860 it increased nearly threefold, the largest\nincrease we have experienced.  [In 1760 it was 6,736,000, in 1861 it was\n20,062,725.]\n\n{26a}  The average size of an ox in the herd is 60 stone (of 8 lbs.), and\nof a sheep six stone.  When the Armistice of 28 days was lately proposed,\nthe supply of Paris for the time was estimated at 34,000 oxen, 8,000\nsheep, 8,000 swine, 5,000 calves, 100,000 cwt. of salt meat, eight\nmillion cwt. of hay and straw, 200,000 cwt. of meal, and 30,000 cwt. of\ndried vegetables.  For the cooking of food, the estimate was 100,000 tons\nof coals, and 14 million square feet of wood.\n\n{26b}  The absurdity of such an increase as even the \u201csmall\u201d supposition\nof doubling every twenty years will be obvious to any one who will take\nthe trouble of working out the figures for 440 years, which would bring\nus to the reign of David.  At the Exodus the number was three millions;\nif they doubled every twenty years the people in the little kingdom of\nDavid would have been twelve and a half trillion!!  And if the increase\nof the book of Exodus is taken as the standard the numbers must be\nincreased a hundred-fold.  Now the whole population of the world is\nsomewhat more than 1,000 _millions_, so that in a space not so large as\nYorkshire, and three-fourths wilderness, would be gathered together more\nthan all the inmates of all the world twelve thousand times over.\n\n{27a}  The nominal limits of \u201cthe promised land\u201d were the Euphrates and\nMediterranean Sea on the east and west, the \u201centrance of Hamath\u201d and\n\u201criver of Egypt\u201d on the north and south, giving a surface of 60,000\nsquare miles; but Sidonia and Philistia on the west, the land of the\nMoabites and Ammonites on the east never belonged to the kingdom of\nDavid, the real extent of which was about 45 miles broad and 100 miles\nlong.  Yorkshire is 90 by 130, the principality of Wales 65 by 150; so\nthat the entire kingdom of David in its greatest extent was considerably\nsmaller than Yorkshire or Wales, and only one quarter of it was\ninhabited, the rest being desert or wilderness.\n\n{27b}  Take Prussia.  Every Prussian is liable to be called into military\nservice as soon as he attains his 20th year, and after he has completed\nhis 27th year he enters the Landwehr.  Suppose war is proclaimed, then\nevery layman in Prussia between 20 and 27 is liable to be called into the\nranks, and would constitute a standing army of 200,000 strong; by adding\nthe Landwehr of the first call, 100,000 more would be supplied; and by\nenrolling all who have not rendered their full service to the state, the\nentire amount would be increased to 600,000.  How absurd, therefore, to\nspeak of double the number of soldiers in such a petty nation as Judah or\nIsrael!  The entire population of Yorkshire is less than two millions, of\nWales not equal to \u201cDavid\u2019s army;\u201d yet the entire kingdom of David was\nsmaller than either, and more than three-fourths of it was uninhabited!!\n\n{31}  Our national debt is not half a quarter of this sum, being somewhat\nless than 800 millions sterling.  Suppose an English historian had told\nus that a king of wealthy England had laid by money enough to pay off the\nnational debt eight times, what would be thought of the statement?  But\nsuppose we had been told that one of the kings of Wales or of Northumbria\nhad saved all this money for a church, would the most credulous believe\nit?  France finds it no easy matter to raise 200 millions, and all Europe\nwould be puzzled to find the money _instanter_, but the king of a little\nterritory considerably smaller than Belgium managed to raise that sum\nthirty-five times over.\n\n{36}  Ahaziah was also called Jehoahaz and Azariah.\n\n{44}  See Virgil, _Geor._ i., 184, 185; _\u00c6neid_, iv., 402\u2013406; Horace,\n_Satires_, bk. i., _s._ i., 33 &c.\n\n{53}  See No.  IX. of this Series.\n\n{54}  Ut apud Persas _Arsaces_, apud Romanos _C\u00e6sar_, apud Egyptios\n_Pharao_, ita apud Jud\u00e6os _Christus_ communi nomine rex appellatur.  _Ps.\nClem. Recog._ i., 45, p. 497.","title":"Biology versus Theology. The Bible: irreconcilable with Science, Experience, and even its own statements","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":25424}