and in the book of Revelation: "All liars shall have "their part in the lake which burneth with fire and "brimstone;" yet in First Kings, twenty-second chapter, I find the following: "And the Lord said: "Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and
249
"fall at Ramoth-Gilead? And one said on this "manner, and another said on that manner. And "there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord, "and said: I will persuade him. And the Lord said "unto him: Wherewith? And he said: I will go "forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all "his prophets. And he said: Thou shalt persuade "him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so."
In the Old Testament we find contradictory laws about the same thing, and contradictory accounts of the same occurrences.
In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first account of the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth chapter another account of the same transaction is given. These two accounts could not have been written by the same person. Read them, and you will be forced to admit that both of them cannot by any possibility be true. They differ in so many particulars, and the commandments themselves are so different, that it is impossible that both can be true.
So there are two histories of the creation. If you will read the first and second chapters of Genesis, you will find two accounts inconsistent with each other, both of which cannot be true. The first account
250
ends with the third verse of the second chapter of Genesis. By the first account, man and woman were made at the same time, and made last of all. In the second account, not to be too critical, all the beasts of the field were made before Eve was, and Adam was made before the beasts of the field; whereas in the first account, God made all the animals before he made Adam. In the first account there is nothing about the rib or the bone or the side,--that is only found in the second account. In the first account, there is nothing about the Garden of Eden, nothing about the four rivers, nothing about the mist that went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground; nothing said about making man from dust; nothing about God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life; yet according to the second ac- count, the Garden of Eden was planted, and all the animals were made before Eve was formed. It is impossible to harmonize the two accounts.
So, in the first account, only the word God is used--"God said so and so,--God did so and so."
In the second account he is called Lord God,--"the "Lord God formed man,"--"the Lord God caused "it to rain,"--"the Lord God planted a garden." It is now admitted that the book of Genesis is made up
251
of two stories, and it is very easy to take them apart and show exactly how they were put together.
So there are two stories of the flood, differing almost entirely from each other--that is to say, so contradictory that both cannot be true.
There are two accounts of the manner in which Saul was made king, and the accounts are inconsistent with each other.
Scholars now everywhere admit that the copyists made many changes, pieced out fragments, and made additions, interpolations, and meaningless repetitions.
It is now generally conceded that the speeches of Elihu, in Job, were interpolated, and most of the prophecies were made by persons whose names even are not known.
The manuscripts of the Old Testament were not alike. The Greek version differed from the Hebrew, and there was no generally received text of the Old Testament until after the beginning of the Christian era. Marks and points to denote vowels were in- vented probably in the seventh century after Christ; and whether these marks and points were put in the proper places, is still an open question. The Alex- andrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint, translated by seventy-two learned Jews assisted by
252
miraculous power, about two hundred years before Christ, could not, it is now said, have been translated from the Hebrew text that we now have. This can only be accounted for by supposing that we have a different Hebrew text. The early Christians adopted the Septuagint and were satisfied for a time; but so many errors were found, and so many were scanning every word in search of something to assist their peculiar views, that new versions were produced, and the new versions all differed somewhat from the Septuagint as well as from each other. These ver- sions were mostly in Greek. The first Latin Bible was produced in Africa, and no one has ever found out which Latin manuscript was original. Many were produced, and all differed from each other. These Latin versions were compared with each other and with the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was made in the fifth century, and the old ones held their own for about four hundred years, and no one knows which version was right. Besides, there were Ethi- opie, Egyptian, Armenian and several other ver- sions, all differing from each other as well as from all others. It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was translated into German, and not until the fifteenth that Bibles were printed in the principal
253
languages of Europe; and most of these Bibles differed from each other, and gave rise to endless disputes and to almost numberless crimes.
No man in the world is learned enough, nor has he time enough, even if he could live a thousand years, to find what books belonged to and consti- tuted the Old Testament. He could not ascertain the authors of the books, nor when they were written, nor what they mean. Until a man has sufficient time to do all this, no one can tell whether he be- lieves the Bible or not. It is sufficient, however, to say that the Old Testament is filled with contradic- tions as to the number of men slain in battle, as to the number of years certain kings reigned, as to the number of a woman's children, as to dates of events, and as to locations of towns and cities.
Besides all this, many of its laws are contradictory, often commanding and prohibiting the same thing.
The New Testament also is filled with contradic- tions. The gospels do not even agree upon the terms of salvation. They do not even agree as to the gospel of Christ, as to the mission of Christ.
They do not tell the same story regarding the be- trayal, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascen- sion of Christ. John is the only one that ever heard
254
of being "born again." The evangelists do not give the same account of the same miracles, and the miracles are not given in the same order. They do not agree even in the genealogy of Christ.
_Fourth_. Is the Bible scientific? In my judgment it is not
It is unscientific to say that this world was "cre- "ated that the universe was produced by an infinite being, who had existed an eternity prior to such "creation." My mind is such that I cannot possibly conceive of a "creation." Neither can I conceive of an infinite being who dwelt in infinite space an infi- nite length of time.
I do not think it is scientific to say that the uni- verse was made in six days, or that this world is only about six thousand years old, or that man has only been upon the earth for about six thousand years.
If the Bible is true, Adam was the first man. The age of Adam is given, the age of his children, and the time, according to the Bible, was kept and known from Adam, so that if the Bible is true, man has only been in this world about six thousand years. In my judgment, and in the judgment of every scientific man whose judgment is worth having or quoting, man inhabited this earth for thousands of ages prior
255
to the creation of Adam. On one point the Bible is at least certain, and that is, as to the life of Adam.
The genealogy is given, the pedigree is there, and it is impossible to escape the conclusion that, according to the Bible, man has only been upon this earth about six thousand years. There is no chance there to say "long periods of time," or "geological ages."
There we have the years. And as to the time of the creation of man, the Bible does not tell the truth.
What is generally called "The Fall of Man" is unscientific. God could not have made a moral character for Adam. Even admitting the rest of the story to be true, Adam certainly had to make char- acter for himself.
The idea that there never would have been any disease or death in this world had it not been for the eating of the forbidden fruit is preposterously unsci- entific. Admitting that Adam was made only six thousand years ago, death was in the world millions of years before that time. The old rocks are filled with re- mains of what were once living and breathing animals.
Continents were built up with the petrified corpses of animals. We know, therefore, that death did not enter the world because of Adam's sin. We know that life and death are but successive links in an eternal chain.
256
So it is unscientific to say that thorns and brambles were produced by Adam's sin.
It is also unscientific to say that labor was pro- nounced as a curse upon man. Labor is not a curse.
Labor is a blessing. Idleness is a curse.
It is unscientific to say that the sons of God, living, we suppose, in heaven, fell in love with the daughters of men, and that on account of this a flood was sent upon the earth that covered the highest mountains.
The whole story of the flood is unscientific, and no scientific man worthy of the name, believes it.
Neither is the story of the tower of Babel a scien- tific thing. Does any scientific man believe that God confounded the language of men for fear they would succeed in building a tower high enough to reach to heaven?
It is not scientific to say that angels were in the habit of walking about the earth, eating veal dressed with butter and milk, and making bargains about the destruction of cities.
The story of Lot's wife having been turned into a pillar of salt is extremely unscientific.
It is unscientific to say that people at one time lived to be nearly a thousand years of age. The history
257
of the world shows that human life is lengthening instead of shortening.
It is unscientific to say that the infinite God wrestled with Jacob and got the better of him, put- ting his thigh out of joint.
It is unscientific to say that God, in the likeness of a flame of fire, inhabited a bush.
It is unscientific to say that a stick could be changed into a living snake. Living snakes can not be made out of sticks. There are not the necessary elements in a stick to make a snake.
It is not scientific to say that God changed water into blood. All the elements of blood are not in water.