242 On the Cosmogony of Moses. 
that nothing less than inspiration could have enabled Moses or 
any other man to separate truth from error, to supply what was. 
lost, and duly arrange the whole. 
I presume that it is scarcely possible to obtain a just- con- 
eeption of any detached part or term in the Genesis, without _ 
previously knowing the author’s s principles. And this cannot 
well be attained without some acquaintance with the original 
language. Those in general who have possessed this requisite, 
have either twisted his expressions to countenance some precon- 
ceived hypothesis, or, taking a superficial view of the cosmogony,: 
pronounced the whole unphilosophical and vulgar. After ma- 
Ture investigation, I do not hesitate to say shins the two grand 
principles of the cosmogony are afums and a fluid. . Before we 
ean, therefore, ascertain the sense of the word Dy (day), we: 
ought first to establish the meaning of the preceding term 1s, 
commonly translated ight. From a collation of passages where 
this word and its cognate terms occur, the ruling idea is, evi- 
dently, that of fluidity. The divine fiat for the existence of 
the Aur ought, therefore, to be rendered “ Let a fluid be ;” light 
being only one of its properties. Hence the term ether, so 
famous in the cosmogonies, and so ill defined in the systematic 
philosophy of the Greeks, i is to be traced to the TNH AN (Ath- 
eaur) of the Mosaic cosmogony. 
t is a vulgar error to suppose the sun was not created until 
the fourth day. Moses does not sav that God created, but. that 
he made, formed, or conypleted the sun in this peried. Accor ding 
to the order of the narrative, the atomic masses of the earth and 
celestial bodies were brought into existence before the ether. 
Having premised these things, we are now prepared to explaii 
a part of the Genesis which has not a httle perplexed exposi- 
tors, and will lead us to the true explanation of the term day, 
as there used. Our common version reads, ver. 6: ‘* God di- 
vided the light from the darkness.” But darkness is no reat. 
being; and it is an absurdity into which Moses never could have 
fallen, to represent the Creator dividing things necessarily di- 
stinct. Now the difficulty is at once removed, by only supplying 
the word earth, the antecedent with which the passage evi- 
dently stands connected; thus literally, “* And God divided (the 
earth) between the light and defween the darkuess.” Hence the 
spheroidity of the earth is not only here intimated; but, as a globe 
cannot possibly have one hemisphere enlightened 2 and the other 
dark but by light proceeding from an opposite focus, we have 
also a direct proof that the sun existed at this period, and 
operated upon the earth by transmitting its fluid or light feebly 
indeed at first, for it did not produce its full effect till the 
fourth day, when the Creator pronounced it “good,” or fit 
6 to 
