162 



E. WALTER MAUNDEB, F.E.A.S., ON 



perfection seen in Jesus Christ, the Man, perfect in His being 

 through His resurrection from the dead. 



Mr. T. B. Bishop : Mr. Maunder's paper appears to me to be 

 one of the most valuable that has ever been laid before the Institute. 

 Certainly as many as fifty modern writers, many of them eminent 

 men, and writing from an Evangelical standpoint, have included in 

 their ]>ooks some opinions on the Creation Story in the first chapter 

 of Genesis, but Mr. Maunder strikes out an entirely new line of 

 thought, and, what is more, raises the discussion of the question 

 altogether to a higher level. He shows us that the Creation 

 narrative cannot be criticised by Science because it relates to things 

 before Science could possibly begin its work. In view of modern 

 speculations, his testimony to the fact that the Creation narrative is 

 utterly valueless unless it comes direct from God is of the highest im- 

 portance. I trust that this paper will be published in a permanentform. 



One or two remarks I should like to be allowed to make. 



On page 131 Mr. Maunder speaks of six creative acts on the six 

 days. Were there not eight creative acts, two on the third day, 

 and two on the sixth day 1 Each is introduced by the words '*God 

 said.'" If it is held that in the third day's work the plant life could 

 be considered as the result of the appearance of the " dry land," yet 

 we can hardly look on the sixth day's work in the same way. The 

 solemn manner in which the creation of man is introduced separates 

 it entirely from the creation of cattle and other living creatures on 

 the same day. 



In speaking of the second day's work on page 138, Mr. Maunder 

 draws attention to the omission of the verdict " It was good." I 

 may mention that the Septuagint version supplies the words 

 omitted, and the verse there reads " God called the firmament 

 Heaven, and God saw that it was good." 



According to Mr. Maunder's interpretation of the work of the 

 second day, all the verses before verse 6 I'efer to the Cosmos and 

 not to our own glo1)e. This was the view of Professor (ruyot and 

 Professor Dana, but the late Canon Driver in his Genesis says that 

 this view gives an altogether impossible meaning to the words 

 "eai'th" and "waters" in verse 2, which speaks of the earth as 

 being " without form and void.'" 1 am anxious for infoi'mation as to 

 whether it is not possi))le to read the second verse as applying to 

 our own earth alone. 



