4 
occurred. With some few modifications, this is now adopted by the great ma- 
jority of modern geologists. There is little, if any, doubt that so far at least 
as the length of the days is concerned, this scheme is strictly in consonance 
with the meaning of the Scriptures. Almost all geologists and theologians, 
however, commit the mistake of confining this description of the creation to 
the earth alone, although the sacred narrative as plainly asserts that " in the 
beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and at its close declares, 
"thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." 
Prof. Barrows, in commenting upon this verse says, that " Tuch remarks, 
that this is the only passage in which the word hosts includes earthly objects 
along with the heavenly host. It denotes the orderly marshalling and ar- 
ranging of all created things in heaven and earth." We have a right then to 
require that any system of interpretation which shall be presented to us for 
adoption, shall account for the heavenly bodies, as well as the earth, and it 
will not do, as we shall soon see, to confine the sole description of their creation 
to the work of the fourth day. Such an interpretation must not only accord with 
geology, but likewise with astronomy. It must, in short, be so read as to give 
us an account of the creation of the heavens, as well as of the earth. 
Before proceeding to examine and determine the meaning of the Mosaic re- 
cord, we may premise, that that interpretation which, fairly made, according 
to those rules by which we interpret all language, shall best harmonize with 
all the facts, is most likely to be the true one, even though it may be very 
different from the one which we have been accustomed to regard as correct. 
If it best agrees with all the phenomena, we ought not to reject it on account 
of novelty, and assume that it cannot be true, because so many learned and 
wise scholars, on whose opinions we have been accustomed to rely, have given 
a different reading. It may be, that they have never examined it from the 
right point of view, to attain the knowledge of its meaning. 
We will now proceed with our undertaking. Verse 1st. " In the beginning 
(rod created the heavens and the earth." Prof. Lewis has employed a large 
part of the sixth chapter of his Six Days of Creation, in proving that the word 
translated create, does not mean to bring into existence from nothing, but ra- 
ther to arrange matter previously existing. It seems, however, more reasona- 
])le to think that it was the design of Moses, to teach, in opposition to those 
who believed in and taught the eternity of matter, that it was created by the 
power of God. In fact, the absolutely literal translation of the verse conveys 
exactly this idea. 
In our version, the particle which means the substance of, is not trans- 
lated ; were it rendered, the verse would read thus : "In the beginning God 
created the substance of the heavens and the earth. ' ' The authorities for this 
reading are many and important. Dr. Wilson, in his Easy Introduction to 
the Knowledge of Hebrew without the Points, in a note on this word says, 
' ' This i>article following an active verb, and going before a noun which has 
the servile ,1 prefixed, admits of no translation unless we render it ' the sub- 
stance of.' Here the sense will allow it, which is rarely the case." So Har- 
ris, in his Pre-Adamite Earth, in a note on this first verse, says, "according 
to the Rabbins, the verse should be rendered, ' God in the beginning created 
the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth.' They under- 
stand J^t^ hereto mean the substance or material. The Syriac translation 
gives the same sense. Compare Gesenius on this word ; Aben Ezra ; Kimchi 
in his Book of Roots, and Buxtorf's Talmudic Lexicon." 
The adoption of this reading throws light upon the subsequent verse, and 
assists us to understand more clearly its meaning. 
Verse 2d. "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was 
upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the 
waters." 
"It has been held that the particle translated and in this verse, does not 
necessarily imply a direct connection between this verse and the first, and that 
an immense period of time may have elapsed between them. Barrows and 
others, have, however, shown conclusively that this is erroneous, and that it 
