427 
in detail, and we will consider them. I cannot at this moment go bac 
the paper read by Canon Titcomb some years ago, but I gave my attentio 
to it at the time, and what struck me particularly was that there were one 
or two reasonings in the paper based on erroneous translations of the 
first chapter of Genesis. First, with reference to the two ways in which the 
20th verse is translated — a matter to which Canon Birks has referred in his 
paper — the translations as to the birds and the water. The passage as it is 
given in the Bible, is, — “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abun- 
dantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the 
earth in the open firmament of heaven.” In the original Hebrew version 
there are two co-ordinate clauses : the Versions mostly have the verse as it 
is in the English version ; but in the Syriac and the Samaritan it is the same 
as in the Hebrew ; and Dachsel, in his JBiblia Hebr. Accent., gives his 
attention to this verse as well as to many other passages in the Old Testament, 
and shows that it is not correct to translate the verse as it is given in the 
English version. The Hebrew verse is divided into two portions — not neces- 
sarily of equal length — and in this verse the primary division comes after the 
word which corresponds to the English “that hath life.” The primary division 
is, “ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving 
creature that hath life,” and it is urged, and I have no doubt correctly, 
that the second clause of the verse should be not subordinate to the first, but 
co-ordinate with it. There are two co-ordinate clauses standing side by side, 
and not necessarily having any connection with each other. There is one 
other point on which I desire to say a word, and that is as to the statement 
sometimes made that Biblical students are indebted to the students of science 
for the notions now generally held with respect to the antiquity of the earth. 
I think I am right in supposing that the opinions now held with reference 
to the antiquity of the earth are of comparatively recent date ; whereas 
Dathe, who was appointed Professor of Oriental Languages at Leipsic in the 
year 1762, says : “Jam pergit (v. 2) de terra, earn, incertum quo tempore , 
insignem subiisse mutationem.” And Schultz, in his Scholia in Vetux 
Testamentum (Norimbergae, 1783, page 9) says : “ Probabilior fit eorum 
interpretatio, qui Mosen h. 1. de telluris nostra: ante innumera scccula creatce, 
insecuta post varias revolutiones vastatione sive destructione loqui putant.” 
I pointed out in a paper that I once read here, that we are limited in 
our interpretations and explanations by the original ; and if it cannot 
be proved that the original language contains what is contrary to modern 
science, we are in a position to grapple with the matter ; but until that is 
done we have no reason to be afraid. I beg to express my thanks to Canon 
Birks for his exceedingly instructive statement. 
Rev. G. Currey, D.D. — There have been many statements made with 
very great force by speakers on both sides, and I shall not attempt to enter 
fully into all the points that have been touched upon, some of them at 
considerable length. I will only say, with regard to Canon Titcomb, that I 
cannot but sympathize with him in a great degree, because, in the paper he 
