1.29 
strictly scientific aspect of the question. The expression which Mr 1 
Titcomb gives us in the third paragraph of his paper is, “ if they find them- 
selves unable to pursue their researches from a strictly scientific point of 
view ” ; I should judge that “ strictly scientific ” means, taking all pains, by 
every possible means, to ascertain the truth on any definite subject. The 
questions of the Creation, and the six periods of the creation of the world, 
are, of course, questions of fact, to be investigated like all other facts, taking 
into account every possible means of arriving at the truth; and I should con- 
sider the person who altogether overlooked or rejected the testimony of 
Scripture, as not viewing the thing from a “ strictly scientific ” point of view 
at all. I consider that a person with a really scientific mind, not 
having that mind prejudiced and previously led away, would take into 
as so often in Greek, c.g., sa\ 6q 6 avOpo. nrog, the man is, or was. In lo, ‘ dark- 
ness was upon the face of the waters ’ ; ‘ God saw the light that it ivas 
good ’ (verse 4), the italics indicate the absence of the copula in Hebrew. 
But in the words, ‘And the earth was without form,’ the absence of italics 
shows that there is a word in the Hebrew in this case for ‘ was ’ ; and so 
there is, and it ought to have been translated ‘ had become,’ iytvtro. ‘And 
the earth had become without form and void.’ In my own mind there 
is no doubt whatever that this is the meaning of the Hebrew words. 
But if so, surely it affects the preceding verse, and 'necessitates an interval 
of time being interposed between the action of the first and second verses. 
But if the Hebrew has this meaning, I do not feel disposed to relinquish it 
because Hugh Miller and later geologists have abandoned a theory which 
appears to be in harmony with it. It is not my business as a Biblical 
interpreter, or as a Hebrew scholar, to make the Hebrew say what it does 
not say, out of compliment to any scientific theory, however highly it may 
be thought of. Science does not appear to me to be sufficiently in harmony 
with itself to be in a position, or anything like in a position, to lift up its 
voice against the Scripture statements of facts. The position held formerly 
by geologists with reference to the period of time necessary for the forma- 
tion of strata, has (I believe) been relinquished, and they now say that 
perhaps hundreds of years would be enough for what formerly they said 
required thousands of years. I am, therefore, undisturbed by what are 
called ‘ scientific facts,’ for I retain a doubt whether they will, some few 
years hence, be any longer recognized as facts. Science is not in a position 
to dogmatize, or, at any rate, to assail the position of the Scriptures with its 
dogmata. The Samaritans had their Pentateuch more than six hundred 
years before Christ, and almost ever since they have been in antagonism with 
the Jews. We may be sure, therefore, that it was no newly invented volume, 
which they learned to venerate. It was a law, concerning the origin of 
Avhich, and concerning the antiquity of which, there was no doubt. The 
statements of this venerable record are not lightly to be set aside for 
so-called scientific theories which grow up like the mushrooms. I have also 
to draw attention to the fact that again, in section 22, Mr. Titcomb falls 
into a snare from which the italics of the English version might have 
delivered him, ‘ fowl that may fly.’ There is no relative pronoun in the 
original, but two co-ordinate clauses. ‘ Let the waters bring forth abun- 
dantly,’ &c., and ‘ let fowl fly,’ &c."’ 
