Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 62, 4 June 1927, Page 10

Citizens Say

To the Editor,

THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Sir, — Dr. Buxton quietly and effectively puts Mr. Norman Burton in his place and cuttingly exposes the fact that Mr. Burton and his friends are not only prepared but are even eager to compel Dr. Buxton and others to pay for religious teaching of which they conscientiously disapprove. Another question for Mr. Norman Burton to answer is: Could this patent injustice, even if legalised and backed up by a clear majority make for righteousness' or for concord? —J. SIM.

CABLE NEWS Sir, — I have been greatly interested in your cable news of the past few days. I notice that the. man who gets secret information for the Bolsheviks is a Russian spy, a most despicable character, but the man who does the same thing for our side is a British intelligence officer—quite a genteel occupation. Similarly, when the Soviet Government makes a deal with a foreign Power it is an ‘•intrigue,” whereas we make nothing but treaties or pacts or understandnigs; much more respectable. The tea party at the House of Commons, when the “wild men” of the Labour Party entertained some Russian friends, is featured as a most peculiar proceeding, but the very soft pedal is put on the friendly relations between the present British Government and the Russian Whites. It looks as though it will take a long time to get over the evil effect of Winston Churchill’s attempt, at a cost of one hundred millions of British money, to blockade and defeat the Russian Revolution. —G. HENRY. Epsom, June 2.

HAVE ANIMALS SOULS? Sir, — In reply to “Country Teacher,” I would emphatically say yes, animals

have souls. It is only through man’s conceit and ignorance that the idea originated that animals do not survive the change called death. If we use our reasoning powers and think, we will find they do survive the same as man. I would ask where do the animals draw their life-force from? Are they not deriving their life from the same Great Source as man? Then, of course, they survive, for if one part of the Great Life Stream lives, certainly the whole must. I would like “Teacher” to read I. Corinth., chap. 15, verse 35 to 39, after which I think some light will be shown on the matter. St. Paul refers to the raising of the body, explains how, and that God gives to every seed His own body. He then refers to the different kinds of flesh, and animals are mentioned. Are not these then the different bodies or seeds which live or survive the change called death? If not, why does he mention the animals or refer to them if they cease to exist? When man realises that animals draw their existence from the same source as he does, he will treat the dumb creatures very differently. I. NOBLE.

“DIEU ET MON DIVIDENDE!” e Sir,— It is true Carlyle wrote “Touched by these horrors of war and by reciprocities liable to follow.” It is possibly true to say that “Reciprocity is Right” has resurrected the sentence from the depths of the encyclopaedia where for its freakishness it lies embalmed under the epitaph “rare.” The world will not accept the League of Nations in the role of teacher until that august body gives practical demonstration of ability for the job. How is it with some people the label “British” can be made to mean so much —or so little, if it suits the occasion? Some arbitration court judges have declared that industries unable to pay a living wage had much better close down. “Reciprocity is Right” is defending the methods of foreign capitalism in China. In doing so he has unburdened himself of not a few pious platitudes, and he has also had the temerity to introduce allusions to (Continued in next column.)

the Divine and spiritual. Are those allusions mere “jargon?” Or does he believe Christian ethics so elastic as to lend themselves to a defence of the Molochs who control the treaty port factories? We have it on the highest authority that “It were better a millstone were hanged about his neck." etc. Very clearly “Reciprocity is Right” serves under the standard of mammon. His letters stamp him as one holding a brief for pelf. But he would camouflage his banner with the strange device “Dieu et mon dividendc.” “RIGHT AND RECIPROCITY."

JONAH AND THE WHALE Sir, — No doubt many of your readers have read with interest the account given in last Saturday's SUN «>> •Malabar” of a whale having been known to swallow a man. No douM this occurrence goes a long way to support the orthodox view of the Bible narrative, but Ferrer Fenton, whose translation of, the Bible » recognised by Hebrew and Grees scholars, and is accepted by numerW Bible students, gives an entirely different reading than that of our mon Version. With your kind I* r ' mission I will now relate die story as briefly as possible on the basis o his version. It lias been the cu - tom, no doubt, since boats and sfch,' came into use, to call them by names as the “Dolphin,” “Albatross “Seagull,” “Mermaid,” etc. It "" only after repeated requests on Jo®**, part that he was cast overboard, aunder the circumstances it * s reasonable to suppose that, * >e tA doing so, the crew would provide ® with a lifebelt or other means of P serving his life, in the hope that would be rescued by a passing c Just how long Jonah was „ water we do not know, but a snip * boat named the “Great Fish” res - him. And Jonah was three days » three nights in the hold of the Fish.” The translators of our e mon Version no doubt took, or _ se took, this Great Fish in a literal : and hence the present reading. Jonah was in the ljelly tn three days and three nights.' in the New Testament, reference made to the story, and. not c i(J with making the two statement? as we would naturally expect o ps translators to do, they have go ;l better and called the “Great r whale. The translators of our j** mon Version are in a great m responsible for the scepticism present day, and the ridicule to - the Bible is subject. Take, . : stance, John i., 1.2: “In the was the Word, and the Word w g God. and the Word was God: tn, - was in the beginning with Goa* ,f “Emphatic Diaglott, ’ -u transim* the New- Testament by Benjann teJ ;, son, contains the original Gi with an interlineary word 1 English translation, and this reading of these two verses as a on the interlineary translationbeginning was the Word (the _ and the Word was with ’ yn* the Word was a God: the s 1 in a beginning with the boa- seP se, we have harmony and comm £ or js and in agreement with our statement: “My Father Ver?i fn than I,” while the Common i* reading to any intelligent only so much gibberish. A ‘ you in anticipation.