THE MISTAKES OF MOSES.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4752, 31 March 1884, Page 2

THE MISTAKES OF MOSES.

(To the Editor of the »■ vening Star.) Sib, —" Ingersoll's Moses' Mistakes Criticised." by John Buchanan, is the fcitle of a work recently published -in Auckland. The author says that Mr Ingersoll could not resist citing the miracle in Joshua, where the sun and moon stood still, as militating against our acceptance of Scripture. Let us see the Bible uses every-day language. We speak of the sun rising and setting, although it neither riaes or sets; if the sun stood still relatively* to the earth it would be just as proper to speak of it standing still as to speak of it rising or setting. Mr Buchanan, you will observe, claims for the Bible that it uses every* day language. This is just what Mr Ingersoll and other critics claim that it should do, and it is from this standpoint that they critise it—that is to say, that they believe that the Bible should mean what it says. The Bible, then, says that the Bun and moon stood still at the command of Joshua, but it seems, according h to Mr Buchanan, that the earth stood still. Let that pass. Mr Buchanan gees on to say, " In the case in question it is probable that the refractive power of the atmosphere was increased to such a degree (a result .quite possible, from the variation of .hiaat) that ttie light of sun and moon was -maintained about a whole day from the time Joshua spoke." Here it is to be pb&erped: that Mr Buchanan does not beiieveUhatthe miracle actually took ' place, ,b%ton)j!ia^#pnearauce fis if it had taken place. "J;Jar Buchanan ' 'having quoted Dr Kinns to show that his theory is possible, goes on to say that in, any view ;of the case it was a miracle. There are two errors that he falls into, first of all in supposing that a miraculous appearance which was not the same as tliat recorded in the Bible proves the the truth of the Biblical narrative and secondly in supposing that a circumstance that is possible according ii natural law is a miracle. Mr Buchanan ought not to need to be told that, a miracle is an occurrence that is contrary to the law of nature consequently when he proves by Dr Kinns that such an occurrence is possible according to the laws of nature, it ceases to be a minacle. Mr Buchauan continues, " Mr Ingersoll points out that the moon was not required. He seems not to know that the same atmospheric medium which would bend the rays of the sun would also bend the rays of the moon. It is the Scriptures that are consistent, our lecturer is inconsistent." To this I may reply that Mr Ingersoll is perfectly correct and consistent. It isMr Buchanan that is mistaken. The moon'is an opaque globe, illuminated by the son, and the light we obtain from it is consequently borrowed from the sun. The Christian Churches have taught from time immemorial that Joshua performed this miracle. Learned and talented theologians have written exhaustive treatises on the subject, and if any person dared to question it, whether he was an astronomer or a minister, ho was, and is, at once, by the ignorant and bigoted, branded as an infidel; and yet, strange to say, there is reason to believe that the Hebrew Scriptures never asserted that such a miracle took place. The Editor of the Wes^^ minster Review, date October, 1883, fallal foul of a Mr Cross. He says: "Mr Cross ought to know that it should be translated, Sun of Gibeon, be thousilent; and thou moon of Arajalon, where the sun and moon are those that gave oracles, and were worshipped in Gibeonite tern« p!es." As Joshua exterminated the worshippers, it is evident that his command wasobeyed. Sciencehasdemonstrated that the miracle, as related in the authorised versions of the Bible, could not take place 10 as much as it is the iiotion of the earth and not that of the sun which causes the alternations of night and day. The plausible theory of aerial phosphor, or Mr Buchanan's theory of the increase of the refractive power of the atmosphere to such a degree as to maintain the light of the sun about a whole day, are clearly inadmissible. Some time ago the Eer. Mr Bull gave an interesting lecture on the subject; he was reported to hava said that the portion of the book relating the wonderful astronomical phenomenon was not authorised by God, but was bound up by mistake with the rest of the Holy Bible. I regret that I did not hear the lecture, but I naturally expected that it would have been conducted on different lines. There are many other salient points in Mr Buchanan's book; still it will well repay perusal, if only to show what fanciful interpretations some people will give to the Scriptures. It is obserr* able that Mr Buchanan first of all says that his theory is probable, then quotes .Dr Kinns to prove that it is possible, and then assumes that it is a fact, and from this vantage ground attacks Mr Ingera soli. It is quits possible that Mf