LITTLE MOSES' MISTAKES.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4774, 28 April 1884, Page 2

LITTLE MOSES' MISTAKES.

(To the Editor of the * vening Star.)

In his reply, Mr Buchanan says: "I repeat the thought—-were Mr Vidal being a juryman to treat a witness in the box as Mr Ingersoll and he treat Joshua, he would not 1 bejust to the witness, and if a man is not just he cannot be a gentleman." Very well, then. On page twelve of his book, Mr Buchanan says: " With regard to his (IngersoH's) allegation that Moses considered the firmament a solid affair, this is a proof of his wilful perversions of the truth, for had he looked in the marginal columns of a reference Bible he would have found the word firmament in the original meant expanse.". Now, when I tell the reader that the meaning of expanse is a wide extent of space or body —the firmament. So that an expanse is the firmament after all, and yet Mr Buchanan had the hardihood to try and make his readers believe that Mr Ingersoll was guilty of wilful falsehood for not finding in the columns of a reference bible that firmament in the original meant expanse. I ask is this just? Clearly not; and therefore as according to his own logic an unjust man is not a gentleman, he haa succeeded in proving that he is no gentleman. The above definition of the meaning of the word expanse is taken from W. and E. Chambers' (of Edinburgh) Revised Etymological Dictionary, edited by Andrew Findlater, M.A., L.L.D., published, 18S2. As the works pub-, lishfd by W. and E. Chambers are of such a deservedly esteemed character, ; it is to be hoped that Mr Buchanan will feel satisfied with the authority I have quoted. Mr Buchanan says, "Mr Vidal is not accurate. My pamphlet says, 'It i 3 probable that the refractive power of the atmosphere was increased.' ■ Mr Vidal says I asserted that the refractive power was increased." But as to assert is to affirm without qualification; which of your contributors is honest ? If I understand the above passage correctly, Mr Buchanan wishes it to be understood that he does not affirm that there was a rarefaction of the atmosphere at the time Joshua spoke, but that he only thinks it probable that there was. When we consider that he has twice declared that Mr Ingersoll and myself are no gentlemen for doubting the word of Joshua—that he went into laborri argument in his pam« phlet to prove that there was rarefaction of the atmosphere, quoted Dr Kinns in his "Moses and Geology," and declared that he had dealt very satisfactorily with this point; also argued in his first letter that the day was lengthened tQ about fifteen hours, asked me if I meant to say . that the rays of moonlight could not be '>,' refracted—it does seem amazing to be; told that Mr Buchanan does not affirm f( that the refractive power of the atmo§-V phero was increased and that his contend tion is simply that it is probable. Thus on the strength of a mere probability—a matter that he feels hurt at my stating that he asserted—he abases Mr Ingercoll and myself without stint. I again ask is this just? is it .honest? is it consistent? In my letter of 17th April I showed that Mr Buchanan had misrepresented me by cutting a passage in two, and leaving put the explanatory part, and arguing from the first part of the passage, and thus giving it a different meaning from that which it meant. Most persons of common decency would feel ashamed to be proved guilty of falsehood, even if they were weak enough to be so guilty. Not so Mr Buchanan, for he again, with the cool assurance of a practised slanderer, comes forward and repeats his misrepresentation by again saying Mr Vidal says Mr Buchanan does not believe the miracle actually took place, nud proceeds to argue from this standpoint, leaving the explanatory words (but only an appearance as if a miracle bad taken place) referring to the rarefaction, of the atmosphere theory of Mr Buchanan out of his quotation, in spite of my complaints of his dishonesty with regard to this very matter in my previous letter. There can be no excuse for Mr Buchanan in this matter: he cannot plead the neglect of his parents or guardians to teach him the value of truth and the shame of falsehood, inas«much as even if they did so neglect him, he has on his own showing read "Ingersoll's Moses Mistakes," and therefore knows that that great man has taught that men should speak the truth, and that a lie will not fit anythiug except another lie made for the purpose. It, however, seems strange to me that during the course of his studies as a biblical expositor and advanced christiaa advocate that he should never have learnt, so as to apply it, the 9th commandment of the decalogue, which runs thus: "Thou shalfc not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Persons of faulty educatiou, or of badly organised minds, may think that it is clever to obtain an advantage over an opponent by falsehood; but men of superior minds regard such conduct, when proceeding from ignorance, witb^ pity, but if done by those who know better, with- contempt and disgust. I imagined that I had made it very clear in my last letter : that I believed it possible for the rays of moonlight to be refracted. The suns rays are refracted for about four minutes before sunrise, and for about the same time at sunset; but this by no means proves that they could be probably refracted for about the length of a whole day in Palestine,- when Joshua spoke, as alleged by Mr Buchanan. This would be a miracle not mentioned in the Scriptures, and I do not simply declare it to be improbable,*but I say it is impossible, and I defy Mr Buchanan to prove it by scientific argument. I aiso defy him to prove in the same manner that either the earth or the sun stood still at the command of Joshua. This is a matter of science, and I want a scientific answer.—l am, &c,

Geobge Vidal.