e Book of Genesis, I think we may
take it as clear that the passage stands in such a concise and condensed
form, that it is obviously open to _be interpreted_. Further, that we
should not be surprised if the interpretation at the present day, with
our vastly increased knowledge of Nature, is different from what it was
in earlier times.

I make no apology for repeating this so often, because it is really
amazing to see the way in which "anti-theological" writers attack what
_they suppose_ to be the interpretation of the narrative, or what some
one else supposes to be such, and seem to be satisfied that in so doing
they have demolished the credibility of the narrative itself.

If you choose to assume that Creation as spoken of by the sacred writer
means some particular thing, or even if the mass of uneducated or
unreflecting people assume it and you follow them, I grant at once that
the narrative can be readily made out to be wrong.

Permit me, then, to repeat once more, that the narrative is in human
language, and uses the human terms "created," "made," and "formed," and
that these terms _do_ (as a matter of fact which there is no gainsaying)
bear a meaning which is not invariable. Hence, without any glossing or
"torturing" of the narrative, we are under the plain obligation to seek
to assign to these terms a true meaning _with all the light that modern
knowledge_ can afford.

Now (having already considered the school of interpretation which
declines to attend to the exact terms) we can confine our attention to
two classes of interpreters. One explains the term "days" to mean long
periods of time; the other accepts the word in its ordinary and most
natural sense, and endeavours to eliminate the long course of
developmental work made known to us by palaeontological science, and
supposes all that to have been passed over in silence; and argues that a
final preparation for the advent of the man Adam was made in a special
work of six days.

All the well-known attempts at explanation, such as those of Pye-Smith,
Chalmers, H. Miller, Pratt, and the ordinary commentaries, can be placed
in one or other of these categories.

Now, as regards both, I recur to the curious fact (already noted) that
it seems never to enter into the conception of either school to inquire
for a moment what the sacred writer meant by "created"--God
"created"--God said "let there be." It _is_ curious, because no one can
reasonably say "these terms