Walla Walla College COLLEGE PLACE, WASHINGTON Office of the President March 13, 1933 Prof. George McCready Price Emmanuel Missionary College Berrien Springs, Mich. Dear Professor Price: The college Board met recently, and in the course of the meeting gave study to your joining us here at Walla Walla College for the school year 1933-34. We have had to reduce our budget very sharply for this coming year, and even though your coming on the supplementary rate which we understand is in vogue for you, it would mean an addition to our budget of around $300. The Board would like to have you join us here for this coming school year, and voted to invite you to do this provided the General Conference will pay your transportation expenses. We hardly felt justified in increasing our budget beyond the amount of your salary for the coming year. Professor W. I. Smith was with us and mentioned the fact that Emmanuel Missionary College might want to retain you there. We are sending the call for your services through the regular channels of the Union Conference here, and then to the General Conference to be transmitted by them through the Lake Union Conference to you. We hope the way will open up for you to be with us for this coming school year. James white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Barrooh Castle Rd. Camberley 4-5-33 Myndear Professor McCready rrice Very many thanks for your latter. I beleive that I owed you one. I have been meaning to write for sometime, but have not been very well lately and have been very busy over the Indian question. You probably know that the present Govt, intends to abdica/'fe in India and leave the illiterate millions to the tender mercies ofa set of lackguard politicians. Most of us retired Indian Civil Servants X are trying to avert this calamity, $ are publishing pamphlets, lecturingz interviewing M.Rs etc. and I ave been so bus, y at tlis that I have not had a great deal of time to de-z vote to science, however, I have made some progress and sa send yoi^fe. resume of the theory I am developing. I am assuming that generally speaking the rocks were laid down in the way most geologists believe, but I am far from accenting their theory wah without modifications, thanks to your criticism. I am trying to meet them on their own ground, and say / let us for tue sake o of argrment ass.me that the rocks were formed in the way in.hich you believe, ^fen so tney and the fossils they contain point to creation rather than -ec evolution. The question of time can be ma^- aqy squared with Genesis by assuming that the creation of Adam described in chap. 2 took plaice long after the creation of men 4^ non-spiritual man as d-escribed in o«. chap i. On this view the human fossils prior to Cro-magnon man would be pre-Adamic and Cro magnon man -£one of the giant descendants of Adam. I shall be most grateful for criticisms of my theory/from you. I have gone James white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY .BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room most carefully into the first'appearance in the rooks (time and locality) of every family of -the fishes, corals, re/rtiles, amphibia, birds and mammals and all are in accord with the theory that those that appear late are adapted to temperate conditions. I have shown my /resume to Davies and he likes the theory, but said that he thought that the evidence of glacial deposits in the early rocks is opposed to the theory of t e earth having become gr*d/ually cooler. In reply I have pointed out that to-dday there are glaciers on mountains at the equator. Altitude ie-—Eftoro has a greater effect on climate than latitude, so that if the p mean temperature of the equator was formerly 50 or 40 hotter than it now is, if there were very lofty mountains there wouL ^fcld have been glaciers, and subsequent subsidence wuld cause the f formation of rocks having all the appearances of glacial de osits. A sudden su sidence of such snow-capped mountains would 1/Iead to huge floods with erratics, boulders and boulder g clay. Zatever view we take of the earthy if it be very old it must have all along been cooling. If much heat is derived fronq radio-activity, there must have been far more radio-active materials in the earth formerly than there now are, hence much more heat generated. I am sorry to hear that you are having difficulty with publishers and editors. >s is the fate of everyone who does not shout with the mob. I myself do not write anything now unless I am asked to do so by some paper, which does x not often happen! But I am working away steadily, getting in a word here and there. I recently was asked to lecture on Indian birds at the Midland Institute, before an audience of roughly a thousand/. In the lecture I said I did not bele$ve that birds evolved from reptiles; the fossils were opposed to the idea. This was received with c eers. At the lecture I offered to debate the evolution qu stion in public with any evolutionist who cared to accent the challe&ge^. So far there have been no takers. I recently read a pap. er Me k before the Etnic Study Group giving reasons why I rejected evolution. I believe a resume of this is to be printed, if so I will send you a copy. I ■took t e chair at a meting of the Victoria Institute last mon^th at which hr. Morton read a p«paper showing how evolution could not account for « man’s morality. I took the opportunity of /attacking evolution. I am to take the chair at the same institution on May 22nd when a paper against evolution will-bo by Professor F^eisc.mann of Erlangen University will be read, when t I intend to say more hard things. I dont thunk I sent you a copy of the d^jpussion and appendix to tue paper I read last year, so I do so now. Your trouble of course is that you have committed / yourself to the deluge theory which most anti-evolutionists fight shy of; but that does not detract from the great value of your devastating criticisms of current geologyz -nd zoology. I think it might help you if you were when writing to point out that your books consist of (a) statements of fact (2| opinions, (3) criticisms of current theories, (4) a new theory, and that whether your opinions or theory lare right or wrong does not affect the facts or your criticisms. Should your t^^ry be incorrect, this does not in any way strengthen the current t eories. I hope you will not resent my suggesting this. By .the way Dr Burton Keter Thom has recently pi*blised a book called Dust t to Life. Lt He is an American-the copy of the book I have out of the library shows that it was printed in U.S.A, but published by benn in London. If you can get hold of it you will find plenty to cjj?4t->»e criticise and for an article. I am going to criticise it for the Fundamentalist. As to my theory, if it can survive the critici cism of my various friends I shall try to publish at my own expense, if fin ancial conditions mprove. At present it is out of t . e qu st ion. JDur inc come tax is still five shillings in the pound, and indirect taxation is very-heavy and I find my income from investments is less than one sixth of w at z it was five years ago! Davies has retired from the amy under the age rule , so is rather hard up, he is reading for a degree at Edinburgh University, as he hopes with a degree and his geological knowledge he may g*et some goed poo~U appointment carrying a little money. He is doing good work. There is also an emergeti young man named $air who is opposed to evolution and who is d ;ing a lot of s ^ound workz in a (quiet way. We may get live to see the seed we are sowing bear fruit. Gair told me that the other day when Sir Ambrose Fleming F.R.S. A attacked evolution at Edinbugh University tho ot-or-day sewe young student $ got up and told him he was a silly old fool, or words to that effect! On the other hand a zoologist in an article on Man in the Eugenics Review last quarter deprecated Keith’s statement that most--a the evolution of most antAropologists seemed to be skin deep and my contemptuous heading of an appendix in my "Difficulties” as ’’supposed” links connecting man with other •animals[ With kndst regards Yours very sincerely 934 Kwwtwi Avmef Ban #ornonrtet G 41 ■'. XMar V t:. V^.r hitler* X«ur vary Ion# letter> ^xtr. the wlW&mu copies of oUvir UIters which yan. enclosed., &ts 'y-jer. u real ey ^ th&t yen have /erons state of r itd eve/ these 'Wjtifc>.\$| aul X ua izs a real *r • - ■ MO I have lm: tried 1S0 be n vonl f-V.-vl to yr- « ’ %.ia*<- ( as X nOs? •?«;'#t ) ■ -- ■ ' need to beg o. yen to scxpa^ata theso adrtrosMrical i^pe-/vu^t’im«si cwiyX**v *1/ the inter* F’etatlons of eertain ,;. ; y;os Of Serif ■ t;.4rt2 . .. ■> yesllse u>z strong a hold *h^e famlful method er the Mblv W ytne yhlisi^r^ snt ymir strong *nd vary perMstout yushlnp o* IM wrw’UMd abtnit children being born an the new earth* especially the *Mch you w./ present that Udu .latter theory is a vital part or all the ro.ot vhl^h y***. art* ivlvoc&tlnj* rac to tresy, yonr entire jMhe*$o m a unlt» and ti^^rdJnck- X r-au t r<#J^t the *&ole' thine* •■ x .oife- yet will dsieanG vhwt- X ;or,^ In vrtull J'. st *£y$re (,ud hw you uro \ti;^.^ '*v4W (.roatiasat of F*of. Harold •:. Schilling indi-mter. v/'.at X &b« hx, e^ul Ln t.’d- reaped Brid&Hlr yon do rot realise th-x-; Srofesewr Jehllline Ie xboat the ao*t a^W^lXshed aoleKtlot alone’ llr^s *z pte d^wrdnfvtion. ids line l^huhis ^cj^» o? -fory onbjeeto with ir I w»Ud far rato*v tv-eetr >eaf*?.er,or u&ulXtn *h? eyinlea >n M£V arabj j Jt* :uiaa opinion o-r suV yeti «Mn *’*ot out «4 V;e CrJU ^edh. vr "’'— r. *•’.•.*.:• o.i c’ . ,'lv llle--‘ '.»'•• > ■'■ v-m diiXu-^X* iAl I ahiil ^OMldar ’ Lit ryle^ild o«f*mnyt If yoa treat *&j in t >a a ai,>wiat fnatilmi* ik>w i Xitilx .’.■* 50 iia^o In «'lto to r/f year other B^ressxmeterrtR t™— that 1 r vtUe:^« he hail ^ATfcdeaiOH f«^ m*an •&»«« ‘fble le.Ads to think that I e-’ur.ot 3*a»ly cert-M/jd ^ryV-?.y/' th^wleog foi X ceetaialy ruj'^.ia'-e rz^t vi.>‘owwiljr dshomlslly <11 of ym* i^>th£>t o ’ ’*provln- >iiat ©Mldrwn are ^ln;: to ho ^n\ c-^ &se new ©u tJu Ycru? akvieraU letter 'x? 31Ct< a copy of ^iloh jvm enolosod to mo> wilu hts a..- ai: uttm; I a% 'pc-rv>n,-.n a -,h€r-ry»-**• if X* vv-*-r‘ nc* ro tery serious t ,wkl If it ‘mre not bo aad tu s$e au otherwise s neibl^ pertwr. Wltf * under a ffttfAtloel dalfiS.Lm by jdYla& luJed to oo-hiuln^ spirits *nd -riOGtrinea of &nrllii» Si»J®r ■■jhltu hao^Lf th-a ,. in '>*Xh -S&i*'5 ;M<*h Jle.vX' Fslttm Sister 3hhc sayu? *X i^< inatxwW ts Irxe u 4ess/^B adsJLast the theory that la the ft3W earth dhildron will be Wn,M IM* OMvi ;o bo offieloBta even if we did not have Christ*s Tposltlve doeliraticm that b» &e /arid to oanoa the people of God *mither rivry nor are given in mrrl&ge.w Ion oert.alnly are pretty far over on tlie territory of shoer f wn you indulge in silly ?>On.stir^ tii&t ym h&Y$ "sllemod every Objsotor" to tide theory* trioluillr^ KM. v» j% Md. C\ H. Watson, and the r^rwrol Oenf erenow (famnittee. Xh a sltdllar way you wt11 Hen "silence” all v&w be«t friends! until y0 be la ccmfllot with. t?ie one frm the ^ewf ilie plain eo^m-eense rseaMnj of the latter Mast have the avery Utas* I teR»t real truth is not found in »jjy suoh smHher. X bod o.J yn to cive h«ed to ti*o Servant of the &erd3 written ojrpreoely fo* this Bltuatloo: med to be the first yrlnaip3.es of the truth. Yon to stand where yen loow that y^- ?x-”e mt depsrtisc frea ths friith# and Med be fe^*eliie spirits. Break the np»>H that 1$ upon you, taaoMbie.w Xf ym will ‘^hls* you yet re^oyer ye^irself. cVaarwis*, I tremble for your future. flfeat X have written has l^een written only in Sove. But X asimre yew thnt you nave not the slldhtMmi QUcase of £Wttln$ s?wh views emmeed by enlightened A&f&Htlffto. Tihen yen finally wuke tty to tills situation* will you still clltty to yrur put tbsories tjA Join the ^reat aroy fw-tinnl "cranks” ^ho have pnmiod thio course? ae^tf^bsri *’Ia refbxssi* w sould better oorw one stop short of the iwk than to jo om stop beyond it. A»< if tiers is error at xllt lot it be on the side next to the people." Vol. J, p. 21. I aiu dstwdbied to e© thro^ wilfe the Adventist people to the Kingdom. 41^t will you do? Sorrowfully yews* / C. H. Watson, Chairman I. H. EvANfe, Secretary Meade MacGuire, Associate Li. E. Froom, Associate MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. May 18, 1933 Cable Address “Adventist” Washington Prof. George McCready Price Emmanuel Missionary College % Berrien Springs, Michigan Dear Brother Price: The group that has been studying some of the questions that I submitted to you for counsel has come to the conclusion that we do not have adequate scientific testimony from the world’s scientific authorities so as to justify our making a statement on the amalgamation question on a scientific basis. Until we gather further data, it is deemed unwise for us to make any extensive statement other than this rather informal declaration of our confidence in Mrs. 'Jhite, and in this particular statement of hers, vhich /e accept just as we accept many other things that we cannot fully understand, explain, or possibly prove. To the skeptic this seems puerile, but to the Christian it is an attitude that he must assume toward many mysteries. Brother Price, I just wanted to write you confidentially about one or two little things. I just gather from occasional expressions dropped by the officers that you feel that there is not a very definite appreciation of, or a sensing of the need of your work on the part our leaders. If you could hear the expressions of appreciation, and the esteem in which they hold you, I ar.: sure that you would feel differently. ^^nov/t]^at^J^iey.J^eel j^j^r j^r^de^a^ tremejidou.s asset to the .d^ejiojiinatiQ^, and to our school system. It has been ^thP^hJffd^iope^ of our men th’a't your specialized knowledge could be utilized to a greater advantage in a rotating plan among our larger schools. I do hope that the plan for Walla Walla will work out satisfactorily to all concerned. You have been placed in a more or less embarrassing position because of the form in which this problem comes up. I hope that you will not feel that there is a lack of appreciation, for I am not writing this at anyone’s suggestion^, but out of my own concern for your peace of mind, and the blessing which you can be to many. I feel, Brother Price, that the hour has come for me to press you again for another article for THE MINISTRY on some line that Will help our men. I noticed in the January Evangelical Review that Doctor Knight has a very able article on the evolution theory, showing that its star is steadily setting, and that it has become an article of Tames white library’., ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Price—2 belief rather than a demonstration. I think that some paragraphs quoted from it should appear in the MINISTRY, together with commendation of the article in full. Now, are not there some things that you can pass on to our men before long? I earnestly hope that this is true, and extend herewith an invitation to that end. LEF/n L. E. Froom, Associate Meade MacGuire, Associate C. H. Watson, Chairman I. H. Evans, Secretary MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. July 51. 1933. Cable Address “Adventist” Washington Professor George McCready Price Walla Walla College College Place, Washington Dear Brother Price: I note by the last CHRISTIAN FAITH AND LIFE that it is actually the last in more senses than one. The financial pressure is bringing about a cessation of this journal, which has been very helpful. I think it was stronger a while back than it has been recently. Perhaps the publisher, on account of advancing years, has not been so active in promoting it, and the financial aspect has probably led him to curtail on the expense of contributed matter. By the way, who is Herbert W. McGoun? He is one of the contributing editors, I know, but just where is he located and what is his specialty? He remarks, in his expression of sorrow over the discontinuance of the journal, that he got his Ph, D. in Sanskrit in the Johns Hopkins University, which is an unusual thing, and he alludes to the solving of some problem that had plagued men for twenty centuries. I do not wish to expose my ignorance, but I really do not know just what he is driving at. Would you enlighten me? This morning brought the MOODY INSTITUTE MONTHLY to me. I notice that you have an article there on "The Impending Crisis of the Ages." I have not read it yet. I am glad to see you write for these Fundamentalist journals, for there are many men in the ranks of that group who are still loyal to the Word and to many of the essentials of Christian faith who, as they observe the rising tide of modernism in their own churches, will turn to this movement and throw their influence and their effort with us. Doubtless you have had correspondence with I. H. Linton of Washington, D. C. He had an article recently in the SUNDAY SCHOOL TIMES, weighing the evidence as to whether or not Josephus actually mentioned Jesus by name. It was a very fine appraisal, and his conclusions were unquestionably sound, I took occasion to call attention, in a forthcoming note in THE MINISTRY, to this excellent study, for the benefit of any who may encounter the problem, and in fact all of our men should be acquainted with the evidence. I sent a copy of this to Mr. Linton, with a brief word, and received a wonderful letter in response, stating that our denomination is infinitely nearer and dearer to him than the modernistic branch of his own church and that he considers as brothers those who believe in the infallible Word, the deity of Christ, and the second imminent appearing of our Lord. He referred to a personal acquaintance with Dr. Kress, and at least to your writings. Whether he knows you personally or not he did not specify. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN __ ___________________UEDIT Arr ha/mi G. M. P. - ^2 He has invited me to visit him at his office, and I shall seek to do so this present week* There are many "other sheep" we must seek out until there is one fold and one shepherd. Now, Brother Price, your MOODY MONTHLY article was written from College Place. I wonder if you are settled in your new situation so that you will be prepared to give us a good, strong, wholesome article for our workers at this time. I do not presume to suggest the precise theme, I think that something in the line of your specialty, touching upon facts and findings comparatively recent that our men ought to have, or approaching matters from a different angle that will aid in building up a stronger understanding of the invulnerable foundations of the Book of Genesis and the fiat creation, would be helpful at this time. Trusting that you will thoroughly enjoy your work and that I may hear from you along the line requested in the not distant future, I am as ever Faithfully in service, LEF:h John K. MacGillivray, Minister Jame white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM ASHFIELD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH R. R. No. 3, Lucknow, Ontario Phone Dungannon 65 r 24—3 Co » 0) T3 TJ rH 00 f-4 ©O«rt c3 2 P 0) -^33 AO CO b0 £ A4 (D C3 CD 33 CD K Q) oJ co Ph’Vh 0) CD -d 00 £/< CD •H'h O CD CD CD ► P 01 0) 0) bO C 0) *"* d d © p £ «V, O JJ o a Ph £ a I have just read with deep interest your article in the Sunday School Times, onnThe Flood, Evolution, and Science'* and rejoice and have long rejoiced in your championship of the Flood Theory. I ha^e long been a believer the theory of Flood that covered the whole earth!’, perhaps always, but more confidently from a scientific point of view ever since reading a work by a Professor Vail of the University of California, entitled,"The Waters Above the Firmament", in Which he shows his theory of ' 'the ^llll^bnthe earth of a belt of waters above the eartEr£cause0 Sherwood Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky. October 12, My dear Brother: Your fine article in the Sunday School Times for Sept. ^Oth is most interesting. You are right. The "flood theory” agrees with all the facts better than does the "evolution theory". The latter was invented to try to account for creation without having to admit the existence of God, or the truth of the Bible. At the same time I believe the Bible teaches that our planet has had TWO FLOODS, not merely the ONE FLOOD at the time of Noah. We need to pay full attention to EVERY WORD which proceeded out of the mouth of God. The first chapter of Genesis is especially inspired, because it treats of things concerning which no man had any knowledge. The second chapter, giving a second account of creation, is evidently from Adam’s standpoint, that of the creature; but the first account of creation is strictly from the standpoint of the CREATOR. This will make clear any seeming contradictions between them. Both accounts are the inspired Word of God, and both equally true, the second being Adam’s observations. He naturally became conscious of himself first, and then of the animals, as they were brought before him to be named. 2K*. The first verse of Genesis -- just seven words with twenty-ei^it letters in the Hebrew -- is a complete, and the only, account of the ORIGINAL CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE given in that chapter. The second verse tells us that the earth (NOT the heavens) had BECOME A DESOLATION AND A WASTE, "and darkness was upon the face of the roaring deep, — but the SPIRIT OF GOD was brooding on the face of the waters." (See Rotherham’s translation). Here is a word-picture of the FIRST FLOOD mentioned in the Book of Genesis. Verse 9 tells of the first appearance of the dry ground AFTER THAT FIRST FLOOD. That first flood must have come upon the earth in punishment for sin. Evil must have begun in God’s universe before the fall of Adam, because our first mother was tempted by an evil being. Then we must account for the existence of the demons. They are not the spirits of our departed friends (although they often pretend to be, through the spiritist mediums) and they are not fallen angels. They must be the disembodied spirits of a race of beings who inhabited the earth before the creation of Adam, and whose rebellion against God, under the leadership of Satan, made it necessary for God to destroy the earth of that time by a flood WITHOUT ANY ARK. Certainly God never created evil spirits AS SUCH. Even Satan was created perfect. He was named Lucifer, and continued perfect in wisdom and beauty until unrighteousness was found in him. Then he became God’s great Adversary, and his name was changed to Satan, accordingly. Adam was created to REPLENISH the earth. I know the Hebrew word may mean simply "fill", and not necessarily RE-FILL, but the entire command --"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" -- when addressed to Noah and his family after the second flood, meant REFILL. We have a history of the civilization which had been destroyed. This gives us authority for believing that it meant REFILL when addressed to Adam and his wife, even thou^i we do not have a detailed history of the former race of beings whose sin brou^it on the first flood. To Dr. Price, page 2. Oct. 12, 1955. We need to remember that our English Bible, the translation of 16 11, authorized by King James, is not necessarily infallible. It is a translation of a translation, having followed, in many cases, the corrupted Latin Vulgate instead of the inspired originals in the Hebrew and Greek. The translation of Gen. 1:2, "And the earth was without foim and void” is particularly bad. The King James' translators had been influenced too much by the pagan Greek and Latin philosophers, whose works they had studied. Paganism tau^it that the universe was a chaos at first, which the gods gradually wrought into the finished cosmos. Coming to the first chapter of Genesis with this idea in mind, the translators assumed that the first verse was merely a general statement, of which the rest of the chapter gave the details. This has obscured the truth that the work of the six days, in Genesis L, was a re-making of this planet alone, and not, as we have assumed, the original creation of the entire universe. Unbelievers take advantage of this, pointing to the fact that the earth is a small planet of the solar system, and ridiculing the idea that this small planet was created FIRST, and the sun, the center of the solar system, not until the FOURTH DAY J The Bible does not say this, but ignorant men, misled by incorrect translations, have taken this for granted, contrary to the real teaching of the Word of God. The Hebrew words, TOHU WA-VOHU, in Gen.1:2, are nouns, and ought to be translated into nouns -- not adjectives. Translating them "without foim and void” has caused much confusion and made many earnest seekers after truth unbelievers in the Word of God, which IS TRUTH, when properly translated and understood. The command, "Li^it BEJ"( Gen. 1:5), does not mean the very first appearance of light in all the history of the universe. God Himself IS LIGHT, and dwells in light unapproachable. This command must mean that light was to shine again upon the ruined earth, from which all light had been withdrawn when it BECAME A DESOLATION AND A WASTE. Our familiar English translation obscures this and other truths of great importance, by assuming that the universe was created as a formless, empty chaos, less than six thousand years ago. We need to compare Scripture with Scripture. Isaiah 45:18 tells us that when God created the earth He "created it NOT TOHU, but formed it to be inhabited.” With this stated so positively, we have no right to assume and teach that the heavens and the earth were TOHU when first created. TOHU meaning "a desolation", we should realize that the word means the ruin of something which had been beautiful and good, as all God’s works have been, until ruined by sin. Also, since the earth was formed to be inhabited, we may be sure that it WAS inhabited, before it, with its inhabitants, was made a desolation by that FIRST FLOOD. Gladstone, and the other strong believers in the Bible who favored the idea that the days of the (so-called) creative week were each one-thousand years long, took the statement "that one day, with the Lord, is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2-Peter 5:8), as a way to escape the difficulties raised by the scientists who spoke of long periods of time being required for the various geological ages. The claim that each of the six days of Genesis-L was ®ne thousand years long becomes untenable when we consider the work of the first day. It was the response to the command — "Li^it BE!” That could have been, and doubtless was, instantaneous. God did not have to wait a thousand years to have that command obeyed! To Dr. Price, page 3. Oct. 12, 1933. The work of each of the other days could have been done within 24 hours, if we admit the existence of a God who could have done it in any longer time. We do not have to insist that the entire universe was created in six short solar days, because the Bible does not say it was J The first verse of Genesis does not say anything about the time of the original creation, or about the processes employed. It merely states the sublime fact, as having been accomplished in the undated "beginning.” Then why create difficulties by insisting that it was all done in the one solar week in which Adam was created? The "one thing", spoken of in 2-Peter 3:8 as supremely important, may be the key to history and prophecy. As men were told to labor for six days, it may be that God has allowed six thousand years in which men, under the leadership of the great Adversary, shall be permitted to try every possible alternative to the perfect will of God — and FAIL IN THEM ALL! Then shall come the promised Kingdom — THE MILLENNIUM — when Christ and His Church shall reign on the earth. This to be followed by "the ei^ath day" (circumcision day) when the universe shall be freed from all evil for all eternity to come! This "thousand-year-day" key may unlock the past also. The passover lamb, in Egypt, was selected on the tenth day of the month and kept four days. The Lamb of God, selected when Adam fell, was "kept” four thousand years, and then slain. This may mean that evil began on the earth ten thousand years before the creation of Adam? The ten millennial days before, and the four millennial days after Adam being enough alike to be accounted parts of the same "month" of thousand-year-days. We may not insist upon this interpretation without further study, but God has had a PLAN, and this may be the key to our understanding of it. The mystery -- why Satan is now "the prince of this world” -- may* be explained by this suggestion also. Adam was created to take his place, but failed to qualify for the position, having sinned. For this reason Satan has been allowed to hold over, as world-ruler of this darkness, until all the purposes of God, in permitting the existence of evil for a time, have been accomplished. Then THE LAST ADAM, THE SON OF GOD, shall return to reign for ever? Even the expression, "evening and morning", repeated so often, may be prophetical as well as historical. The natural time for a day to begin is when the sun rises, in the morning; but God’s plan called for the seeming triumph of evil FIRST — then for GOOD to last for ever? Our LORD IS GOD’S SUN. He came, the first time, as the setting sun, going down in blood, in a red sunset, literally fulfilling every one of the "evening" prophecies. Now we are in the NlGnT, waiting for the SUN of RIGHTEOUSNESS to arise with healing in His wings. That Morning shall always be Morning — increasing li^at — because "of the INCREASE of His government and of peade there shall be no end! Our Lord’s mysterious saying — "the days shall be shortened** --may be explainable by understanding them as thousand-year days. He did not say that the number of days should be made less, but that the DAYS THEMSELVES should be shortened. Solar days could not be made shorter without interfering with the clock-work of the universe; but millennial days could be shortened without this. If just two millennial days since the beginning of the Christian era were to be counted as two thousand innfl.T* years instead of solar years, they could stilx be millennial days and the end of the age hastened by more than fifty years. The way the world is going on in sin, this may be necessary, if any flesh is to To Dr. Price, page 4. Oct. 12, 1^J. survive until the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom, to be brought in with the beginning of the seventh thousand-year day from the creation of Adam. We have been thinking that 2-Peter must refer to the flood in Noah’s time. It may refer to the greater flood before the creation of Adam. Verse 6 says that the world that then was, with water being overflowed, perished. This seems too strong a word forjthe flood in Noah’s time. Mankind was saved in the ark, together with animals of all sorts. Vegetation was not destroyed, the calamity lasting only about one year. All this falls short of the complete perishing of all life which the text seems to declare. If, however, we understand that in the flood before Adam’s time the earth, with all life upon it, had been utterly destroyed (as to all physical life) WITHOUT ANY aRK TO SAVE ANY OF THE CREATURES THEN LIVING — in that case the word used --"PERISHED^— is fitting indeed. You are right in urging that all believers in the Bible ought to agree upon some explanation of the Bible account of creation which is the most Scriptural. You are ri^at in saying that Evolution is an absurd and unscientific superstition. It is the philosophy of the fool who hath said in his heart, ’’There is no God.”’ On the other hand, in our turning away from atheism’s superstition, we ought to Take the view of creation which agrees with All SCRIPTURE, and, making full use of the increased light shed upon The word of God in modem times, Teach God’s TRUTH, rather than traditional explanations of the early chapters of Genesis which do not agree with other parts of the Word of God — the Scripture which CANNOT BE BROKEN. Yours in The Blessed Hope, 44 Marion St., Brookline, Masa. Feb. 28, 1934. Prof•George McCready Price, College Place, Washington. Dear Professor Price: I have been studying with interest your informing article in the Sunday School Times of Sept.30,1933, entitled, The Flood, Evolution, and Science., and it awakens several questions which perhaps you can spare time to answer. You say the pre-Adamite theory and your Flood theory conflict and the two cannot both of them be scientifically and religiously right, in particular mentioning Mr.Harry Rimmer as holding the former. I have read with care about everything which he has published yet I fall to see wherein he necessarily conflicts with your Flood theory. For your theory as outlined in this article deals solely with the Flood or Genesis chapter 7, whereas he discusses mostly geological occurrences and conditions hundreds of years earlier as recorded in chapter 1. Moreover in his booklet on Modern Science, Noah’s Ark and the Deluge, where of course he does discuss Flood geology and the changes produced, he quotes you favorably and commends your volume as ”a masterpiece of real science”. Instead of denying that changes were then produced in earth1 s structure he admits the same , simply maintaining this was not the only.upheaval recorded in Scripture. Possibly you ascribe greater changes to the Flood than he does; if so, the difference between you two at that point appears to be concerned with the amount of alteration resulting. Presumably you accept the record in Genesis 1 of six days of Divine activity as descriptive of real events then taking place, clearly not referring to the Flood because so many centuries earlier. As I cannot find in your paper any statement of your conception of what those days represent and what occurred then, I should greatly appreciate light on this point;. Yours does not appear to be a theory of creation but of changes subsequently, hence my question. Do you consider those days represent eras and geological periods in the course of which God brought the universe Into a state of perfection, and that the condition of waste and void was one stage of the Divine process? If so, I can see that you differ with Mr. Rimmer at this point, but your Flood theory apparently is not concerned with it. Again, I quite understand your Just attack on the usual geological order of the layers of earth,and that when scientists advocate it your disagreement with them is over their failure to recognize the Flood is accountable for many upsets in their order and that in turn these upsets, prove the Flood took place as described in Scripture.Therefore allow me to ask your understanding of geological. eondit)^fas prior to the Flood and its changes, and whetner you grant that ihe usual order may have prevailed in that earlier time when the universe was in process of creation. Or do you think it impossible for science to discover any thing at all on that point? Finally I note yoijlsay only the few have accepted the rlood tneory out that it is by all odds the leading view of those who refuse to accept the theory of organic evolution. Can you name for me other prominent^ advocates of it in addition to those mentioned in your article*! So far as it deals with the Flood time alone,and not the creation of things.I wonder that any conservative Christian scholar should reject your contention.-Please oelxeve me not a captious critic but a Bible student deeply interested in the truth as revealed in the Word. " raiS3l'8U ™e /JAMES WHITE LIBRARY .y 5 P Z’Z? ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Very sincerely yours, C " RR.’uH SPRINGS, p7' O EDITORIAL ROOMS THE ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD GENERAL CHURCH PAPER OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS Takoma Park. WASHINGTON. D. C„ U. S. A. Editor Francis McLellan Wilcox March 16, 1934 ASSOCIATE EDITORS W. A. SPICER F. D. NICHOL C. P. Bollman Prof. George McCready Price Walla Walla College College Place, Washington My dear Brother Price: I was gratified to have a personal word from you under date of March 6. I have had quite a reaction from the field to the article to which you refer by Doctor Brown, and I believe it has accomplished real good. I share with you very heartily in the desire that some of our own men should do a work of similar character. I believe there is a great field for us in outside circles that we are not occupying at the present time. I have always appreciated, Brother Price, much more than I have ever expressed, the excellent service that you have rendered to the cause of present truth, both in our own ranks and in the exposition of that truth in the outside field. I feel that God laid this burden upon you, and you have been true to the trust committed to you. I am sure that you will reap your reward. It may seem to you sometimes that your efforts are not appreciated, but this is not so. And I believe that in the providence of God you have reached a much larger circle than you anticipate. I believe that there is still a great field for books that have come from your pen. Yours with all good wishes, FMWspk 9AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM 7. L. E. Froom, Associate Meade MacGuire, Associate C. H. Watson, Chairman I. H. Evans, Secretary MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. March 22, 19 3^4 Cable Address “Adventist” Washington Prof. Geo. McCready Price, Walla Walla College, College Place, Wash. Dear Brother Price: I am endeavoring to secure from different men who have specialized in given fields, articles of moderate length that will present the stock objections from those who are adherents to particular fallacies, together with terse but comprehensive answers and perhaps suggestions as how best to study further so as to successfully cope with these problems. Now, most of these will be in the religious field; but out of the wealth of your research and contact with evolutionists, would you not be glad to summarize for the readers of THE MINISTRY perhaps five of the most prominent stumbling-blocks to average individuals who have been taught the evolution theory and when confronted with Creationism and the recasting of their entire idea of the beginning of things, naturally have certain queries that must be answered. If you take these up, perhaps in the order of importance, I know that the result would be very helpful for the readers of our journal. May I not hear from you along this line? As ever, Sincerely yours in service, LEF-g JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN L. E. Froom, Associate Meade MacGuire, Associate C. H. Watson, Chairman I. H. Evans, Secretary MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. March 29, 1934 Cable Address "Adventist” Washington Prof. Geo. McCready Price, Walla V.alla College, College Place, Wash. Dear Brother Price: I am interested in yours of the twenty-third, accompanied by the article, ’’The Small Beginnings of the Evolution Theory.” As to size, it is more than we would use in one issue, but presumably it can be divided and used in two sections. I am glad to have it. Coming to your burden on the question of a volume on ’’Systematic Theology,” of college grade, many is the time that I have thought of something of this same kind. I think that your series of questions are very pertinent. Our denominational leaders and publishing houses appreciate the excellent work you have done in your special field. Yet you know there is hesitancy in bringing out books because of the limited circulation that is possible in our own constituency in a specialized work of this character, and a book on ’’Systematic Theology” would likewise face the same problem. Of course we cannot ever expect an outside publishing house to consider a work of this character. A secondary thought occurs, and that is you are recognized, Brother Price, as a specialist in the scientific field; and while all would have respect for your judgment in Biblical matters, I presume there would be some question as to whether you were the logical one to prepare a standard text on ’’Systematic Theology.” I am not by that expression venturing any personal conclusion that such a query would be justified, but it would be met nevertheless. I don’t say these things to discourage you. You have a dream. Dream on, and let it be formulated more tangibly. It may be that a joint authorship would overcome the latter difficulty. It would be exceedingly interesting to study a work of ibis character. I shall await with interest the development of the idea-that is in the formative period. LEF-g Faithfully yours, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY1, ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN L. E. Froom, Associate Meade MacGuire, Associate C. H. Watson, Chairman I. H. Evans, Secretary MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION of Seventh-day Adventists Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. April 11, 193U Cable Address “Adventist” Washington Prof, Geo, McCready Price, Yfalla Wall© College, College Place, Wash, Dear Brother Price: Your letters are always interesting because different, end the one dated April 2 is no exception to the rule. I an glad that we can differ, yet be friends and retain the respect of each other, I believe, Brother Price, that a men who writes in the field of relationship between science and religion should, and indeed must, have a scientific equipment. But I do believe that you will findn^at our most alert, aggressive, end best-informed theologians wouldAconsent to your premise on the matter of systematic theology. It seems to me that you have confused matters decidedly in your definition of systematic theology. You are looking at it from the viewpoint of a specialist in the physical field who appreciates and recognizes the theological realm, its problems, and its possibilities, I cannot conceive that a work such as I would have in mind as a volume on systematic theology could find a place of publication in an outside house, unless entirely subsidized as a job. It may be that my ’’wires are crossed,” and that my thinking is wrong; but the development of the revelation of God, His relationship to the universe, to man, the problem of sin, redemption and its provisions is not fundamentally a logical, philosophical, scientific search, but a revelation that is so organized as to be truly systematic and complete. It involves the fields of history, science, etc., but much more than that, it traverses the ages in its sweep until the debacle of sin has become an incident of the past, as all things are restored to Edenic perfection, sin and sinners are destroyed, including the author of sin, and God stands vindicated before the universe. It embraces man’s out-reach after God, and the understanding of God’s revelation in Old Testament times, its development in New Testament times. Its sweep takes in the centuries of the Christian era, during which all the difficulties and departures, the heresies and reformations, including the final Reformation, have their related places. Of course it must take in the problems of the modern world. I have not changed the opinion expressed in a former letter. I merely desired to expand it a little more, but meanwhile to assure you of my respect for you ©nd for your convictions. As ever, Faithfully yours in service, / / JAMES WHITE LIBRARY f y n , ANDREWS UNIVERSITY LEF-g W BCRR'-N SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM 'JAMES WHITE LIS ANDREWS UNIVER BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN, HE ter -0^4 /^o // srf'Zff /W y gou/l AAadon, fan- fithfotiA 'tr‘d& 'fto&A. O/M it&2 A OwrAj. TtA^j, , 3~.i /i p-fa, ~ttA n6^ut_ !s p.161. — Certainly man co-operates with Qhrist and the Holy Spirit for our salvation: hence we are partners. St.Peter clearly states we are ’’partakers of the Divine nature’1. St. Paul repeatedly tells us we are 'God’s coadjutors”, co-builders with the Apostles. Nay, more: we are sons and heirs with Christ. And even stronger language. (7) The Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven (p.162) was first with the Jews, but the Old Testament was only a. pre-figuring and fore-shadowing of the New Dispensation. Hence Christ’s constant preaching of the arrival of His Kingdom when he came. This is His Church, which he established clearly, definitely^and positively on Peter: Mat.xvi.18-19. and which was officially instituted on the Day of Pentecost by Peter’s great sermon which converted 3,000 Jews, and to this Church was "addedto the Church daily such as were to be saved” ( cts.ii.47) Note c ar efulTjMp" Again,after His resurrection Christ commissioned his Apostles — His Church. .’ -r to go into all the world and TEACH the gospel to every creature of all nations, he distinctly and clearly commanded; He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that beliefreth not shall be damned”. (Mark.xv,1’6) Here not"li single word’ about reading the bible and selecting, choosing, accepting, and rejecting according .to people’s whims and wiles, what they were to believe and what not J.* ”G0 AND TEACH” • Teach what ? "ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you”. (Mat•xxviii.19.20.) There is no possible escape. We are to be VERBALLY taught by word of mouth all things necessary for our salvation, on pain of eternal damnation if we deliberately refuse to believe. But —- if Christ’s own Church (”MY Church” not churches.—Mat.xvi.18) is, like its prototype, the Ark in the Deluge, the one and only safety for salvation, it had to be guaranteed from teaching error, otherwise it would be Man’s Church anWP not God’s and may lead us into the bottomless pit and not to heaven. For Our Lord also told his Apostles "if he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as the heathen and the publican” — outside the pale of salvation. Again he affirmed: .He that heareth you, heareth me. He that dfespiseth you, despiseth me 1 (Luke x.!6j J6hn.xiii.2o) (8) If this be so^that teaching Church had to be preserved from mistakes, error, false teaching. And not for a few days or years, but unto the Day of Judgment. . Was it guaranteed ? Most certainly. For Christ said ”Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the World” Mat.xxviii.20.) And CHRIST IS GOD T His Church, His specially commissioned body, COULD NOT therefore go wrong. Moreover, to further confirm this, he said to his Apostles (not to the laity); The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost (i.e. the Second person of the Holy Trinity) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 5- whatsoever I have said unto you, (John.xiv.26) The Spirit of truth will guide- you into all truth?. (xvi. 13) ”He may abide with you for ever^T (xiv.16). (9) Therefore it «is abundantly clear: Christ has one only Church, not different contradictory Churches; that Church could not teach error, could not go wrong; we must all of us # fro be saved, belong to that one Church, and must —on pain of damnation — believe all things taught by her. In otherfwords she being the very body of Christ who is her head, is and MUST be inerrant, indefectible, infallible J J (10) Further, as a bond of necessary unity there must be a visible earthly head and governor of that Church. "Christ the eternal Rock clearly selected Peter — the Kephas, the Rock, to be that head, for he actually built the Church on him. He made Peter in his stead the secondary Rock head. He actually gave him the keys of his city on earth—his 11 Kingdom", and definitely affirmed that what Peter bound or loosed on earth, would be bound or loosed in heaven! He commanded Peter to strengthen, to confirm his brethren (after his repentance of Prophecied denial) —for Christ specially and expressly prayed for him only against Satan, who was ’’sifting" all his Apostles^, that his faith fail not (Luke xxii.32) And before he ascended to heaven he made Peter shepherd in his stead of his flock - both of lambs and sheep, thrice repeatedly! (John.xxi.15-17) ^and discipline (11) The reason, here too, is perfectly plain. Unity in teaching^could not be maintained without a Head. in fact Our Lord specially prayed for this, and being God, His Father certainly heard His prayer: ”Holy Father, keep them that they may be one, as we are.... that they may be one as thou art Father -in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us” And mark the reason: "that the world may belivve that thout hast sent me.. that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou/ hast sent me. (John.xvii 11-23. )~ (12) Nothing can be more definite and clear .’ This essential dogmatic unity and discipline in Christ’s Church was to prove to the World the truth of His Church, "against which the gates of hell would not prevail51 Hence the wheel of Christianity had to have an axle or hub as the centre •of unity round which its spokes and fellows revolved. Hence Peter and his successors, — for the Church had to exist "alway" "unto the end of the world"— were expressly chosen and ordained by Christ, who is God, for rule and guidance of his Church and for•outstanding unity,-in order to convince the earth that that Church was "the one* and only true Churc^ of Christ!.1 " And that Church has never failed —the gates of Hell, of contradiction and error, have never prevailed against her i!’ (13) What else do we need ? And why should the foolish Sectaries rave against St.Peter’s successors ? .re they not clearly convicted of non-reason, indeed of insanity ? To go out of their way and deliberately misinterpret Scripture and rave about the Papacy (Christ’s own special institution) jOs Anti-Christ or the Scarlet woman of Babylon, and so forth, simply prove these poor wretches have lost their reason — and have gone mad .’! Did not Our Lord himself say;— And the prophecy of 6 Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear and not understand: and seeing you shall .see, and'"shall hot~~pereeive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are cfull of hearing, and their ears have been closed; lest at any time.......they should be converted, and I should heal them. (Mat. xii i. 14-llf. See Rom? xi. "8 -U10) (14) As a matter of fact, had there been no Papacy, we would not have had any Christianity. We would have only modernism with all its fictions, antagonisms, and contradictions; and also materialism and rationalism. We would have no morals, but those of Bolshevic Russia, ay common acclaim of millions of Educated people and of Protestant clergy Rome is the greatest moral force in the world and the one sole representative of true undiluted Christianity. Ara we going to be made to believe that nearly 400,000,000 Catholics, owing obedience to Rome, — one fifth of the human race — are the children of Satan and not of Christ ?? That a handful of Protestant sectaries - Adventists and other bigotd — and born but yesterday out of the loins of a wicked man, like Luther or Crammer, and Henry VIII, are Christ’s own special Church, and 400 millions are AntiChrists? It is shere drivel. ■(15) If one wants to read true history, and not the preposterous twaddle of blind sectaries, of the old Guiness species, why not read Pastor’s or numerous volumes of the History of the Popes ? SR please Zlo not — for God’s sake and the sake of truth —mix up the persoiWactivities or the faults and offences of the human element in the Church, with the Divide element on the dogmas of faith and morals. These are utterly distinct. A Pope does not become a Saiifct or learned philosopher, or statesman by elevation to the chair of the Fisherman. Pope, haKKSE however holy and learned, is not God Almighty , but simply a man like ourselves, and likewise answerable to God for his conduct. But — note — in his office of TEAS HER of mankind in faith and morals, when he ex officio or ex Cathedra, under definite conditions, declares and defines a truth of Revelation by Christ (from the Scriptures and sacred traditions) as such and to be held .as such, he is preserved from falling into error. He is not inspired, and he need not be” personally either learned or saintly. A judge duly commissioned may be a wicked or ignorant man, but by his jurisdiction - ex officio he can condemn one to imprisonment or even death. The Papal office has nothing to do with personal worth.^^ (16) It is shere nonsense to say the Papacy has existed for only khKikss thirteen centuries .’ This is a silly fiction of ignoramuses whose wish is father to the thought. Read the learned Protestant author of The Eastern Churches and the Papacy, by Rev.S.Herbert Scott, D.Ph., B.Litt (Oxon),F.R.H.S., Anglic an Rector or Oddington, pp. 404. (Sheed & Ward, New York), and see what historical facts he has produced, with quotations from several languages... I Does not the Protestant theologian Jeremy Taylor tell us that the first thirty three Bishops of Rome including »^S. Peter and Paul, one after the other^29 in immediate succession,suffered martyrdom by the pagan Romans ? Up to today we have the 262xsuccessort of t.Peter, as Pope (Pius XI), and of these as many as eighty two (82) were canonised as" Saints .’ Does this suggest ’’blasphemous pretensions and represent Anti-Christ” ? ’ 7 (17) As for the Book of Revelations, please see Colonel Turton’s Apocalypse of St.John (Washbourne or Benziger, New York). (18) Finally, the Bible cannot be interpreted literally everywhere. You. yourself don’t do so. The Bible is the most difficult book or books in the world, and the Scriptures clearly warn us against private int erpr et at ion. uKnowing this firatig that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. (II Peter, i. 19) And speaking of the Epistles of St.Paul, St Peter warns us:—^there are some things h I would not even care to argue out Ussher’s chronology though I accept^in principle. However, I dont know a thing that would develop so much delight, intellectually, as to have some geologist tackle me on the thesis that evidence demonstrated that the earth was older than 6,000 years. Say, what a striking, fantastic idea for public discussion! For public interest the more freakish the idea the better; and to lick a geologist on that proposition would throw me into a spasm of delight. Could I do it? Oh, what an easy task! The principle of Flood Geology could be sustained. OK. When was the Flood? Then hurrah for Lake Lahontan. If those were ’’everlasting hills” the bowls of Lahontan and others mentioned would be salty if they were old. They dont come within a hundred miles of 6,000 years. (Now dont worry what he might do to me on chronology of human history.) By salts of ocean, I8d have a young earth proved. Then I’d have CREATION proved because the plants and animals would have to come by creation. Get those by creation, and certainly we have to get the earth by creation--at least that concept is reasonable, and astronomers cant even guess how it evolved. So his starting point is the Flood which came not long ago on an earth that is not old. He’d have a osautiful time denying that, and a more beautiful time working out tne age of the earth before the Flood, I’m simplv hilarious when I think of the prospects. One of the troubles of Fundamentalist science is tha t ..u . . 1 urouoies oi fundamentalist science is that too many oi ius ue lenders are afraid of tne plain implications of creation in geology and biology, so they, hedge for all they are worth and try to keep a oomb proof shelter in evolution's position under which thev cen plunge in case of emergency. That is rotten tactics. Take the fu.H implications of a position with all colors flying. Them's my sentiments t0 lali€h 8I9ry time 1 think of s possible discussion on the earth being more than 6,000 years--(with the burden of proof on the Inharthini°Lw b® a «0r®90X13 for public discussion? and to get JublicitJ. * 13 & tMng t0 strika the public fsnoy Did I write that Lane had refused to take teacher’ peeled his walking papers, with prospects that he’d take were given? ' s oath and ex-me up if they There are one or two little things I wanted, to write about, I think walnut harvesting will be over tomorrow except for some handling of the harvested nuts and a lot of gleaning for nuts I’ll keep myself. How much time I’ll have when everything is cleaned up I do not know. There is a possibility that I might like to try a raid on Los Angeles if I could get that Guild to sponsor some lectures. My idea would be to entice some prof on platform with me, not to debate the thing, but to criticize my position; then to have him flabbergasted. I think the idea might go well. H’s card stating that I made a better case than the other side should have some weight. I’ll decide about the thing once I get straightened out after the walnuts are gone. And then this: Higley expressed willingness and desire to thresh out with me for publication that pre-Adamic ruin business and asked me to find prospects for publication. I wrote the Fundamental Truth Publishers. Maybe Moody’s would be better. The announcement in Christianity Today seems to have brought bigger results than everything else put together. If they publish booklets they might be ideal. Do you know about this? Dont answer unless you are writing anyway. I’ll ask Lemon Cove minister when I see him. I have been thinking though that the Question of days or ages' or what-have-you of creation should precede the problem of ,pre-Adamic ruin and when I get this Lahontan matter off my hands and some other things I’ll go into this. But what I think we should have are pronouncements, a string of them. First should be a pronouncement on books we can recommend. We need this. I get inquiries on what should Just a day or two ago I headed off public in printed matter that the Flood was only came about through a friend acting as his held him off until she could write to me. be believed on this and that, announcement by Bible Teacher a local disturbance. The thing secty, who knew my case. She He compromised by changing nis statements uo drop the matter. You and Nelson should be the greatest gainers on this; but it is a public service we could do and should do. Then there are other pronouncements. The age of the earth is one that I may put up for approval soon if nothing develops in a discussion. Buu I seem to be running away with the program to a considerable extent TSAOt accorains to Hoyla. The directors should make the urogram, otiil I figure every me mb er can put in his oar, so I go ahead. Well J?0*1? not youTfin/g' made to creation,- it reads,’that the periods of Creation ware really periods’• • .etc* I would suggest that the word dreat’ion’be changed to’ Cra muon frock’, as a matter of greater clarity • /in the seventh > •>• M pi-xTgrapn^TBEFaF*sentence, ahunge ’ their ob ject being'’*to present. a * uni* ?. tod fron’t against the theory of evolution all round us,1 change the expression *a united front1 to ’take a united st nd’, etc. And in the Constitution, we require Associate members to* subscribe to the constitution of the 'association, but 'Bny^o thinghltowjtt this ./or Active mambera. ■’’ !y suggestion is that?they be ^lulract IS^i^sox'Ibo'’lo ti'hb cons’ilteticn ./. ;,lso. X ya; pose that this was merely an oversight at the time of its . ', adoption. nCf course the above suggestions cm be carried out only by vote \ of the/Directors. X would suggest that you write them about it nhd also T &sk each one to nuke suggestions of his own for improving the two docu- • ments. After we commit ourselves to printed form, we shall not want to ? make further changes very often.” These suTgestiens of course seen good to your secretary. X think that perhaps Dr. Higley could be authorized to make other verb al changes in the axmotuicement if he decided that it would be improved thereby, since this is in u way an expression of opinion and not basic law like the Constitution.? Tor the latter definite approval of each word would likely be retired In m-geing changes. in article 3 of the onnstltution the offteers and;>embers assert belief in the Scriptures and so on and when the constitution n up ■the idea was held that membership would automatically demand this and sU’-^ort of the constitution, but X bellevt that definite subscription to ■ the constitution would be advisable/: • No definite change of wording his been offered to acoomniish this so ;X offer fox* a starting gcoint a resolution to amend Article ^ive of the Ctmstlfot^# to read: •’Membership. .♦a direct be .ring upon religious faltM|| end shall subscribe to this Constitution. fnc m-.y become an associate member by subscribing to1 this constitution and paying a registration fee one dollar.” (The* part un-*"•irl,wSR§fow reads, **the eonstltutdyM' dfgthb assoclatlg?j;.^ However, Dr. Higley asks that you write hl® offevtog-suggestions upon changes, and X think tmt others might offer a different and better wordn/ than this. X recall that the criticism wag once offered th t we did not state belief in the Constitution that tM Bible was ths Inspired Word of God, but wo emphasize belief in tha Bible account, of th£ origin and history of the 5/yth, *to*(> and in otlwr wi^ys do exactly this, ler* mit me then- to suggest that difficulties in Asking ma ter lal< amendments* tC\ ■ - titution by eorfas^onddnee beWeon five (or sl«} widely >■ ■ 2 I think Dr. Higley should be asked to go over such suggestions as are offered and use his judgment upon altering the constitution (or announcement) and then submit the altered constitution upon a ’take it or leave it’ basis, because only in some such way can alterations be made effectively, as scattered as we are. A four-fifths vote is of course required to make a change in the constitution, so no change can be made if two directors object. Some days ago Prof. Price asked me to work up some tentative pronouncements and I prepared two and send them to Dr. Higley. I think, and Prof. Price thinks, (Pardon me, 1 should have named Price ahead of myself) that pronouncements in the press will be very effective in our work. If the directors like this idea I trust that they will so inform our president and suggest pubjeots. My opinion is that we could accomplish much if we sent out news notes and comments to the news and religious press; some noted scholar makes a false statement on evolution and we correct him, or a discovery sustains the Bible narrative, etc. I believe, we should establish^ machinery for that. But doubtless you will have suggestions you cnn offer for our ac-’ tivities. You doubtless all know that a committee is being formed by Dr. Graeb-ner to make public endorsement of certain works upon creation and Bible science generally. I have had several requests for such a thing and it should prove of much value. A few days ago I also had a request from a Layman’s Bible Study League to go over a MS discussing Genesis before it was submitted to the publishers. This, however, came more through personal work than as an officer of the Association. I have been greatly impressed by the extreme differences of belief among Christian scholars regarding matters of fundamental importance in Bible science and I think, as I have long thought, that we should in some way try to clarify these problems. For example, an Oregon minister has joined who has taught astronomy and one other science in the University of Oregon and, a firm believer in the Scriptures, seems to believe in geological periods of creation. There is one other thing I think we should attend to and that is the machinery of publicity. Our announcements were sent out in part by Dr. Hlg-/’Tey, in part by Price, in part by Dr. Graebner and in part by the undersigned and the undersigned at least was confused as to both the time and the papers in his part of the work. I should be glad if you would each provide me with a list of magazines, etc., you want notified for the next announcement. Some of these can be reached better by individual directors than by i the secretary, but let us understand henceforth what papers are to be notified, when they are to be notified, and by whom. When you write to the president on the changes he suggests, can you write on this too? You may be interested to hear that I have sent in a paper by invitation of Dr. A.C.Lane, former president of the association trying to show that the earth is not old for the coming meeting of The American Geological Society. In the current issue of The Pan American Geologist I have also an article on The Relation of Volcanism to Geologic History, whichUndertakes to show that there were no geologic ages, but that the whole earth was made over not long ago. I did not say so, but the Flood was obviously that making over. The scientists are thus showing some signs of awakening. You will be pleased to know that our Association seems to be taking hold and its objects are meeting with approval. There is a fine opening for us if we will do our part. ~ • --*Vy y1*y . Senrex-*r$- . JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ^Andrews university Bxater. Cal., Deoamber 4, 1935. .BERRIEN swings, Michigan Bxawr, v x., HERITAGE ROOM My dear Higley, . Your letter ease yesterday on changes in announcement, ■“ "1“,“r ”,1"B just what you want you can get tnlngs accomplished. When you get stuff printed I will need a few dozen copies. Meanwhile I have just made several bunches of ambons like the enclosed and sent them off. I am not sure what will be needed for application blank. May fix one up at foot of this letter. w^1 consider the form carefully and get it to you ’ ell „efore printing is nrdAred I have always found than an effective way to get a thing dona was to go ahead and offer a certain wording; it might be all wrong but it would-be corrected into good form by people i teV of initiating the work, or making a first draft. So I 11 fix up a e tative application blank. We seem to have crossed vires on this P.A. ruin business? It was my understanding that we were to team up in preparing stuff to submit to a publisher on it, and I have been at work in making draft of my part, and mentioning progress in various letters. I have nothing else submitted or in preparation to submit. When it was ready I figured t± on sending it to you. I thought all that was understood. Anyway I’ll go ahead end write and send it to you and if you want to go ahe^d with it, well and good, and if not, well and good <>lso. The most desperate (a term my mother occaSsion-liy used to used in this way) conditions of Fundamentalist science is the -ide difference in basic opinions by defenders of the faith: and one of the most \ desperate needs is to get together and thresh out those differences. The pros and cons of the outline of creation: ages, or ruin and reconstruction or original day-creation. So I hope ^e can accomplish this. But when I have things fixed up the way I want them fixed I’ll send them in. And it may be all right to believe In a pre-Ad--mic ruin, but I’ll venture to say that opinions of the geologic history, etc., of pre-Ad^mic ruinism are as diverse and indefinite as the theories of the liberals and radicals in politics and economics. If we could do nothing else ve might at least clarify that part of the matter. Surely I accept the Scriptures and if they teach ruin I’ll believe it. In fact I used to believe it. V.hen in S.ekiei 28 it refers to the prince of tyre (believed to be Satan) as the guardian cherub in Bden, the garden of God, being perfect until evil was found in him, I have to think that Satan did not rebel against God until after the earth was ordered. To me, therefore, this pre-Adamie theory looks unscriptural. However, I hope we can thresh this out systematically and not by little jabs in correspondence. There are lots of other things we should work out too--not you and I work out, but committees of the Association. I : hm much pleased with progress. Off hand I submit something like this to put at foot of the constitution: ’’Application for Membership in The R d S A. , , . - Active I hereby apply for Associate membership in the R d S A, and subscribe to the constitution thereof, Name.................. A< dress. ....... . Scientific training, if any. and Interests........ ■ i 3end this anrllcation*; v,ith Si "Xied___________ . - — -xx.—— — ——■ —* Dear Price, Higley1s letter will explain the other stuff. Made changes in letter to him not noted on carbon. His comments on the ruin remind me of an instance which occurred yesterday. I entered the office of a friend and showed him reprint of geology article, asking him if he wanted some light reading. An old fellow I knew was there and he asked me if I had read anything of the Townsend Plan and I told him solemnly that that was about the lightest reading I had ever done. He didnt 1get’ it but the business man did. The pre-Adamites seem to believe.that people disagree with the thing through ignorance. The thing seems to be an obsession once it is taken up seriously, and reason has no show against an obsession--and there are mighty few people I have found who can reason even without an obsession. That piece of folly is our greatest handicap. In a way the best thing we can do is to ignore it and go ahead offering other reasons for disbelieving in uniformity. Actually the only real progress we can make in our League--at least one of the biggest hopes of progress--is to have the machinery under the control of the scientists rather than the theologians, and the more people who are with us who think contrary to us, the better. They may edge over to reason and sanity in the course of time. As a matter of fact I long ago gave up any real hope of the theologians and believed that there was far more hope of the out and out evolutionists and scientists than there was of the church crowd. The BIG job there I believed was to induce the scientists to open their eyes a little, but the insistence of the Fundamentalists on folly in opposing evolution seemed to be the biggest handicap we had. Now I think that the wedge is driven in and I am convinced that a year from now there will truly be a great difference in things amon$ the scientists. Meanwhile the Fundamentalists will be fussing about pre-Adamic ruin and trying to bring what discredit they can on the cause, (Now that is far too strong:-their intent will be the best.) No other news except that it is semi-raining this morning, a very slow rain. Hitherto not enough rain this season to really get the grass up, so we are delighted. Work in fine shape, or at least done up so that nothing is pressing. place, indepen- Oh, there is this possibility: a man has lived on the though not employed by me, but he has helped a lot; a good man, ------— dable through booze. Recently a friend of his has come and the two want to raise garden truck on shares next summer, etc. The new man seems far more dependable. I think at least that I can get off for some trips, and I was wondering if possibly I might put on a series in L.A. through the Science Guild or that Layman’s Bible S.L. and if it went well, campaign the country for creation. If it would pay expenses and do real good I could get a family on the place for the year and leave without worry. I think that now I can get a hearing. The big question in a way is the benefit to THe cause. If you have any pronounced opinions about it, let me know. Personally I am more encouraged over the science crowd than anything else. I have made some small profit on turkeys this season, with the layout promising excellent for systematic turkey production next year. In other words the ranch business looks comfortable hereafter, with a general layout that should give me plenty opportunity for study end work by simply staying here. Altogether I am more encouraged on this creation business and ranch work too than I have been since coming here. Errand to town this PM, so should get this letter off today. Yours, Sxeter, Cal., December 19$ 1925. Dear Price, Until you mentioned it the other day I had about forgotten that there was such a paper as the C.F. & L. Apparently,there was nothin# I could do for it when that New Jersey man was running it, so I asked to be dropped from the mailing list. However I may have something to interest them, and not knowing the layout, present address, etc., 1 am forwarding something I have just written to you, trusting that you can send it along to the right person, provided you think it is worth - - - -.................. — less of this while. There is a chance sort of stuff. I dont go at least show that science that I might give them more or much on it, but it may do some is not all for the enemy. good. It will This comes from program of geological society. Do not know whether you get it or not. If not and you want to see it, let me know and I can forward my copy. And you possibly can improve my stuff, or read copy on it, before forwarding. The most amusing feature of the program—to me--is that my paper is listed only by title; no abstract; no suggestion what I am trying to say, which was that rubidium, SQ4, and helium in the atmosphere showed that the earth was not old. I am wondering if they thought they would be disgraced by even putting down such a pre-pos-ter-ous idea--paper accepted only not to offend Lane. It makes me chuckle. Well, I saw some other stuff there that interested me and last night wrote Lane about it. The letter may interest you. Although you do not, I think, accept my scheme of volcanic activity, remember that the geologists do, so my argument ought to appear sound physics to them. The argument I give is freakish, of course; I am not betting anything on it, but by simple reasoning I'm switched if it i±$t a better hypothesis than any they put forth. This stuff I enclose is not, as I said, anything to hurrah about, but it has been my idea that similar material (in type) should be given out as by our association to the religious and other press; that we should have a regular committee to OK it, censor it, etc., and send it out in name of the association. Apparently such a program is OUT, so if any paper--------- wants this sort of thing I am willing to get it up as it develops and send it along. If G.±. & L. wants it, well and good. If they do want it, I trust they will let me know and put me on the mailing list. s If letter from Clark. He has the right idea about stuff into hands of editors. Whether the machinery suggested! say’ l®ast gives something to work on. anything like that is used I think the directors, not the secretary will have to take the initiative. They are the ones that by rights should do to*H and'think1!^?!3?^ fi?0* st^ff I had written on the ruin business to h and think I will let the matter drop, or follow it un onlv on invito “t announcement particularly stated that we ought to get togZtter /3ames white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Yours, f 0AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Sxeter, Calif December 11 19^5 BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN * » ^C^moer ±1, 1930. HERITAGE ROOM Dear Price, Glad, to get your reaction on Volcanism paper, etc. Higley had. promised, those papers; first on the days of creation and second, on the ruin theory, before our association was started, so it is all right for him to go through with it. And Higley’s sponsorship of that theory will give the association far more standing than if he was a Flood geologists among the Fundamentalists. They would, be suspicious of us; not of him, so it is all right. Hut if Moodys has me criticize that position, it is chaos for sure. I think I can ferret out the weaknesses of a theory pretty well. Now as a matter of fact I’m just a ’honin’ to have a pronouncement on that theory by a committee of men whose opinion would carry weight There would be nothing that would set our association as an outstanding agency for determining what is what than a pronouncement by some big men that the ruin theory was punk, or that it would not fit geological ages, or that it could only be accepted upon such and such conditions : a Supreme Court kind of a decision, so to speak. It is a Fundamentalist dogma; and when I say dogma in that connection I mean DOGMA and then some. Schofield said it; other commentators said it; all but a few conservatives said it. When Rimmer wanted to talk days of creation, ruin theory was a matter of course. The thing is an obsession. I do not think that you, as an Adven -tist where that theory has no standing, can auite realize what a grip that has. Mauro, for instance, was excommunicated from Fundamentalist circles for daring to disagree with Schofield. But if we can get a real analysis of the thing, pro by H. and contra by D.J.W., and a decision by an impartial committee, it should make a sensation, no matter what that decision is. I have been working on it on occasional evenings and hope soon to get the thing fixed up so that I can send it to H., letting him do what he wants with it. Let that theory be ruined and they will have to decide about what they should believe. So far, of course, they have been all mixed up between geological ages, Flood geology and ruin, believing all at once; endorsing all at once. So it was with the old Bible Champion. On this Volcanism business I figure it just fills out the Flood theory beautifully. It means positively that there was a great period of ruin and reconstruction of the face of the earth not long ago when the fossils were buried. Well, if that is not the Flood, what was it? The far larger part of the face of the earth is composed of sedimentary rock, not plutonic rock, and that is FLOOD. Of course in my article I ignored the flood proposition on account of my audience. Then Genesis says of the Flood that the fountains of the deep were broken up, an apparent intimation that water issued in great amounts from within the earth. I get water from within the earth as my agency for disturbance. (I do not disbar other agencies of disturbance, of course.) On elevation, the sedimentary rocks were laid down in water. Many are far above water flthe ocean), so we have elevation. There is no way to get away from it. Now look at Genesis. The Ark grounded when no land was in sight. It was months before the land was drained so that there were real mountains and it was possible to go out on that land. I see w-thing else but what the mountains the earth over were being uplifted during these months. Now physicists assert that the earth is as rigid as a ball of steel. We know how solid graniteand other rock is (unweathered) and when a thousand feet of earth’s crust is piled on rock; and 20,000 °f th9 9arth 1163 a mi«hty foundation. Therefore -as mountains ^fess youSgettXnkinroh?1vo?tn?Planatr??1fOr th* Uplift °f that the volcanism of the~orT~ina I v 1 ?- 1 11 asr" h9artily period may have been an^pmfb^y wa^ f^iiWer^n^from^ r9a^\tra3nt of today I fhinv i-ine>4- <.iL " * ar airrerent from the volcanism Flooded tL*S water X ^erv^loo™ in ?V?10aflls» of the temperature of the volcanism was far less th£ftX“?t9riB1; als° that tlB . . ™ critical point is that, given an earth whose underpinning is as it now is, and the wapar could slosh and slosh over it without loosening S^m!nt by a raile as is now loosened. That is Davies’ ardent that tne fl^od could not have laid down the sediments. That argument is wnat started me on my figuring regarding the nature of the earth « t th* time of Creation and at the time of the Flood I fixmraAw with a hot earth, the surface would be a water glafs^Jd tte ^ater^om® ing out of that on cooling, would leave a lot’of• loose “ater^a? with piant xood very available—altogether unlike a hardened lava- and I figured that such a loose surface would provide more sediment after a Flood to?:11 as We n0W' Th9n 1 k9^ with analysis^and^ , i1S til|S4>anf?'e t00; tile S'0*!011 of the Flood was just the slosnmg back and forth of great waves, it amazes me that the loose material was not washed out on to ocean floor. Instead it qaarnq -bn inexr?icA^d On th9 °°?.tin9ntal areas from which it came. The thing seems inexplicable upon anything except a miraculous basis. However by having tne sediments deposited at or beneath sea level, and then having the continents uplifted gradually, the way the Ark seems to have risen^during the months following its first grounding, the concentration of the sediments in continental areas seems fairly reasonable. seo-imenps On the general proposition I can just say, that on a rigid 0ar^* such as we have, no mechanical explanation exists for the uplift of the mountains. The geologists are stumped by my dare on that. But volcanism does give us a known agency for the disturbance of the face of the earth. THerefore I challenge the geologists: "Uplift of mountains and material changes in level of the face of the earth come only through volcanism. I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts to any of them that they can., beat tnat challenge. So there I am; strategically I am in a gorgeous place.Tiemy case for a young earth with this system of geologic history and i ve got •Ucam aii Tin ft traa and Lane knows it. So you see I have them on two points of fundamental importance. Hither point is big enough and when they come together there is nothing left My strategy, however ^ *0 fight mint separately; then to put them together. And when you ligule ip that this volcanism proposition calls for the Flood°geology. whnia face of the earth I think you will agree that it fits lj-L?o\g90J;?gy Sfcourse’there are a lot of angles to it I am not discussing here, but this covers the high spots. fA j 1 «1.. tav. ». Wb th!. rUJJ year's farming; not much, but my expenses are so mooe discussion royalties I'd «»., Now whether I’d get my money back or not I do not know. An essential part of the proposition is whether I could get the thing published or not. If I couldnt, I’d be out of luck. If I could I’d almost be willing to pocket the expense for the sake of showing the public that the scientists could not stand investigation. I want to hear what comes of my Society paper before I put this up to Lane. Maybe I wont have to. I’ve written to Benson to see what he thought of the prospect of the publication of such a work. As I see it, if I could ruin the long chronology—1,800 million years-r-and trim it down to say 50,million years, it ought to give me a standing among the geologists that would give me a hearing. If I trimmed it down to a few hundred thousand years, evolution would blow up with the loudest kind of a BOOM, and I think that Lane is fair enough to really face the music too. He has acted that way. Thus far in my correspondence with him I have avoided discussion of geologic theory, save only in relation to the nature of the primitive earth and the age of the earth. I am simply waiting for the argument to be submitted to me, in discussion for blood, which is to say, for publication, that the ages need more time than I will allow. Then I’ll come in with coal by drift, and quick deposit generally, ^knd right there the good ship GEOLOGY is sunk. At least, that is my pro-\gram. The strategy of geologic theory is to let him take the initiative to prove standard doctrine. I dont attack it until he argues it to sustain a long period of time. Oh, well, what’s the use discussing that now. I only thought I’d show you my hand. You might give me your idea of my chance of getting discussion published. As a matter of fact association program is decidedly of secondary importance to my dealings with the geologists now. I think there is more hope for the geologists. Enclose letter from Keyes. No need to return it, I may have my case against Pre-Adamic theory ready in a few days. If you want to see it I’ll send you carbon. And I think that covers everything. I have vzritten to Keyes asking him if he would stage a discussion between Lane and me in the Geologist, using the type for book. I know nothing about geological magazines. Never saw anything but this. Lane refer-fted me to it;Keyes plays the game, so that’s that. (And biology, not geol-gy is my line too. Pure physics has been my foundation, plus chemistry, in my work. Pure physics is the most neglected subject among geologists— and among most Fundamentalists. Anyhow action seems to be developing. Hope you feel more satisfied with the way my ideas fit the Flood idea. Yours, D.J.W. JAMES White i .ANDREWS UNI' .BERRIEN SPRINGS, I HERITAGE Ri CONSTITUTION OF THE RELIGION AND SCIENCE ASSOCIATION 1. The name of this organization shall the The Religion and Science Association. 2» The purpose of this association shall he to investigate various problems of science in their relations to religious belief, particularly their relations to the Holy Scriptures, and to make public the findings of such investigations. 3. The officers and members assert their disagreement with the principle of evolution which governs so much of the thinking of modern scientists, this principle being that nature must be interpreted solely in terms of conmon-place or ’’natural” processes, through the alleged action of matter upon matter in accordance with the so-called *prop-erties” of matter. In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy, the officers and members affirm their conviction that the various phenomena of nature are only the objectified ways in which the God of nature conducts the affairs of His universe; that He is not hampered by any so-called ’’laws” of nature or ’’properties” of matter; and that He often has made matter act in ways that transcend what we call natural processes. They affirm their belief that definite acts of fiat Creation were used in the origin and the ordering of this earth and its inhabitants, and also in the rest of the universe. They also affirm that the Bible account of the origin and history of the earth and of mankind is correct and should be believed. 4. The governing body of this association shall be a Board of five Directors, who shall select a President, a Vice President, a Secretary-Treasurer, and such other officers as they shall determine. 9. Lfembership in this association shall be of two grades: (1) active members, who alone shall be eligible to vote and hold office; (2) associate members, To become an active member one must hold a position in some recognized institution of learning; or have had special training in natural science; or have made a special study of some problem of science which has a direct bearing upon religious faith. One may become an associate member by subscribing to the constitution of the association and paying a registration fee of one dollar. 6. The election of directors shall be held annually. Active members may make nominations, any person receiving the endorsement of five members being placed on the ballot. The five persons who receive the most votes shall be considered elected. In case of an interim vacancy in the directorate, a majority of the directors may appoint a new director for the unexpired term. 7, Amendments and changes in the Constitution may be made by a four-fifths vote of the directorate; but all such proposed changes shall be brought to the attention of the active members before the next annual election of officers, and a majority vote of the active members against any such changes at the annual election of officers shall cancel the proposed changes. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY (ANDREWS UNIVERSITY A H r QU3CKM3HT Berrien springs, Michigan HERITAGE ROOM OF THS S2&X&Q3 aMj) SC138CS ASSOCIATION >,1 levinj as we do that Cod is the aUUior of all true science as well as of the Christian Scriptures, we deplore the present, situation in which, under the dominance of the evolution theory, the educated world has largely accepted the idea that science has proved >aany important tenets of the Christian faith to he false* We believe that many scholars all over the world are not content to allow this situation to continue. We believe that the philosophy of nature which Is based on tlie theory of evolution la false, and we recognise many Instances ?/hore the adoption of this theory has led scienr-tlsts to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by objective facts and common sense. In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy, we take the position that $0d not only created matter U Vie beginning, but that He still is in direct control of all the processes and phenomena of nature? and although He conducts the affairs of His '-WllwiMpe® 1M ways which we term the laws of nature, yet He can act and lias acted in other ways which transeesd a»i in our finite knowledge seem contrary to what we term natural law. Especially must we emphasise the great truth that there are »o present-acting natural processes which can explain how anything really originated in the beginning. From this utter failure to explain origins in terras of present processes, we rightly infer that there mist have been a real Creation: (1) Sf th* stuff of which the universe is wades (2) of the first forms of organic life; (3) of typical examples of all tto distinct kinds of plants and animals; (4 ) of mon. Thus we are compelled to own that* while the perpetuation of the present order of things may be termed natural, yet the origins all t were not natural, but distinctly suiernatTiral. J3y the Christian view of nature we jjrrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and 'inlmals more reasonable than can be obtained by following the tlieory of evolution. The results of true science are seen to be in full accord with tile 3ible record, taking the latter in Its simple and natural meaning. 3nt while Christian scholars are oat of harmony with the teachings of geology and biology, as wll as with the materialistic set-up of psychology and sociology as taught at the present time la many colleges and universities, it Is a matter of regret that they do not agree as to the best methods of meeting these errors. In the field of geology, for example, «vw accept the history of the rocks and the fossils as Wight by the evolutionists» Mt think that the six periods 4f the first chapter of Geasalfl mst correspond with the geological ages. Others say that Vie so “ages*’ never really occurred, Mt the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary, not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils. Still others assert that Vie six periods of Great!o were really periods of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, though tn holding this view they seldom attempt to decide what was the actual geological history of the earth. Xn ether words, those who believe in the inspiration ?.nd accuracy of Vie 3ible and agree in condemning the teachings Of evolution, do not by any means agree aiaong themselves about some of the most vital parts of their belief. For these reasons a number of Christian scholars have ’inlted t© form the Heliglon and Science Association, their object being t© present a ‘lalted front against the theory of evolution all around ns, and te study all aspects of natural science in their relation to the Christian religion. Three main purposes have been before the minds of the organisers: First, to correct the errors into which the false philosophy of evolution has led as modern scholars; second, to settle definitely aa possible what should be believed by Christians on all those vexed points wherein modern science seems to conflict with tlw Christian faith; third, to make public their findings on these matters. Cooperation In this work from all persons sympathetic with these purposes will -be welcomed. An active and enlightening program has Men planned. Persons who may desire membership in Via Association will please write t© the Resident or to the Secretary-Treasurer, as given here 1th. 1. Allen Higley, Jrh. D., ge.# ^resident. Jfroatsn College, rdheaV>n# XlltnelB. Dudley Joseph ^hitmey, demretary^Teosurwr. Exeter, California. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ^ANDREWS UNIVERSITY 1MK0UICSIBIT Berrien springs, Michigan HERITAGE ROOM OF THS •’t R3LIGIOE‘ -,U© SCIWa * WOCIAWJS '1 Believing as we do that lod Is the author of all tr’ie SSlefioe as well as of the Christian Scriptures* we deplore the present situation in which* under the dominance of the evolution tdecry, Ui educated world has largely accented the idea that science has proved many important tenets Of the Christian faith to be false. We believe that many scholars all over Vie world are not content to allow this situation to continue. We believe that the philosophy of nature which is based on the theory of evolution is false* and we recognise many instances where th® adoption of this t^ieory has led scientists to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by objective facts and comon sense. In opposition to this naturalistic philogop- j» wetake the position that $0d not only created ragtter in the beginning, bat that He still is in direct control of $11 the processes and phenomena of nature; and although de conducts the affairs of His universe in orderly ways which we term the laws of nature* yet He can act and has acted in other ways which transcend and in our finite knowledge seem contrary t© what we terra natural law. Especially raugt we emphasise the great truth that there are no present-acting natural processes which can explain ho? anything really originated in the beginning. From this utter failure to explain origins in terms of present processes* we rightly infer that there ranst have been a real Creation: (1) of the stuff of which Vie universe is mode* (2) of the first forms of organic life; (3) of typical examples of all the distinct kinds of plants and -viimals; (4 ) of man. Thus we are compelled to own that* while Vie perpetuation of the present order of things may be termed natural, yet the origins of all tilings were not natural* but distinctly supernatural. By the Christian view of nature we arrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and animals more reasonable than con be obtained by following the theory of evolution. The resuits of true science are seen to be in full accord /ith the Bible record, taking the latter in its simple and natural meaning 3nt while Christian scholars are out of harmony with the teachings of evolutionary geology and biology, as well as with the materialistic set-np of psychology and sociology as taught at the present time In many colleges and ’diversities, it is a mtter of regret that they do not agree as t© the best methods ef meeting these errors* In the field of geology, for example, many accept the history of the recks and the fossils as taught by the evolutionists, but think that the six periods of the first chapter of Cenosis mist correspond with the geological ages* ethers say that these ’’ages’* never really occurred, but the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary» not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils* Still others assert that the six periods of Creatio, were really periods of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, though In holding this view they seldom attempt to decide what was the actual geological history of the earth. In other words, those who believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and agree ia condemning the teachings of evolution, do not by any means agree among themselves about some of the most vital parts of their belief. For these reasons a number of Christian scholars have united to form the asliglen and 3oiefi0 Association, their object being to present a united front against the theory of evolution all around ns, and to study aU SB>wt(, of s8Ua#o f to the Christian rell-lon. Three main P’irnoses have bean before Us minds of the wsa»-isors: First, to oor-eot the vr»s into which the false jMl*8»phy of evolution has led nolern eoholarsi second, to settle definitely on possible what should be Sieved by J Christians on all those vexed joints wherein modern science seems to eonfllet with Uie Christian faiths third, to make pabllc tholr ri^ln^s on t!wiJS Cooperation iw wrk fr0B be welcomed, .tn aetlve e* enli^enln, tean iM-bership in the Assentation will Please erlt, to the Resident or to the dooretary-treasurer, as given licre .1th. 1. Allen Higley, ph. 3., s. n-0Bldent. Wheaton College, -/heaten, Illinois. »*Uey Joseph «Utney, Ceoretary-Treasurer. A California* a a a o u » c s a % a « of the AJB WMbMOd JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ^ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM ^Having as we do that God la the Author of all true science as wll as of the Christian Scriptures, w deplore ths present situation in ^hlch, under th© dminanoe of the evolution theory, the educated world &&$ largely accepted the Idea tliat science has proved «tuv important tenets of the Christian faith to he false* W believe that may sohclarr all over the world are not content to all©^ this situation to continue. believe that tn© philosophy ©f nature which is based on ths tlieory of evolution is false, and we recognise many instances where the adoption of this theory has led scientists to OMM&OKiMB which are flatly eontradiotod by objective facts and common sense. In oyposttton to this naturalistic philosophy, tsis the position thr.t *W ©wly created matter in the beginning, but that Me is still in diroat control of all the processes and phenomena of nature; and although Us ccndwts the affairs of His uni verso in orderly ways which ww tom t)ie laws of nature, yet Us eon act and often has acted in other ways which transcend and may scorn to ©ur finite knowledge ^nito contrary to what tom fi&U.al law, ^specially must We emphasise the great truth that there ar© n© resont-aGting natural BrOoosses which can explain how anything really originated In the beginning. From this utter to explain origins in terms of present processes, we rightly infer that there must have been a real Creation* (1) of the stuff of which the universe is mdo; (2) of the first foma of organic life; ($) of typical exi^plea of all th© distinct kinds of plants and animals, including mn. Wki w ore compelled to w» that, while the perpetuation of the present order of thin&s may be temsd natural, yet the real origins of all tilings wore not natural* Isut distinctly fimp^matnral. “Thus by the Christian vlw of a-*turo w arrive at a concept!ou of the origin «Bd history of plants and animals more reasonable md soj*e correct t^ian eon be obtained ty following the theory of evolution. The results of trie scicao© ar© aeon to lie in full accord with the Mble record* taking the latter in Its simple and nat^d amning* < matter of farther regret is that* altho^h most Christian scholars deplore the teaanln^s of evolutionary geology and biolcjy* they do not .agree among themselves as to how the record of Genesis jand the te llings of other parts of the Mble can be in harmeny with Iho discoveries of solencc. " ■ accept the history of the remits Resells as taught by evdutionlstB* but think that th© six periods of the first chapter of Genesis must correspond with the ^ologioal sgee* Others soy that these **o&asn n&Htt really occurred, but mm the onlmla and plants found is the rocks wore crntampcrrj*y not ecnsec-utivo* .and W Flood ms responsible for the fossils- Still others assert that the six triads of treaties wre really periods Of mconstruetlcn of 3 previously ruined world, though In holding this view thsy soldoen atteivt to decide what was the actual geological history ©f the earth, in ether words* those v&o believe in the inspiration sM aocwraoy of the MMI Bible agree in ccnd^sanlng the teachings of evolution, do mt by any weans agree among thenaolves about 30m of the most vital parts of their belief. For all these Various reasons a amber of Christian scholars hoe wilted to fom The Religion ;ind Seieme Association, their object beix^ to rtaty all aspects of natural golenoe in their relation to th^ Christian rcli^icn# Three Jts^ln jFn*poeee been Wo-e the nimU of the or^niseret First* tc a«?rwt errors into ^hleh the false philosophy of evolution has led &&lorn scholars» second* to settle as definitely as possible what ghonld h# believed by Christians on all th* so vexed pointe ^wherein modern sc Unco eee^s te bo la conflict with the Christian faith! third, to ra?ikw ptfbllo tk^ir flMinjs on these «attors« Cooperation la this ^rk from all persons sj^tiietio to Veae P’.trpose® y/111 be welooied. An native usd enll^timlng W been planned. AnWM M^r desire .wi5t>Q in the AHSOoiatlon will please urite to t‘i«© ^Secgetar^^r*?«.>mrer, or to any or tTke other oy^anlsorB -yhose nr^g are ^iven horer'lth. i*« Allan Higley, . es -'• 3c»» ^gide-ht. h'heatOE College, Wheaton, Illinois. 4yren G* JSelsoa# Th. &•» Vice Pyagidant. Goonomowoc» Wisconsin. _ ataaaW. Oeorge Jtot&eaAy Hriae, H. ^tlrwan tha %*&>.. of Hamaae Walla Walla College* Gediosjo i*laoe> y/’tshtn^ton StsSe- Undlej- Joseph uMtw. 3. So., fisfiZ£&EJe3»®HF* Sxetar, Galiforala. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THS ORGANIZATION of The Religion and. Science Association, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY .BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room Believing as we do that God is the Author of all true science as well as of the Christian Scriptures, we deplore the present situation in which, under the dominance of the evolution theory, the educated world has largely accepted the idea that science has proved many important tenets of the Christian faith to "be false. We believe that many scholars all over the world are not content to allow this situation to continue. We denounce as false and mischievous the prevailing naturalistic philosophy which refuses to admit any event classed as "supernatural". The Creator of the universe is not to be hampered by his usual methods in the operation of nature which we may have observed in our very limited experienceo Via believe that the philosophy of nature which is based on the theory of evolution is false, and we recognize many instances where the adoption of tnis theory has led scientists to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by objective facts and common sense. In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy, we take the position that God not only created matter in the beginning, but that He is still in direct control of all the processes and phenomena of nature; and although He conducts the affairs of His universe in orderly ways which we term the laws of nature, yet He can act and often has acted in other ways which transcend and may seem to our finite knowledge quite contrary to what we term natural law. Especially must we emphasize the great truth that there are no presentacting natural processes which can explain how anything really originated in the beginning. From this utter failure to explain origins in terms of present processes, we rightly infer that there must have been a real Creation: (1) of the stuff of which the universe is made; (2) of the first forms of organic life; (3) of typical examples of all the distinct kinds of plants and animals, including man. Thus we are compelled to own that, while the perpetuation of the present order of things may be termed natural, yet the real origins of all things were not natural, but distinctly supernatural. * Thus by the Christian view of nature we arrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and animals more reasonable and more correct than can be obtained by following the theory of evolution. The results of true science are seen to be in full accord with the Bible record, taking the latter in its simple and natural meaning. A matter of further regret is that, although most Christian scholars deplore the teachings of evolutionary geology and biology, they do not agree among themselves as to how the record of Genesis and the teachings of other parts of the Bible can be in harmony with the discoveries of science. Many accept the history of the rocks and the fossils as taught by evolutionists, but think that the six periods of the first chapter of Genesis must correspond with the geological ages. Others say that these "ages" never really occurred, but the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary and not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils. Still others assert that the six periods of creation were really periods of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, though in holding this view they seldom attempt to decide what was the actual geological history of the earth. In other words, those who believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and agree in condemning the teachings of evolution, do not.by any means agree among themselves about some of the most vital parts of their belief. 2 For all these various reasons a number of Christian scholars have united, to form the Religion and. Science Association, their object being to study all aspects of natural science in their relation to the Christian religion. Three main purposes have been before the minds of the organizens: First, to correct the errors into which the false philosophy of evolution has led. modern scholars; second, to settle as definitely as possible what should be believed by Christians on all those vexed points wherein modern science seems to be in conflict with the Christian faith; third, to make public their findings on these matters. Cooperation in this work from all persons sympathetic to these purposes will be welcomed. An active and enlightening program has been planned. Persons who may desire membership in the Association will please write to the Secretary-Treasurer, or to any of the other organizers whose names are given herewith. Dr. L.Allen Higley, President, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill. Rev. Byron C.Nelson, Vice-President, Oconomowoc, Wis. Prof. George McCready Price, Director, Walla Walla College, College Place,Wash Dr. Theo. Graebner, Director, Conco rdia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. Dudley Joseph Whitney, Seoretary-Treas-Sxeter, Calif. urer. ANNOUNCEMENT of the ORGANIZATION JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM of The Religion and. Science Association. Believing as we do that God. is the Author of all true science as well as of the Christian Scriptures, we deplore the present situation in which, under the dominance of the evolution theory, the educated world has largely accepted the idea that science has proved many important tenets of the Christian faith to be false. We believe that many scholars all over the world are not content to allow this situation to continue. We denounce as false and mischievous the prevailing naturalistic philosophy which refuses to admit any event classed as ”supernatural”. The Creator of the universe is not to be hampered in his usual methods in the operation of nature which we may have observed in our very limited experience. We believe that the philosophy of nature which is based on the theory of evolution is false, and we recognize many instances where the adoption of thisutheory has led scientists to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by ojactive facts and common sense. In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy, we take the position that God not only created matter in the beginning, but that He is still in direct control of all the processes and phenomena of nature; and although He conducts the anairs of His universe in orderly ways which we term, the laws of nature, yet He can act and often has acted in other ways which transcend and may seem to our finite knowledge quite contrary to what we term natural law. Emphatically must we emphasize the great truth that there are no presentacting natural processes which can explain how anything really originated in the beginning. From this utter failure to explain origins in terms of present processes, we rightly infer that there must have been a real Creation: (1) of the stuff of which the universe is made; (2) of the first forms of organic life; (3) of typical examples of all the distinct kinds of plants and animals, including man. Thus we are compelled to own that, while the perpetuation of the present order of things may be termed natural, yet the real origins of all things were not natural, but distinctly supernatural. Thus by the Christian view of nature we arrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and animals more reasonable and more correct than can be obtained by following the theory of evolution. The results of true science are seen to be in full accord with the Bible record, taking the latter in its simple and natural meaning. A matter of further regret is that, although most Christian scholars deplore the teachings of evolutionary geology and biology, they do not agree among themselves as to how the record of Genesis and the teachings of other parts of the Bible can be in harmony with the discoveries of science. Many accept the history of the rocks and the fossils as taught by evolutionists, but think that the six periods of the first chapter of Genesis must correspond with the geological ages. Others say that these ”ages" never really occurred, but the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary and not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils. Still others assert that the six periods of creation were really periods of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, though in holding this view they seldom attempt to decide what was the actual geological history of the earth; In other words, those who believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and agree in condemning the teachings of evolution, do not by any means agree among themselves about some of the most vital parts of their belief. 2 For all these various reasons a number of Christian scholars have united, to form the Religion and. Science Association, their object being to study all aspects of natural science in their relation to the Chris-Gian religion. Three main purposes have oeen before the minds of the organizers: First, to correct the errors into which the false philosophy or evolution has led modem scholars; second, to settle as definitely as possible what should be believed by Christians on all those vexed points wherein modern science seems to be in conflict with the Christian faith; third, to make public tneir findings on these matters. Cooperation in this work from all persons sympathetic to these purposes will be welcomed. An active and enlightening program has been planned. Persons who may desire membership in the Association will please write to the Secretary-Treasurer, or to any of the other organizers whose names are given herewith. Dr. L.Allen Higley, President, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill. Rev. Byron C.Kelson, Vice-President, Oconomowoc, Wis. Prof. George McCready Price, Director, Walla Walla College, College Place,Wash Dr. Theo. Graebner, Director, Conco rdia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. Dudley Joseph Whitney, Secretary-Treas Sxeter, Calif urer. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN ANNOUNCEMENT HERITAGE ROOM of the BELIGION AND SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Believing as we do that God is the author of all true science as well as of the Christian Scriptures, we deplore the present situation in which* under the dominance of the evolution theory* the educated world has largely accepted the idea that science has proved many important tenets of the Christian faith to be false* We believe that many scholars all over the world are not content to allow this situation to continue* We believe that the philosophy of nature which is based on the theory of evolution is false* and we recognize many instances where the adoption of this theory has led scientists to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by objective facts and common sense* In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy* we take the position that God not only created matter in the beginning* but that He is still in direct control of all the processes and phenomena of nature* and although He conducts the affairs of His universe in orderly ways which we term the laws of nature* yet He can act and often has acted in other ways which transcend and may in our finite knowledge seem quite contrary to what we term natural law* Especially must we emphasize the great truth that there are no present-acting natural processes which can explain how anything really originated in the beginning* From this utter failure to explain origins in terms of present processes* we rightly infer that there must have been a real Creation: (1) of the stuff of which the universe is made. (2) of the first forms of organic life; (3) of typical examples of all the distinct kinds of plants and animals* including man* Thus we are compelled to own that* while the perpetuation of the present order of things may be termed natural* yet the real origins of all things were not natural* but distinctly supernatural* Thus by the Christian view of nature we arrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and animals more reasonable and more correct than can be obtained by following the theory of evolution* The results of true science are seen to be in full accord with the Bible record, taking the latter in its simple and natural meaning* A matter of further regret is that, although most Christian scholars deplore the teachings of evolutionary geology and biology, they do not agree among themselves as to how the record of genesis and the teachings of other parts of the Bible can be in harmony with the discoveries of science* Many accept the history of the rocks and the fossils as taught by evolutionists, but think that the six periods of the first chapter of Genesis must correspond with the geological ages* Others say that these "ages" never really occurred, but the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils* Still others assert that the six periods of Creation were really periods of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, though in holding this view they seldom attempt to decide what was the actual geological history of the earth* In other words* those who believe in the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and agree in condemning the teachings of evolution, do not by any means agree among themselves about some of the most vital Parts of hheir belief* 2 For all these various reasons a number of Christian scholars have united to form The Helihion and Science Association* their object being to study all aspects of natural science in their relation to the Christian religion. Three main purposes been before the minds of the organizers: First* to correct the errors into which the false philosophy of evolution has led modern scholars* second* to settle as definitely as possible what should be believed by Christians on all those vexed points wherein modern science seems to be in conflict with the Christian faith* third* to make public their findings on these matters* Cooperation in this work from all persons sympathetic to these purposes will be welcomed* An active and enlightening program has been planned. Persons who may desire membership in the Association will please write to the Secretary-Treasurer* or to any of the other organizers whose names are given herewith. L. Allen Higley, Ph. D.» D. Sc., Prefliflent. Wheaton College* Wheaton* Illinois. Byron C. Nelson* Th. M. * Vice President. Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. Dudley Joseph Whitney, B. Sc., Secretary-Treasurer. BOARD OF DIRECTORS George McCready Price* M. A«» ghalr°ah* I. Allen Higley. Byron C. Nelson. Theodore Graebner* D. D.* Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. J. D. Eggleston, LI. D., President of Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia. 11J t f I 9 1111 S of the HELIGIOH aSD 3CIS3C3 g ASSOCIAT1OS J Believing aS w do that God is th© author of all true science as well as of the Christian Scriptures, w deplore the present situation in which, under the dominance of the evolution theory, the educated world has largely accepted the idea that science lias proved many important tenets of the Christian faith to be false. We believe that many scholars all over the world are not content to allow this situation to continue. We iielieve that the philosophy of nature which is based on the theory of evolution is false, and we recognise many instances vjhoro the adoption of this theory has led scientists to conclusions which are flatly contradicted by objective facts and ccmraon sense. In opposition to this naturalistic philosophy, we take the po Itlon that God not Only created matter in the beginning, but that He is still in direct control of all the processes and phenomena of nature, and although Ue conducts the affairs of His universe in orderly ways which we term the laws of nature, yet He can act and often has acted in other Yfatfg which transcend and may in our finite knowledge seem quite contrary to what wo tens natural law. Especially must we emphasise the great truth that tliere are no present-acting natural processes which can explain how anything really originated in the beginning. From this utter failure to explain origins in terms of present processes, we rlghrly infer that there must have been a real Creation: (1) of the stuff of which the universe is mde; (2) of the first forms of Organic life; (3) of typical examples of all tile distinct kinds of plants and animals, including Thus WB are compelled to own that, while the perpet nation of the present order of things may be termed natural, yet thr real origins of all things ware not natural, hut distinctly super natnirnl. Thus by the Christian view of nature we arrive at a conception of the origin and history of plants and animals more reasonable and more correct than c*in be obtained by following the theory of evolution. The results of true science are seen to be in full accord with the Bible record, taking the latter in its simple and natural meaning. A matter of further regret is that, although most Christian scholars deplore the teachings of evolutionary geology and biology, they do not agree among themselves as to how the record of genesis and the teachings of other parts of the Bible Can be in harmony i*ith the discoveries of science. Jfeny accept the history of tlxe rocks and the fossils as taught by evolutionists, but think that the six periods of the first chapter of Genesis must correspond with the geological ages. Others say that these nagesn never really Occurred, but the animals and plants found in the rocks were contemporary not consecutive, and the Flood was responsible for the fossils. Still others assert that tlie six periods of Creation were really periods Of reconstruction of a previously ruined world, tnvuga in holding this view tney seldom attempt to decide what was tike actual geologlccA history of the earth. In other words, those vdio believe In the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible and agree in condemning the teachings of evolution, do not by any means agree among themselves about sc-i® of the most vital ports of hheir belief. 2 rn^ L*heS! T^1011*5 r9a30ns “ ^nber of Christian scholars have united to iOx.11 The lellulion and bolenoc Association, their object being to study all aspects of tef£^t“ mi£ reXaf10n t0 *** religion. TJu-eeXn yurXes been before the winds of the organisers" First, to correct the errors Into which the false philosopv Of evolution has led modern scholars; second, to settle as definitely as seionce6^ ^k3hriatian3 on 911 those vexed points wherel^ modern soienoe seems to be in conflict with the Christian faith; third, to r.xke Public their findings on these mtterg. cooperation in this work from all persons sympathetic to these pnrposes will be weleoned. An active and enlightening program has been planned. Persons who may desire membersnip in the Association will please write to the Secretary-Tre-surer, or to any of the other organisers whose names are given herewith* L. Allen Higley, yh, D», D. 3c», i^regldent• Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, 3yr on c. Molson, ’Th. M., Vice -rregident, f Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. Dudley W^xltney* 3. Sc., gecretary^reagurer. 3COD OF DIMSCTC^S George ifcCready Price, H. a., ffuirmn. J», Allen Higley, 3yron C. .’lelson, Sheolore Graebner, ]), ])., Concordia theological Seminary, St. Louis, lUssouri. «•» D. Eggleston, LI. D., President of Ka«®d«»~Sydney College, Buapden-sydney, Vir.-inia, To the Directors of The Religion ant Science Association—Gentlemen:- I had pi nnod on the completion of the directorate to write a general letter taking up certain auesticns regarding the conduct of the association? but a letter from Kr. Nolo on to Price and re on some of these things leads mo to write now. The Idy of a long list of directors. X hope this will not be necessary, since icr efficient operation we mist keep the m&chineiy compact and five directors seem to me to be the limit unless the directors decide to give full authority to a small committee. This is in effect having a small directorate. And, by listing men of standing and ability, who wish to help in this work, as mothers of an Advisory Board we can get full advertising value from their names and such advice ana oimr help ae they may give. They can act as chairmen and members of committoes and in any way that a director could act. This is my opinion, but of course the directors have the management of the association. "JA to Usi to ami on prwounoywnta". Agreement on these as 1 see it is not essential. In fact I think to send around a comprehensive discussion of some subject to even five men and to get* them to ikgree on a public pronouncement regarding it would be difficult and cumbersome. Ivon the Supreme Court does not agree on its pronouncements, but they have full weight nevertheless. -'y idea on this matter has been this. I go into it in detail because it seems to me to be a very Important part of our work. We take up some subject for a real InvestIg tien, say the meaning of the six days of creation—a thing Bolson, Price und I have already discussed somewhat—and decide upon several mon (non members ccwld be included) to discuss different phases of this problem. The different papers are submitted to the chairman of announcement committee. He decides whit conclusions should be readied on the subject and prepares a statement. If he finds data insufficient or some argument faulty, he may call on one of the authors to supply the deficiency. Ho submits his conclusions to the other members of the committee. They can record ”1 concur’', or they can disagree if they wish. Their findings can then be made public. They should be submitted to the President or some definite dlx-octor before publioa-»ion. Thia i ould not co^ltt any lx * ?tor or member to the view st tod. A pubic report where disagreement was given would be just as valuable as a unanimous conclusion. Furthirmore I think that with the publicity that certainly would be given such pronouncements some publishing house would be very glad to publish as book or booklet the papers upon which the pronouncements ^ere based. For chairmen o f eueh a committee I should like to see Kathan G, Moore, a Chicago attorney who is the author of a book on evolution, as he will hive a good scientific background and will be skilled both in deciding evidence and preparing decisions on preblWs* 3o-e Chicago ‘ , say Ironside, mlgM serve on a committee with him and when they hive finished their report it could be send to the president for his decision, than made public. Or, considering the high standing of Wheaton College, a committee of faculty members there would bo ideal for this. The less sending around of material, the better. Vaher Is -Hirono logy. Illustrating the way the machine might work on a definite case, we will take this subject, Kelson stating that ha should not like to htve his n me going out endorsing this. Personally I think this is an extremely important thing; that is, Usher’s basis of figuring chronology, allowing that ha may have been in error tn individual calculations. The fact that there is x.o agreem^t o n this provides on excellent reason for taking it up. Set us get some men to thresh out the problem; deliver their finding to a committee and tan committee can moke a public report. The comwittee may disagree among ths~salvos; even if they agree, it will not commit any officer of'the Assn to their conoiusltn, but the public can know what a Study of the subject indicates, and if w® have a publisher the reasons for reaching the conclusion can be obtained# Personally I feel that the reasons for accepting the principles upon which Usher founded his chronology are better than the" reasons for accepting a long chronology. One trouble with the church has been that when people disagree they either quarrel or refuse to investigate the subject- thus matters of the utmost importance are not studied. (The reason that the church as a whole knows not what it should believe about creation and all that goes with it is because there was not eHough study and thought. The purpose of our association should be to take up important questions that have been too «uch neglected. I am sure that pronouncements will be given great publicity by both the religious and secular press. They should be a great agency in clarifying belief and arousing public interest. A S tudy Group. Uelson states that his original idea was that we should be redly a study group, with pronouncements a side issue. A study group is what we should be, as I see it, and pronouncements in general should be the result easeful study, though general pronouncements could well be given now and then Afor propagenda. "Without ^igazine w® can’t do th-t." — As I said, I think tir?t cur prenouncewanta can be given wile publicity and that our studies would, as a result cf this publicity, be printed and circulated by some publishing house. They should be. We should take up important subjects that merited attention. There should be several authors for each subject, to round it out, and the report of the committee should be printed with it. There is no reason why several topics should not be in process’of preparation at one time, For publicity purposes pronouncements should comQ fali’ly often. Membership. For ’yy own part I see no occassion for securing a wide b e r s hip.' Uhl ess there is something for each to do I see no purpose in a wide membership. However, if th© association goes well, we might get up a monthly paper which would be the organ of the association, subscriptions 'going with paid membership. There are grounds for believing that such a paper would develop strong support, particularly since atheistic evolution forms the basis for much theorizing in modern science and most religion is forced into ’harmony’ •.th that kind of science when the two are joined. 3ut there is no hurry rbout mt. The first thing is tc get the association going and our studies and pronouncements published and given attention. Cur immediate object as X see it should be to get a list of"enough men of high standing as organizers of sponsors of the association to make ah' impression on the public waon the tiling is announced. If the public announcement could be published in full and mailed copies sent to all persons whom w© might wish as members an effective way to get membership, provided wo want ^^^bership, should be given. I believe a program committee should be appointed to pick out questions for study and a judicial committee (perhaps all at Wheaton) tc propare pronouncements. Tliero are other lines of work possible which I believe different directors will have in mind. Respectfully submitted by D.J.Whitney, Sooty. Exeter, Ctl., Sept 9, 1935. To the Directors of The Religion and Science Association—Gentlemen: - X had planned on the completion of the directorate to write a general letter taking up certain auastlons regarding the conduct of the association,* but a letter from "r. Nelson to Price and me on some of these things leads me to write now. The idea of a long list of directors. I hope this will not be necessary, since for efficient operation we must keep the machinery compact and five directors seem to me to he the limit unless the directors decide to give full authority to a small 'committee. This is in effect having a small directorate, And, by listing men of standing and ability, who wish to help in this work, as members of an Advisory Board we can get full advertising value from their names and such advice and other help as they may give. They can act as chairmen and members of committees and in tiny way thnt a director could act. This is my opinion, but of course the directors have the management of the association. ”Xt will he difficult to get o large to agree on pronouncements*. Agreement on t&ese as T see it is not esBenHai, In fact X tlilnk’To send around a co^prahonslve discussion of so^e subject to even five men and to get’them to B^.reo on a public pronouncement regarding it ould be difficult this subject, iielson stating that he should not like to have his name ^ing cut endorsing this. Personally I think this is an extremely important thing; that is, Usher1 s basis of figuring chronology, allo* Ing that he may have boon in error in individual calculations. The fact that there is no agreement o n this provides on excellent reason for taking it up. Let us get some men to thresh out the problem; deliver their findings to a committee and the committee can make a public report. The committee may disagree among themSdive3. aven if they agree, It will not commit any officer of the Assn to their conclusion, but the public can know what a study of the subject 2 indicates, and. if we have a publisher the reasons for reaching the conclusion can be obtained. Personally I feel that the reasons for accepting the r»rin-ciples upon which Usher founded his chronology are better than the reasons for accepting a long chronology. One trouble with the church has been that when people disagree they either quarrel or refuse to investigate the subject; thus matters of the utmost importance are not studied. The reason that the church as a whole knows not what it should believe about creation and all that goes with it is because there was not enough study and thought. The purpose of our association should be to take up important questions that have been too much neglected. I am sure that pronouncements will be given great publicity by both the religious and secular press. They should be a great agency in clarifying belief and arousing public interest. A Study Group. Nelson states that his original idea was that we should be really a study group, with pronouncements a side issue. A study group is what we should be, as I see it, and pronouncements in general should be the result ^f careful study, though general pronouncements could well be given now and then per propaganda. "Without a magazine we can’t do that." -- As X said, I think that our pronouncements can be given wide publicity and that our studies would, as a result of this publicity, be printed and circulated by some publishing house. They shouid be. We should take up important subjects that merited attention. There should be several authors for each subject, to round it out, and the report of the committee should be printed with it. There is no reason why several topics should not be in process 'of preparation at one time. For publicity purposes pronouncements should come fairly often. Membarship. For my own part I see no occassion for securing a wide mem. bership.' Unie s s t he r e is something for each member to do I see no purpose in a wide membership. However, if the association goes well, we might get up a monthly paper which would be the organ of the association, subscriptions going with paid membership. There are grounds for believing that such a paper would develop strong support, particularly since atheistic evolution forms the basis for much theorizing in modern science and most religion is forced into ’harmony’ «h that kind of science when the two are joined. But there is no hurry about t. The first thing is to get the association going and our studies and pronouncements published and given attention. Our immediate object as I see it should be to get a list of'enough men of high standing as organizers of sponsors of the association to make an impression on the public when the thing is announced. If the public announcement could be published in full and marked copies sent to all persons whom 'we might wish as members an effective way to get membership, provided we want membership, should be given. I believe a program committee should be appointed to pick out questions for study and a judicial committee (perhaps all at Wheaton) to prepare pronouncements. There are other lines of work possible which I believe different directors will have in mind. Respectfully submitted by D.J.Whitney, Secty. Sxeter, Cal., Sept 9, 1935. p AJAMES WHITE LIBRARY ^ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Deer Price, I enclose sent me ccrbon, but I Exeter, Cel., Sept. 14, 1975. herewith the fro letters you sent me. Nelson had am glad to note your markings. On the pronouncements (special reference to HTs letter) two kinds can be made. One statements sent forth in name of Assn on general propositions in which all can well agree: man created separately from the beasts, p certain measure of Flood geology must be allowed, etc., etc. This ’-ould be more for propaganda and to keep the newspapers employe^ than for anything else. Then there would be some deeper pronouncements: as on the ruin and reconstruction idea; to be madennly after special committee had put in evidence and another committee made a formal decision, a la Supreme Court. This really is where our genuine, constructive v-ork could come in. You remember at the time of the Scopes’ trial that the 18x. Com. of the A.A.A.S. announced that scientists were agreed that man descended from the beasts, and the excitement it aroused. Pronouncements rather than theories are THE thing and what makes NWS. for you Higley vent more into detail/on news prospects than for me. I cent see that a preliminary announcement would do any harm unless it might kill the formal and more comprehensive announcement later, but I am convinced that news could be given out to far more advantage at Wbe. Yearly addition from land 158,0007-000 tons plus for sodium; 75,000,000/for RgO^. This figures so that 1-nd drainage for 25,000 years would supply all the rubidium in the ocean, assuming that there was none there to start with--an unjusif-ieble assumption. And I have worked out a bunch of other lines: helium in atmosphere in relation to its increase; water from volcanoes in relation to amount in ocern, etc. There is another thing on which I have Lane puzzle! ; they say a white hot earth could contain no atmosphere and that the eprth was white hot. I point out that a white hot earth could not hold in ite body the material from which an ocean and atmosphere could be made either, and it has him somewhat buffaloed. Its a grer-t earth. Well, I am hoping that progress is good. I think that the more Wheaton can be played up in our association, the more influence it win have with the Fundamentalists, which is what we want, and I hope that the publicity job, and secretary’s job too, if it is to be anything important, can be switched over to Wheaton right soon. I have a most decided hunch that the pre-Ad^mic ruin idea is going to get a most horrible jolt once we get to work on it, and that if our president is going to come out in its favor in a big paper like Mood-ys, only to have the theory discredited a little later, things will look mighty funny. However, I say, let them go to it. I’ve never seen anything but craziness to that idea yet; I could respect! the age-flay idea ps having reason (though error) behind it, but that ruin idea was never anything but a grand and dreamy idea. No use writing more. Whitney. 1 L JAMES WHITE LIBRARY .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Sundry Afternoon, .Berrien springg, Michigan heritage room I would, not mail the enclosed, until tomorrow morning and since something hss been on my mind. . I rm going to talk about it a bit. That is the program in connection vith a decision upon the days of creation. The thing that holds my mind to this is the idea that H. has favoring the ruin idea and his article-to-be on the thing. Wheaton is TOT! college for Fundamentalists and the ruin idea is their solution. H’s coming article will be welcomed yith the utmost satisfaction. "There’s a real geologist, and that’s whkt he says”. Well and good; "Prone to do evil; slow to do wail" Or is it ’’good”? Never mind. Modern theologians have a bent for error. Now, you and I agree all the way along, seemingly, on the scheme of creation. Let us do a little planning on the condition confronting us. Seemingly H likes the idea of working out systematically certain problems of religion and creation, and the one I have suggested most stronglv and for first handling is, What were the days of Creation? That stuff I wrote and sent you suggested whet might be written on one phase of it. I sent H. the duplicate of it. H’s article covered somewhat the same angle. Now since H’s prospective article on the ruin idea is going to rock the boat I am inclined to believe that we had better cover the whole proposition while we are about it. There are three possibilities: 1. age-days. 2, literal days of an original creation- or#ordering. 7. reconstruction $sys. I am simply thinking that while we ere about it we had better cover the whole ground, end while we ere about it we had better decide what « 0 f^ES WHITE LIBRARY university heritage Rr'Tw ■ Sxeter, Cal., Sept. 6, 19*5. Dear Price, Your card of the 3rd clarifies the matter of Graebner’s ob- jections and leaves the ’'hole esse in a much more simple condition. It is remarkable how a slip like that of Nelson can demoralize a situation, and of course we would have no knowledge of the trouble. On the other hand I am inclined to believe that the delay resulting will be, on the who1e, an a dvan ta ge. It see^s to me that all ”e need now is the adopted constitution and pronouncement. Send copies of these to people we need as sponsors, asking them if they will let their names go outgas organizers or promoters or whatever term is best, and having the list Ve went, to shoot. Having made a lot of copies of both constitution and pronounce-ment--except last page of the latter--! will send you them, to use in this way, provided you wPnt to do so. You can, of course, divide them between G. &. N. if you wish. There are no individuals I have in mind myself, except those already mentioned. Since I believe that official pronouncements after careful statement of various sides of each proposition, a la Supreme Court, will be a very effective way of doing things, and since I think that Nathan Moore would be an excellent man to head that particular job, I hope he can be one man approached. Here also seems to me to be a good stunt: see that the manifesto, and perhaps the constitution, is printed in some paper, Moody’s might be best, but any would do. If G. edits two papers, let him use one. Then send marked copies of such paper to lists of prospective members, along with postcards saying that this would be done. And if we wanted copies of the constitution printed separately, have them printed by the publisher. What can be simpler than that? I called on local printer. 1000 copies ofd constitution with application blank, etc., of a size to fold and slip in envelope, would cost $9.50. I cant see that w© particularly need these, but if ’• e could get the whole thing done at some religious paper so ^uch the better. I have bought a lot of stamps, post cards and envelopes (the latter believing that I would soon mail pronouncement) but have some money left in treasury. However, we can easily pay for marked copies, etc. Have not gotten around to ’’rite to the L.A. list you sent, but will do so soon. Have been working away on MS. on nature of primitive earth and have been too interested to want to drop it for routine work that could be postponed. If I know anything at all I have something^ good there. J You may recall a note in which I mentioned that the increase in Rubidium Oxide in the ocean was enormous, but the amount there small: therefore the ocean could not be old. I put that up to Dr. Lane. Got a note from him today. He admits that this fl*bbCergasts him (my French), but mis-urusts the analyses upon ’-Pich figures are based. His note was pen and ink; his handwriting that of a scholar, which is to say, almost indecipherable, but I gather that my argument for the committee on the age of the earth is printed in their prospective report and will be mailed to m© soon. If so, I shall at last have gotten something of which the scientists have taken notice. Have applied for membership in the A.A.A.S. Wanted Science, cnd membership is cheaper than subscription without. Will make copies of the second sheet of manifesto either tonight or early in the morning and enclose. If w© get impressive list of endorsers, the identity of Director Five ’/ill pot b ? very import-and only the bigger tne better. I hope that Machen will .join in our .endorsement.---no_occassion to ’ rite ^ore. D.J.W P.S. For a slogan, or whatever you ’-ant to cell it, I have been thinking that ’’The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”, would be more to the point than either or the other two verses suggested. In fact I think it hits the nail we want to hit squarely on the head. But perhaps something better will be suggested. The directors should decide. . /UHWi t b V V Hi.- L I b I; M K Y ^NQREWS. UNIVERSITY vBerrizn springs, Michigan HERITAGE ROOM,' Exeter, 0-1., Sept. 9? VW. Dear Price, - I made copies of the constitution with carbon paper and. wrote at the bottom st the sa^e time a short note saying that you would, like the gents concerned, to Join the Assn, then signed er ch and mailed to the Los Angeles MD’s whose names you gave m0, j trust that this ’’ill be satisfactory. After digesting Nelson’s letter I decided to reply with general letter to directors. Am sending one direct to Higley with so^e other observations and one to Nelson. Will not write to G. nor to No. 5, but will send them to you and if you see fit you can forward them. And if they are not forwarded, no her™ done. Nothing in them I have not said before. I cant find Wheaton in my atlas as print is too fine on map, but I Judge that it is not far from Chicago. If so, and No 5 is not selected, I’m wondering if Ironside would serve, and that •- ' would enable Wheaton crowd and him, and Moore if Moore is used, to see one another. But I have made a surplus of suggestions already. 1 r Nelson had suggested Ironside. Good publicity for us if he ’ ould serve. Higley’s article in Moody Monthly wes excellent. I’ll bet it will roll like water off a duck’s back from the minds of the clergy. Something official is v-hat is needed. The idea of the thousands of clergymen who are perfectly satisfied that the days of creation were geological ages’. And they will stay satisfied! I am afraid that I am an utter cynic when it comes to the old line churches. I also remember the parable that new wine cannot be put in n&d bottles. A clergymen of a little country church near here, a close friend,said today that all Protestantism was losing its grip. I said, ’’Are you sure the S.D.A’s are?” Then he ce^e back with charges of heresiy, including that old gag about Satan being the scape goat, which I under-standt is based upon a distortion of quotations that does no credit to the critics. Its a great world. Actually I have an happy disposition or whether my disposition is that way or not, my practice is, but sometimes I wonder how a person can be so terribly misanthropic as I am and still cheerful. There used to be an old saying, "With all your faults I love you still”. With ail my misanthropy I see the fine qualities of mSnkind too. As I look at prophecy I can see nothing but Failure written across the heavens for all human endeavors. To me"’prophecy seems to show that the world is going to the dogs and only the coming of Christ will keep it from complete collapse. Still we are to occupy till he comes and I figure that we must go on trying to overcome evil and uphold righteousness. I also believe this one thing: that before the end comes the utter folly of evolution *111 be apparent to the earth at large, there will be no excuse for their sin in ”scien-tific” disbelief. So I figure that those to whom God gives this m0g_ sage must proclaim it to the best of their ability. My mind you see is raic Ruin theory seems to accept at face Value all the claims of the evolutionary geologists that they are able to date the fossiliferous rocks, and sat them off in a true chronological sequence. 2# The impossibiliity of showing the exact dividing line between those deposits which were done by this Ruin and those done since or during the present human period. This objection becomes ovei*whelmlngly string if we adopt the methodology of all good archaeology by proceeding from the present state of the world backward ( or downward ) into the earth’s Past, and if we nuke any allowance whatever for what the Flood of Hoah m*y possibly have done. 3. The incredibility of supposing that so many tens of thousands of living plants and animals are not the real descendants of the very similar kinds found as fossils; but that the latter were all absolutely destroyed, and the modern kinds were all created anew, though in so many thousands of instances they seem like the duplicates of those found ns fossils# must pass Each of these deserves to be expanded into a chapter, almost into a book. But I on to the religious objections, which also may be grouped under three heads: 1. It seems contrary to all our ideas of the Creator’s Justice and. benevolence for us to say that there was cruelty, treachery, suffering, and death among the animals for long ages on this earth before man appeared and sinned. T know the theory of "anticipative consequences,” which was invented by some New England theologians to meet this idea. But I think that James D. Dana has ticked off this theory in good shape. "It is funny," he wrote, "that the sin of Adam should have killed those old trilobites. The blunderbus must have kicked buck into time at a tremendous rate to have hit those poor innocents." Whitney has expanded on this idea of the unreasonableness of suffering and death before mn appeared -ind sinned. I am not here referring to the mere ruin of a world before Adam’s time; but to the long millions of ages ( which this Huin theory mat accept at face-value ) during which cruelty and suffering and death are said to have reigned supreme. I must say that my whole soul revolts at the idea of saying that > wise and benevolent Creator started things off in this fashion. The whole beautiful story of Edon seems to me a solemn mockery, if it were only a rennovation ( perhaps only a small* parti A rennovation ) of a world jshioh for countless millions of years previously had reeked with treachery, cruelty* and death. 2* M>r second religious objection to this theory arises from the very slim Bible grounds on which it is based. I cannot find a single reputable Hebrew scholar who sanctions the translation "became” instead of "was" in the second verse of Genesis I. I have consulted several teachers of Hebrew* one of whom was educated as a rabbi in London, England, who reads Hebrew as you or I read English and wno ixas memorised very large portions of the 0. T. in the Hebrew. He is most emphatic in saying that there is no ground whatever for rendering this verb "become” instead of the simple past tense <»'' the verb to be. As for the words "tchu ya - frohu, ” translated "without form. and void" in the A. V.» the beptuagint renaers ti*em by &reek words meaning "invisible and unfurnished;" and this I believe is the actual meaning of the original* We ought to have great respect for the 8^rtuagint, as it was the version which was used by Christ and the apostles almost exclusively. These words give no warrant for supposing that a previously existing world of plants and animals had been destroyed. I don’t believe that any one would ever have seen this latter idea in the^, if the theory of the long geological ages had net created the supposed necessity of thus interpreting them. The similar expression in Jer. 4 : 2J plainly refers to a desolate condition of the land of Israel, primarily to that caused by the Babylonians uad secondarily to the great destruction yet to take place following the Second Coming of Christ, after the saints have been taken way from this north, and the wicked have been destroyed, with the earth lyin’ desolate during the thousand years between the two resurrections of He relation Chapter XX. But in this text in Jeremiah, as in the first one of Gexiesla I, the words "tohu va - bohu” could very naturally mean that the earth had simply returned to its original unfurnished and unpopulated, condition. The succeeding verses in Jeremiah carry out this thought absolutely, not the thought of the destruction by which the land had become desolate and unpopulated. Hence there Is no legitimate reason why the idea of destruction should be read from this verse back into Gen. 1 : 2. In both cases the meaning of the -words Is simply that t'u» earth vias otlPty of life, r-nd unstocked with Plants ~,nd animals; and it is only by a gratuitous act of pure imagination that a world-destruction can be read into their first use in Genesis. One of these Hebrew » ords occurs 5n Isa. 45 1 where the A. V. rends that the Lord created the earth "net in Vain* He formed it to be inhabited.” The Revised Version here reads "a waste;” but we must remember that the Hsvisers here as elsewhere wore trying to keep one eye open for all possible theories about the earth’s origin. The plain and unambiguous meaning of this verse is that the Lord dll not create the earth to remain empty and unpeopled; He formed It to be Inhabited. We have nov ex v^ned what I believe to b« all of the texts on which the Bain theory is based. I do not remember any others. .3't t’ie plain meaning Of all those texts is that of emptiness, the absence of all living things. They all have the same simple, plain meaning. H«nce Genesis 1 t 2 cannot rightly receive ^ny additional meaning of Ue3elation or ruin from tnese two other passages. As for the supposed connection between this pre-Adamic Hnin with the Fall of Lucifer in Heaven, X consider such a suggestion too fanciful to occupy the time of serious, factloving people. Lucifer did fill, of course; but what possible reasons do we have for connecting this E.J1 of Lucifer with this alleged Buin of thia earth? Lucifer does come 3 into the earthly picture; but only much latert when he cheated. Adam out of his kingdom; for this earth wib given to Adam as king, as the head of all the living things on the earth. It is much too fanciful to bring in Lucifer’s Fall as a method of accounting for the fiuin that is supposed to have occurred in Gk*n. 1 : 2. if the great doctrines of Christianity hud to depend upon such exegesis as this, the scientists might well laugh at the curious methods of the theologians in proving their doctrines. J» Liy third objection to this pre-hdamlc Bun theory is the way in which it tends to minimise and virtually do away dth the record of Noah’s Flood. Th© latter was a real and awful event which had so burned iiseli' Into tue memory of the early race of mankind that vivid accounts of it nave survived oOGAu virtually every race on earth. The Bible too rakes a great deal of it; for its record occupies a very large and UyportaHt amount of space in the record of tiie early day's of the world. While if we are to take at their face Value the words recorded in Genesis 7 ♦ 18 ~ 2j» we must conclude that the effect# of this event must be of v_ery- large geological impeltance. Note the following expressions: "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered..... and the mountains were covered.” "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth.....all in whose nostrils was the breath of life. Lnd all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of ^he ground." I defy any man to construct language to Indicate universality of destruction by the waters, if these expressions do not do it. Now the jzroper method of reasoning about all this is as follows: hero 1b a record of a great destruction of animal life brought about by the ocean ( ’’the fountains of the great deep" ) and the waters of the lands. If we begin with the world as we now know it, and begin to go back into the world’s physical and geological Past history, this one real ruin blocks our way entirely, so for as any theory of uniformitarianism can possibly he held by any Christian. It surely looks like perverseness for any Bible believer to say that tills Flood of Uoah was only a small, local affair in southwestern Asia, and did virtually no geological work of any kind, either in the way of killing off species or in forming rock deposits, but that away back before the human race existed there was a real world-^in; and this was the thing that did all ths geological work of killing off specten and making rock deposits. I cannot understand such a method of reasoning. It syems to me that the only course for us as 3ible believers is to say that w must moke a reasonable allowance for what this one known earth-ruin must have done in the way cf making species extinct and forming abnormal deposits of gravel and aid .*nd clay. But wiiat are wo to mean by making a reasonable allowance for what this Flood may have done? One ting and one only can bo against such a method of interpretation. That is, if the current methods of geology arc sufficiently accurate and reliable to warrant ns in believing that they can furnish us with a real chronology among the fossils, bo that only a very few of sjJte very last ones in the long series could possibly be affected by such an event us this Flood of Hoah. This is the point that I have been studying for some thirty-five years, and to which I have devoted several specific volumes. So I shall not try to expand the point here. I do not claim to Jq^ow just how much geological ^ork must have been done by th5s Flood of Noah. What I vn trying to insist on here is th«t the pre-Ad^ic Ifrxin theory not only accepts at face value .all the exact t irac-di 3 ti notions of tne nnl form! tar tan geologists, but it leaves nothing worth while for this Flood of Noah to do, and virtually explains it all away as an affair of no geological importance. I cannot think that this is a proper method or proceeding. But I must close. This letter is already far too long. I have only tried to explain ray personal objections to the pre-Adaraic ituin theory. And I hope I have not worn out your time and patience. Very cordially yours, PRICE. DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND GEOLOGY My tear professor Price: In a recent Letter from Dr.Graebner, ne encloses nis suggestions for improving the wording of our Announcements. The suggestions make no essential change in meaning. It seems to me that they are the result of nis careful reading of the document and should be accepted. A cony is enclosed. If your agues , please write our Secretary, ter.Ahitney, to this effect soon, so he will be in a position to go aneai. Your last letter deserves a much longer renly tnan is possible just now. 1 think I fully appreciate your position regarding the scientific side. however, I am wondering it you have also studied the Scriptural side involved. have you tried to harmonise the two? I am aware that little, or nothing has been done on this subject. If I have overlooked anything, I should be glad to hear from you regarding it. Acting on your suggestion, 1 am working with Mr.Whitney on this matter,ihe pre-Aiamic hum Theory. 1 do aot know if I have ever stated that request has been made to me to publish an article on this and that I sent in a manuscript some time ago that proved too lengthy and had to be abridged. This I have done but nave not yet heard from it. It would be several months at least before it could come out. Your referred to Mr.benson. Are you familiar with nis book, ihe barth ihe Theater of the Universe? tie is a widely real man. ae publishes aoout fifty book reviews every year. Wishing you the compliments of tne season, I remain Yours sincerely, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Jan. 19, 1956 Dear Price, Your letters sound as if you have not received the copy I sent to ail the directors of my reply to Higley’s first come-back to my criticism of his pre-Ruin idea. I am sending you my copy, which I wish you would return, as if is all I have. I sent by postal today the following little squib on change alter creation, which I am getting sick of. Whitney seems as unable to meet the is^ with me on this change after creation as Higley on the otuer line. I admit it is possible to be a creationist and hold to the creation a set or ancestors out of whom have come, let us say, all the Cetacea .v In a letter just received from Whitney he has the temerity to contend that all the Cetacea fall into a group which morpfiology compell us toadmit had a common ancestor. The uetacea include the idialebone whhles (without teeth in the adults) the killer-whales, vastly different in size and habits, aid such a string as porpoises, dolphins, rorquals, narwhales, belugas, blackfish, humpbacks, sperms. Boy, if I could believe that all that host evolved from a common ancestor I wduld not have much trouble believ/ing that pigs also came from the same.ancestor and goingthe whole way with t he evolutionists. When I think of What Whitney believes I think he is aimmst as far off a /MXth/y/ Higley, though not quite. Here is my postal to alii ’Mjr last word oil change after creation. Whitney says ’we make oufcselves ridiculous before scientists’ by denying the larger evolution which he advocates. Such is not my experience. The whole •oology dept, of the University of New wersey (Rutgers) read my book. I syudied with them, sat ^n their seminars, addressed them, discussed these matters. To none was my view of the fixity of species ridiculous, in fact, Dr. Allan Boyden, head of the genetics department, said, when I told him of my difference With Whitney, that I had the only position a creationists could successfully do battle on at all. He admitted that evolution was lacking in vital evidence till a real new species was prodi cedif He said morphological divisions were purely arbitrary and subjective and there was no place to draw a line, once the line of sterility, due to different chromosome sets, was withdrawn. So we will all agree to disagree. I am more interested in hearing Higley’s views, and especially to have him describe that ruin.” What I had in mind most was to congratulate you on your blast at Higley’s absurdity. This may as well be handled without gloves. Higley really disappointedme, the way he argued. There is one statement in your very excellent argument which I think you can not maintain, and that is that became is not a translation of ha-itha. I will grant that it is not a sensible translation, but it is a possible one. That is to say, there are places in the Bible where it is translated became. But the first and primary use of the word is always was, and it is obvious thathe th first and primary use ought to be chosen unless some very obvious and good reason for no so doing is given, which in th s cajfse there is not. We will keep on circularizing the directors on this matter, even if Higley stops. Then perhaps we may tell Higley to drop out and we will run an association of some sort of promote Flood geology alone. In that way ahitney and I can get along. Best rggards Nelson 'JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM SABBATH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT General Conference of Seventh-day adventists TAKOMA PARK. WASHINGTON. D. C. MRS. L. FLORA PLUMMER, SECRETARY S. A. WELLMAN, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY JOHN C. THOMPSON, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY ROSAMOND D. GINTHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY January 29, 1936 TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS “GENERAL CONFERENCE” WASHINGTON. D. C. CABLE ADDRESS “ADVENTIST” WASHINGTON Dear Brother Price: I ano sorry not to be able to give you any infomation about the time when vour very excellent set of Sabbath school lessons can be used. The matter doesn’t stand much better now than it did a year or so ago when we discussed the matter. The present series on the teachings of Jesus will be comnleted the third Quarter of this year. But the General Conference Committe have insisted that we start in on an extended study of Bible Doctrines, and the outline they suggested nas been approved. The lessons for the first quarter of this Bible Doctrine series has been passed uuon by our committee. All the others are in the vault here awaiting their turn. I am inclosing tne outline so you will see .just what we are undertaking. I supoose your lessons, which are safely labeled and in our vault, will come up for consideration wnen we are nearer tne close of these lessons on doctrines. I do not see now tney can be used before that. Of course I cannot promise that tney will be used then, for no doubt our Department will be reorganized at General Conference time and it will be for tne new leadersnip to decide what snail be done then. I am sorry for this delay, Brother Price, and if I am in tne office, which is not likely, I snail bear in mind your lessons and give you an opoortunity to suggest tne collateral reading you mention, to be used in connection with the lessons. I hope you are enjoying your work in Walla Valla, and that you are seeing excellent results of your/faitnful efforts. We are glad to know that tne cause is orogressing,—is going in some places with a loud cry. 'Ye are honing that the work may prosper, and tne evil forces be neld in check until we can carry this gosuel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. Sincerely yours, Dr. George vcCready Price <,Talla ’Yalla College, College Place, Wash. p-t JlAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOJ SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES ON DOCTRINES FOR SABBATH SCHOOL LES1 For Seven Quarters By To Mo French Note Such an outline as the following must be tentative and suggestive and not finals for in the detailed preparation of the lessons there would naturally be more mature study of the subjectsq when the matter of proportion and relevancy would receive careful attention* as well as detail content. The First Quarter Io The Word of God lo Origin of the Scriptures 2, The Inspiration of the Word 3o The Purpose II, The Word of God (continued) lv Scope*?Law0 standard of truth* instruction in Christian livingo prophecyo 2, How Bible Should Be Studied 3O Saving Power of the Word IIIo The Godhead lo The Creator 2* The Trinity 3O Personality IV, . Pre-existence and Deity of Christ 1. Pre«exlstence-~(l) Before World was; Incarnation 2O Scriptural Testimony of His Deity 3O Testimony of His Works 40 Witness of His Resurrection (2) Before His Vo Origin of Evil lo Lucifer’s Nature and Position in Heaven 2O Rebellion and Expulsion 30 Satan’s Position and Work on Earth VI, Creation of the Earth I, By Direct Act of God 2C In Literal Days 3C A Completed Work VII« Man’8 Creation and Fall lo In the Image of God 2O In Eden 3 0 The Fall Ville Sin—Its Nature and Wages 1o Defined 2o Results of Sin 3O Its Ultimate End Hames white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM 3 Third Quartern-Prophecy continued Io The Millennium 1. Definition (including popular conception) 2o Events at the Beginning 3O During 4e Events at the Close Iio New Earth lo First Dominion Lott 2. Promises of Restoration 3= Promises Made to the Jews 4C Fulfillment in New Earth III. New Earth0 continued lo A New Creation 2p Inhabitants and Life In the New Earth 3«> Inheritance through Christ I Vo The New Jerusalem 1» Its Removal to this Earth as the Capital Description 3e Privileges Afforded (a study of verses in the 22nd of Revcj V, Prophecy of Daniel VII lo The Symbols 2o The Interpretation 3« The Ten Kingdoms 4O Judgment Scene VI. The Little^Horn Power l0 Its Rise 2, Its Character 3O Papal Persecutions 4* Dominion Given to the Saints VII« Prophecy of Revelation XII 1 The True Church In Symbol 2U The Dragon and his Persecutions of the Church 3O Deliverance through the Reformation 4O The Remnant VIII. Prophecy of Revelation XIII lo Beast and Its Identification 2c Deadly Wound 3« Deadly Wound Healed IX. Prophecy of Revelation XVII 1« The Woman 2. The Beast 30 Ten Kings 4. Cup of Abominations X. Prophecy of Revelation XVIII 1, The Mighty Angel 2* Fall of Babylon J. Destruction of Babylon XI. Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19) 1, The Parable of Our Lord 2» The Wedding Garment 5» Call to the Marriage Supper XII« Religion g Liberty 1. The Theocracy Separation of Church and State 3. Last^day Issuer to Be Met XIII. General Review Fourth Quarter I. Perpetuity of the Lew 1* The Autho.- and Origin of th® Law \ ; : CM - 5« X’he Law of the Old Testament U» Ths Law in the Christian Era IXe Lw ard Gospel 1» Law as a Mirror Death of Christ Met Its dlaiwr 3* Christ’® Life* Witnessed by the Law5 Imputed h* Law the Rule of Life III. The Two Laws 1. Mosaic? or Ceremonial Law 2« Met Its Fulfillment in Chi I < f , f.’ n ?.1 St : ' ? . ■ . IV. Th® Two Covenant 1. The Old Covens^ 2« The New Covenant 3» Moral Law and the New Covenant V6 The Sabbath •, Origin 2* Purpose 3» In the Old Testament VI. Sabbath in the New Testament lo Christ and th® Sabbath 2S Apostles and the Sabbath 3» Sarly Christians and the Sabbath Day in wovz Testament At the resurrection Paul and the first day Lor A ? s ■ lay y in the Chr3 Prophecy of an Attempted Chang.® of the The ; apacy and the tabbath h Reform Old Testt breach in tha Lav? Repairere of the Breach e and Kinds First Angel's Message Second Angel*8 Message Third Angel’s Message Commandment Keepers 7 OUTLINE OF SABBATH SCHOOL LESSONS Fifth . I2£___________Quarterfl 1937 SUBJECT? *Tho Atonement in the Lifdit of God-s Sanctuaries* LESSON HELPS8 “The Atonement* by Wo Ho Branson Published by the Pacific Press Publishing Asi’n. Pries 25 cents "The Great Controversy* by Mrs, Eo G. ^Jhite LESSON TOPICS0 1 The Gospel in Type 2 The Lamb of God 3 . The Sanctuaries of God 4 Shadows ofthe Cross Abolished 5 Christ Begins His Priestly Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary 6 Types Pound in the Levitical Service 7O The Cleansing of the Earthly Sanctuary 8. The Cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary 9g The Time of Cleansing and of Judgment 10 The Judgnent Scene 11o The Judgnent-Hour Message 12o Full Pardon Through the Atonement 13. The Lord Our Righteousness James white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN MERIT An f Ronn Sixth Quarter I. Nature of Man and His Condition in Death 1. Mortal or Immortal 2» Spirit, Soul, and Body 3, Unconsciousness in Death 1|. Hope of the Resurrection IIO Modern and Ancient Spiritism lo Necromancy in Old Testament 2* Spiritism in Heathen World Today 5. Modern Spiritualism Uo Last^day Manifestations III. Fate of the Wicked lo Wages of Sin 2o Sternal Torment not Scriptural 3. The Second Death U. Complete Annihilation of the Wicked IVo Ministry of Angels !• Origin 2. Early mention of 3» Ministry to the Heirs of Salvation V* The Church of Christ 1. Ordained of God 2. Apostolic Organization 3* Church Discipline 4, Last-day Organization VI. Spiritual Gifts 1. a. Bestowal of Gifts on Church b. Prophecy in Early Christian Times 2. Prophecies of Last-day Bestowal J. last-day Manifestation VII. Spiritual Gifts, continued 1. Pentecostal Gifts 2. Tongues 3. Healing False Manifestations of Prophecy, Tongues, Healing VIII. Church Ordinances 1. Baptism^Its Significance 2. Mode 3. Comranded™-Essential to Salvation 9 IX. Church Ordinances, continued 1. Origin of Lord’s Supper 2. Ordinances of Humility J. Symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood 4. Importance of Attendance X. Christian Health and Temperance 1. Body the Temple of the Holy Spirit 2. Temperance J. Health in Relation to Spirituality XI. Christian Dress and Conduct 1. Modesty of Apparel 2. Healthful Dress 5. Christian Conduct XII. Reverence in the House of God 1. In God’s Presence 2. Worshipful Attitude 3. What is Proper and Improper XIII. Prayer 1. What It Ie 2. Prayer of Faith 3. Prevailing Prayer (including exanples) Seventh Quarter This quarter’s lessons would cover support of the church, and the missionary activities of God’s remnant people. The following outline has been sent in by Professor Frederick Griggs as a suitable series of lessons for mission field*, and it would fit well as the last in the Topical Study series. SUGGESTIVE TOPICS FOR THIRTEEN SABBATH SCHOOL LESSONS ON OUR FOREIGN MISSION CALL ' . General Topic-** ”Gq Ye Into All the World.” WO.-'n.* ■ mi m> — nm i hiiwiimi ■m.i line — I. What Is the Gospel? Base Lesson on Luke 4*18> 19* Redemption of body, mind and soul II. Condition and Call of Heathen World Base Lesson on Eph. 2:12, 13. Those without God do call for help. Acts 16:9 III. $he Power of the Gospel Base Lesson on Rom. 1:16. Emphasize the power of love as revealed in the gospel in contrast to power of fear as shown in devil worship. io. IV, Results of Gospel Work Base Lesson on Eph. 2x1-10. Show from Scripture, Testimonies;, and Mission Experiences the marvelous changes wrought in hee'-t and life by the Gospel, V, Christ’s Prophecy of Spread of Gospel Base Lesson on Matt, SlplU. a. Last Message Rev. llp&*>12. b. Developments making the possible giving of Message to all the world, VI, Who Are to Give the Gospel? . Base Lesson on Isaiah 52x7, a, Those set apart by Church for Ministry b, Every believer and worker VII. i'he Support of Missionaries Base Lesson on 1 Cor. 9x13. lU, a. By Prayer, Matt. 9*38* b. By systematic and sacrificial giving. VIII, The Spirit of Sacrifice Base Lesson on 2 Cor. 8t9 a. Emphasize Christ’s Sacrifice b« Love the true motive in giving c. All on the altar IX. The Spirit of the Worker Base Lesson on 2 Cor. 5x15. a. Consuming Love for those without Christ b. Charitable cooperation with fellow^workers o. Love for brethren X, A United Church 1. Base Lesson on John 17*21 a. The foreign missionaries supported by home churches ;rc one in giving gospel b. Spirit of sacrifice shown by home members as well as by missionaries o. Rewards of missionaries and home supporters equal XI, Zeal of Church for Missions Base Lesson on John 2x17 a. Example of Jonathan b. Example of Early Church c. Prophecies of zeal of last church Walla Walla College COLLEGE PLACE, WASHINGTON February 11, 1936 Office of the President Professor G. McCready Price College Place, Washington My dear Professor Price: I herewith convey to you the recent action of the College Board appointing you as Professor of Geology and Professor of Moral Philosophy and Dogmatics, the appointment to be onthe basis of continuous tenure. No change was made in your salary. The Board also acceded to a request of the General Conference for you to connect with the Advanced Bible School for the coming summer for six weeks, it being understood that the General Conference will defray all your expenses in connection with this appointment. Allow me to convey to you my personal appreciation of the excellent service you are rendering this college. Very sincerely yours, lOty- £.—<— Secretary of the Board WML:em Oames white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM httMES WHITE LIBRARY /ANDREWS UNIVERSITY / BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN i ' HERITAGE ROOM St. Ambrose College DAVENPORT, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY February 20, 1936 George McCready Price, Professor of Geology, Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington, Dear Professor Price: Your two kind and interesting letters are before me and I am glad, naturally, that you are pleased with some of my opinions. As to the points of disagreement between us, I • am afraid they are fundamental and cannot be avoided. Your expression “you have been too easy on th^r current biological beliefs, and two easy with the traditional/(creed” seems to me characteristic of your habits of thought. I see no reason why I should be either hard or easy on these alleged creeds and beliefs. Indeed to my mind evolutionary doctrines that are based on biological end geological facts are not creeds; < rather they are plausible explanations of facts and as such they demand our respect and serious consideration, not ridicule. If, because of the inherent weakness of the human mind — you and I have such weak human minds — many biologists and geologists go beyond the strictly scientific domain to draw false philosophic and religious conclusions, that is from my point of view deplorable, but quite explicable. And as far as I feel that I have a right to judge,these men are intellectually honest; their theories are not "hoaxes” nor are we justified in calling them ’’phantoms”. Of course, when I am convinced that others are wrong, I believe in speaking my mind. I am convinced that you are wrong. The reasons are stated in my article in THOUGHT. There are arguments for and against evolution; the unprejudiced scientist must give them all equal consideration. One who begins by supposing that all facts must be interpreted to support a literal interpretation of the first book of Genesis is fatally handicapped; your faith in the ’’short chronology in the past” compels you to accept nothing that ^hr-t does not fit in with this particular type of subjective mental equipment. You are not free in the study of science, and if anything in our /day can hurt the cause of religion it"is the suspicion that it (religion) is opposed\jto„£xee research. I have in THOUGHT called attention to.^glaring^ inconsistencies, wild generalizations, and deliberate misstatements of ( facts to be found in your New Geology. To me these statements ' crF yours are so obviously untrue that I found it rather difficult to give them a charitable interpretation. But I realize that the motives back of a man’s actions may be complex and hard to analyze. As I see it you have convinced yourself that you are teaching God’s truth; but ---- my verdict is harsh, but I feel I must say to ydu directly what I say to others about you — in my opinion you are unconsciously preaching George McCready Price and his Superior Insight into matters that have challenged the analytic powers of the best thiricers of our day. You will, I am sure, pardon my blunt language; polite evasions in matters of this kind were, I think, far more uncharitable than plain-spoken words. A. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Walla Walla College, College xlace> Wash., February 2.;, 193& j-rcf. U. A* Hauber, St* Ambrose College, Davenport, I cwa. Uy de ar Doctor :.iaube r ■ £ hid not Intended to ic^ke my formal answer to yonv paper* in TiOUGHT, Partly "oecause 1 knew I did not have a ^host of a chance of having it published, in that Journal or in any similar one* .at partly bee'.use this article is so clearly a superficial tnd uncritical one that 1 dll not think any answer was called for. But in your recent letter ( Feb. 2v, 133^ ) y°u emphasise the state ent that you had answered all ray geologic*! ai’gumentB; and bo to gei tlx® "record” straight* I feel obligated to take up briefly your paper, .vhich I only saw so»«e \alf-y?ar or more after it ippeared. 8n p. 59-1 °f' Ihis article you state that the "thrust phenomena" are, so far as you know, ’the only factual b.tsis” for ray geological vie -s. But you add that these facts are "not tie facts wf&MS that induced Price to enter the arena” against the current theories. T/ie latter statement, at l^ast, is true. Th^ fl st ^aat which opened ray eyes -vid led me to adopt a critical attitude toward the entire scheme of the time-values of the fossils was vhils voiding < J uiidi .n Goverwr.e.ut Soport ..f L. Carboniferous lying directly .rl a few of them came before rae in those early days when I was fi st studying this subject over a third of a century ago. Popsibl;,' the pheno/iena of "thvust faults mag a.-...7 been About the third in , i-v list vf factual evidence, b-t I i.m Inclined to think that the third place must have been the discovery that any °f the fossilifex'ong beds nay b2 found occurring directly up,on thi- primary or the old primitives. It is difficult to be serious vbout the Cambrian being the oldest of the fossiliferous formations, when /e learn th t the Tertiary are the bottom of the series over much of southern California and in some parts of the Alps, and that the Cretaceous are similarly at the bottom in parts of Ue southeast of the United itates, Parts of tae Jest Indies., nd throughout most of South America. 2 Indeed, we now kno that it .vas a very fortunate ( or unrortwiate ) accident that started the science or palaeontology in Snglan' and Q-ermany; for in no other corner of the globe oTild a similar comb in. it’.on of fojsiliferous sequences >e foind on >'hich to found the ’’geological column.’’ Throughout c?t or JbJ.n-t nd o-her Parts of eastern there are no i.■■ ataceous; througa much of Joith Africa there are no rooks ’’older” than the Carboniferous» etc. "our st ternnt of the trt 1 ~f t e ’’geologic 1 ooluam” as scarcely twenty-five miles is tue estimate of a generat..on or more ago; today I think most i-.eii wo-ald m-,ke it sixty or seventy-1 Ive miles. So we see how deep c-t imaginary well would have to be in cent/al Illinois or southern I Own to go down through the Carboniferous to the bottom of the Cambrian,---- if there are any of the Cambriar, Orloviclali, etc., there. As a matter of fact, .our whole story of five i’alaeoaoic systems occurring one after another from Minnesota down to Iowa is exactly cn a Par 7.4th the old story of .p. come hat similar aeries in England, all dipping to the south-east like overturned slices of bread,— a fable which has been dispose-? of long n' o by numerous wells drilled in southern England, Jut on this traditional fable /Illi am Jmlth, ”the father” of the idea, childishly pictured all the fog ail if er ova of .11 the glooe oJur.yo dippiii-.' bo the south-e^Bt, Jhen you actually find a single example of any five of the geological systems in visible superposition anywhere on earth, pie ise let ne know. Of course, on the >b«.ve estimate, for five complete systems to be found occurring in one locality would mean a depth of probably twenty-f’ve o?' thirty miles. In '\c‘, you:- initial .1] lustration in this paper, which might seem 30 re Jlstlc and impressive to the uninformed, is grotesque in Its childish superficiality, when it it? subjected to a little close Inrcectlca. You can tell it to the marines, but not to any one who knows a few of the basic facts of the science. You seek to convey the impression thvt ray objection to the thrust-fault theory is based chiefly on the magnitude of the hypothetical movement Involved. It 13 not. It is based wholly cn tlx© unscientific reasoning employed to support this thrust-fault theory. Tiv siaa of some of tee areas involved ( they are now found occurring all over the globe ) may serve to make the subjeot realistic xnd Interest!::., to the children; but it is the logic oC the problem which ought to influence adults. First, the geological sequence is a purely empiric tl if a.'.r, it is based wholly 0 x the reputed, order hitherto discovered. It can not possibly have any other basis, unless we issue the old omon-coat theory xn ail its hideousness or lack of logic. Second, when we find example ( like >howe of Alberta and Montana ) which clearly contradict this segULnie, vh it rule of sclent?. ’1 o 1c ;ic ,d 11 Just?- ."y *13 in denying the positive evidence or our senses tfid common sense, and saying that we know the rocks here are deceiving us? bit it is mucn. worse than this. For in very jrune',ous instances we find two utterly discord-ant systems, such as Devonian vid Cretaceous, which are found interfingering with one another on a large scale. Scores of such example? .-.re now known? and in all of them that 1 kno 7 or the sequences look perfectly normal. I t?iink that all cases of ’’overthrust” when carefully examined have turned out to show .juh inter fingering either above or below, sometimes in both directions. Common scientific honesty is all that is needed in such instances* Now I am not trying here to prove «y own theory of Flood geology. I u«i simply trying to sho’? that there must be something grotesquely wrong with the traditional time-values of che fossils. But in the light of the facts here given ( and they can be greatly expanded by concrete examples ), £ wonder who it is that is ”nct free in t?ae study of science,” as you express it in your recent letter? Sincerely yours, Long Beach, Calif. April 9th 1936 Prof. George M. Price Walla Walla College College Place, Washington Dear Brother Price: Now you are getting right, and things will happen. Faith is the power] By all means I will take that geological trip, if at all possible, and I know of nothing now that will prevent it. We should be out half the time like that. Brother Price, if our people thirty years ago had untied your hands and put you on geological research, our whole message would have been much nearer completion now. Our knowledge of the earth and the hand of God in it, would be now have put to shame the enemies of creation and the Sabbath, and our own work and numbers would have developed a much greater power. Your controversy with the pre-genesis-ites is interesting. I met that and passed it up years ago, and have since then discussed it with a number of them. Have you read ’’The Biblical Story of Creation” by Giorgio Bartoli, the Italian engineer, (Sunday School Times 1926)? I got it when it first came out, and as you know, that theory was worked to death forty or fifty years ago in England during the death of creationism there. The old books reek with it. I came to feel that this theory was in a large measure responsible for the failure of creationism during that early conflict. And it is now, and will be, the death of it in this countrjr if it is persisted in. Nothing could be more fatal. When these men admit the working of the supposed principles of evolution, anywhere, at any time, they are then evolutionists. They have then admitted, adopted, and depended upon all the biological, as well as all the geological, vagaries. Then what can they do? Nothing, for they have given away their whole case. It is just as much a violation and a disbelief of God’s words to believe in evolution before Genesis as after, or even in the future or the present, as the regular evolutionists do. Both deny Creation, and creation’s Sabbath basis. 0AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN ’ HERITAGE ROOM 2 Brother Price, most of these people worn I have met are really theistic evolutionists, and don’t know it. This book by Bartoli is about the best I have seen on this self-contradictory position. I have quit reading on this theory. Bartoli’s book is one vast web of assumptions, quotations from such books as ^’Enoch", and violent wresting of Peter’s statements, and other scriptures, and from Babylonian tablets. After several conversations with these people, there are several fatal things about them that I have decided. (1) They are merely playing into Satan’s own hands by weakly admitting his falsehood of making the remains of the Flood look as much as possible like evolution. (This started one hundred years ago when God’s last message started, and has kept pace with it step by step, triumph for triumph). (2) Satan has concentrated on misusing the Flood. The remedy is the right use of the Flood. (3) Fundamentalists have lost out because they have failed to make use of the Flood to destroy evolution. (4) There may be some shadovz of excuse for those who do not believe in the Flood to be “willingly ignorant” of it, but there is no excuse for us who do believe in it to be ignorant of it. But the most fundamental failure, and the most sinister thing about these people is a thing perhaps they have not thought of, or are only dimly conscious of. (5) The six-day creation brings them face to face with the Sabbath, too close for comfort, and (6) the Flood absolutely destroys everything but that. Another thing that separates us miles and miles apart, is the Spirit of Prophecy. We scarcely realize what we owe to it, we owe so much. (Personally my labors with the problems of coal, oil, volcanoes, earthquakes, mineral deposits, and mountain making all are inspired by the Spirit of Prophecy. I am getting closer and closer to these great things, and you will be surprised at the results.) -'-A - '■< Personally, I feel that, as the end draws near, we will be the only ones left standing in the greet controversy between evolution and creationism, and that we will be damaged perhaps more than assisted by any but absolute believers. God will give them less and less light, less and less logic, clearness, but more and more to His obedient children, more and more! In a separate package I am sending you several mimeo copies of our Resolution. In your correspondence you can send these out. I am sending them to Prof. Clark also, and to Sister Sturges, and to Elder Fulton, who is requested by the Committee to do all he can to pass this Resolution. Now if you will have your Conference pass this Resolution as soon as possible -1 feel sure our Conference here will do so. And I hope you will urge Elder Fulton to do so, even if your Conference does not do so. Your letters and influence will be appreciated by our Committee. The only reason they had for not passing it a few days ago was diffidence----- they had rather such a man as you would lead out first. They felt that they would be assuming a leadership in a matter that would be more becoming to a scholar like you. Yell, that isn’t much of a reason, and I doubt if anyone would have thought of it if they had gone ahead and passed it. But when 1 showed Brother Fulton that their action toward me' really called for passing it, he felt that they might do it later. You see they recognized the importance of research • work by investing about nine months of my salary in it, and then failed to express what should be done after th?t. 1 am now in correspondence with Elder Calkins, and he is to hear me speak next .Friday night in Pasadena. I am sending him some of the correspondence we have had. I spoke in Pasodena last Friday night also. ' Kuch love in the Lord, JAMES WHITE LIBRAE < UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Ur.George McCready Price, College Place,Washington,U.S.A. B.L.Odom, Apartado 4078, Ma drid,Spain. ^pril 28,1936. Dear Brother Price: For some time I have desired to write you a few lines. First,1 wish to tell you that your booKs and articles on the scientific problems of the Bible have been a great help to me and a source of real pleasure for reading. I hope the Lord will give you strength,wisdom and grace to Keep up the fight for the faith once delivered to the saints. If it may not be presuming on your time,I wish to present two or three points for your consideration^or it appears to me that you have not cleared them up in any of your booKs. ^irst,! may refer to the Genesis story of creation. I have talKed over the matter with many of our worKers and leaders,among them some of the General Conference men,as to whether Adventists believe that the creation story of Genesis refers to the whole or only a part of the vast universe of stars,suns,worlds,etc. It seems to be.the general opinion that the Genesis account refers only to a part of the universe. Some thinK it applies strictly to the creation of this earth and its atmospheric heavens and the placing of this planet in the solar system. Others thinK that the whole: eblar- system to which our earth belongs may be included in the creation account of Genesis. 3ut I find that all with whom I have conversed are agreed that it does not include all the stellar universe of suns,stars,worlds,etc. Two points are set forth for this: (1) that it seems absurd to thinK of God as having existed from e-ternity without having created anything until only six thousand years ago; (2) that the passage in fob 38:7,and references to the existence of Satan ,^nd angels before the creation of the earth (found in Spirit of prophecy course, all agree that God created and made all things and gave them their existence, whether six thousand years ago or sixty million ago. I have gotten the impression from your booKs as well as those of $lder Nichols that you both do not maKe a distinction between the creation of the earth and the rest of the universe when you speaK of the Genesis story. It seems to me,as I see it now,that scientists may be right when they assume that some of the stellar systems may have existed millions of years. It does not seem to contradict the Genesis story,if we accept it as applying®*^) this world or this solar system. I do not mean by this that I would try to accomodate the Bible to the theory of evolution,for I have no faith whatever in it. It is my desire to Know if you. have any light on this point,and if you hold that all the great and vast universe was made in the weeK of Genesis 1 or vust a part of the universe was then made.I do not remember that you have ever^referred to it. Second»I may mention a point on the Flood. As I understand the passages of Genesis 7:11,12,17.-20; 8:1-3,and Patriarchs and Fro^hets., pages 99, 107-109,a great part of the waters that deluged the earth came from the bowels of the earth itself. Is it not possible that the shifting of the waters under the earth (that is,inside the earth) to the surface could have caused also a.suosidonce of the earth-crust in many places,that is,a sinKing down where the interior of t.ie earth otherwise would have been hollow by the removal of the wai-ersZ I note that 2. geologists often speak of subsidence of the earth crust as 'veil as evidence of it having been deluged. It seems to me that such subsidence is the most logical way to account for the existence of the great oceans of the present day. Or do you think they existed at the beginning? It seems that there must have been geological convulsions within as well as on the surface of the earth to account for the differences between the lowest ocean depth and the highest mountain peak»if we hold that the whole surface of the earth was beneath the flood of waters. I have read of a number of discoveries of human remains found in fossils of animals and plants. I ara wondering if you plan to investigate further along that line. It seems to me that there must certainly be forthcoming some evidence on that line in greater abundance that has appeared heretofore. It would be fine if you could produce some articlesror chapters in a bookmen that subvect. Your brother in the Lord’s work. Kingston, 8.1, April 29; 1938 Dr. George McCready price Walla Walla College College Place, Aasnington Dear Dr. price: I was sorry tor your letter of April 19, tor I recognize tne value of tne work you nave oeen doing. But of course you must realize tne limitations of a geological tneory tnat cannot account tor well Known coal formations. For tnat matter, it is a question in my mind if tne Flood Ineory can even account for coal. Inere is no record in tne Bible of plants naving oeen taken into tne Ark. Immediately after tne Flood tne dove came oack witn an olive leaf in ner moutn. So, considering tne relatively snort time tne Flood lasted, it seems reasonaole to suppose tnat vegetation in general survived it in place. But tne principal trees found in coal are of species tnat are now extinct, wnile species tnat are now living are never found tnere. In your letter you say "tne oceans were repeatedly orougnt over tne lands, making two round trips a day tor nearly a year.” But between tne coast and tne mountains of Virginia it would require an average speed of fifty miles an nour to do tnis, wnile for regions sucn as Montana tne average speeds would nave to be very mucn nigner. But it is well known tnat water travelling at sucn nign speeds does not deposit fine silt and tnen leave it tnere. If large amounts of mud came down at tne turn of tne tide tne next flow would remove tnem. You do not find mud banks in tne Reversing Falls at St. Jonn, N.B. altnougn tne current tnere is seldom as mucn as fifty miles an nour. And even it tne Flood ineory could account for level strata now can it account for strata tnat nave been folded and neavily eroded after tney turned to stone? It is sucn weaknesses as tnese tnat lead me to question tne value of tne tflood Ineory as a really effective means of combatting evolution. Sincerely James white library' f ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Kingston, R. 1. May 8, 1936 Dr. George McCready Price Aalla Aalla College College Place, Aasn. Dear Dr. Price: I nope we can get togetner some day, witn time and tacts to deoate tnis question tnorougnly. As a ooy I accepted tne old literal interpretation of tne Biole,, witn wnicn you are douotless tnorougnly familiar. As I went tnrougn college and out into tne world I accepted tne tneory tnat tne geologic ages correspond witn tne ’’days’* ot Creation, you are douotless familiar witn tnat one, too. Ine tneory 1 now oelieve is sucn as I would naturally derive from my study oi comet scars, as outlined in ”Anen Aorlds Collide”, inis is tnat life on eartn nas oeen suo]ect from time to time to a more or less complete destruction, after wnicn God nas nad to make all tnings new. Anetner sucn a new creation consisted oi new species or of new creations of old ones would oe entirely a matter of cnmice witn Him. He could, of course, do eitner. I am an engineer oy profession, and a^soientist oy avoca;-tion. My fattier was dean of engineering at Virginia Polytecnnic Institute, and was also interested in coal mining. I used to nelp nim witn tne surveying of nis mines, and mucn of my knowledge of geology was acquired in connection witn tnis work. My oelief tnat our coal was fossil swamp is cased on tne tact tnat tne peds maintain a uniform tnickness over wide areas and great cnanges of topograpny, and tnat tne strata aoove and oelow rnem are generally tine grained - sucn as fire clay. In our principal mine tne strata nad a dip of over 30°, and in otner mines several miles away tne dip was tne same,, and so was tne tnickness of tne coal oed. Our coal was a semi-antnracite. Our principal tree species was Lepidodendron. I nave never seen living trees anytning like it, nor nave I seen trees like living trees in antnracite coal. 1 am Quite willing to grant you, nowever, tnat tne oituminous coals you speak of may contain trees of species tnat are now living. At one time I nad Dits ot Lepidodendron Dark tnat 1 nad found in coal mines, so I’m taking no second nand evidence one James white library .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room way or tne otner In my article you will notice tnat I spoke of tne possioil ity tnat tne Aleutian Islands may nave resulted trom tne impact of a tairly large asteroid. Ine tneory I am working on witn regard to coal is tnat tne antnracites and semi-antnracites were tormed oetore tnis nappened, and tne softer coals at various later periods. Ratner tnouant tne difference in tnese coals was caused oy neat resulting from rapid crustal movements, out our geology prof, said it was due to tneir naving oeen deeply ouried. Tney certainly were deeply ouried. But tnat Aleutian impact would nave resulted in neating due to crustal movements too. So mayoe tnere’s sometning in it, out it will take a great deal of detailed work to find out. I spent a winter in Sackville, N.B. and often visited tne I'antramar river, wnicn as you nrooaoly know flows into tne Bay of Fundy. It was certainly muddy, out me estuary was snort and oroad; and never seemed to get up a faster current tnan some of our muddy Soutnern rivers. I never saw tne river tnat goes to Moncton, in wnicn I understand tnere is a oore. At tne Reversing flails I understand tne tidal range is 30 feet; so tnat tne maximum nead is aoout 15. Inis would give a maximum current of less tnan 31 miles per nour, as contrasted witn currents oi a nundrea miles per nour/ or more; required in some parts of tne country oy tne ufood tneory. Ine point is tnat sucn .^rjjj^^cujrjien^s would not deposit fine grained material, sucn as tne fire clays, snales, or even tne finer sandstones. In tact 1 nave seen tnem move rocks weign-ing tons - mucn larger tnan tne largest stones I nave seen in conglomerite. Moreover, tne stones in conglornerite are always peooles, sucn as one finds in a oeacn tnat is suo-ject to strong wave action, and it takes time to round tnem tnus. It would oe interesting to compare tne regions witn wnicn you and I are directly familiar as tne result of personal ooser-vation ratner tnan reading. Ine one I know nest is soutnwest Virginia, witn its complexity of folded strata.^1 also know tne region around Sackville, N.B., .Rnode Island, Boston, and tne Anite Mountains. All of tneseAnortnern regions fit readily into a tneory tnat assigns a oriei time to tne creation of tne eartn, out tne soutnern Appalacnians certainly do not. fca^-Tne mountains I saw in Oregon and in California also impressed me as being geologically recent. Muon of tnat country is volcanic. As to tne evidence tnat tne strata were folded and eroded after tney solidified, one ot tne most conspicuous tacts 1 nave ooserved it tnat tne valleys are at tne tops of tne folds and tne ridges at tne bottoms. tnat is generally true in tne soutnern nignlands. It is readily explained in terms of conventional geolosy, out now does tne ulood 1'neory explain it? Concerning your last paragrapn, I nave oiten wondered aoout God's relation to tne animals before tfan appeared, and, for tnat matter, wny He allows suffering ana deatn among tnem today. Ine conclusion 1 nave reacned is tnat His relations witn otner creatures are none of our business. It I nave to discipline one small boy I do not allow tne otners to oecome curious aoout tne affair. And wny snouldn't God taxe tne same attitude? Ine Bible says: in tne beginning God created tne neaven and tne eartn. 2. And tne eartn was waste and void; and darkness was upon tne face of tne deep. And tne Spirit of God moved upon tne face of tne waters. I oelieve tnat millions of years passed between tnose two verses, and tnat, so tar as religion is concerned, God nas drawn tne veil of silence over tnem. I can even conceive, tnougn tnis is pure conjecture, tnat tnere may nave oeen people in tne end of tnat time, witn a civilization as nign as our own, and tnat, because of tneir sin, God not only destroyed tnem, but wiped out every single trace of all tney nad ever done, so tnat we would not even know tney nad ever been. After all, God is tne Boss, We live, and we learn, only witn His consent. He lets us know tne tnings He wants us to know. And if He cnooses to nide from us His relations witn otner creatures, and tne reasons for tnem, it is not for us to presume to force aside tne veil. But God nas never tnus blockea our curiosity concerning tnose tnings we need to know in order to find coal. Sincerely COflL Kingston, K.I. May 23, 19do Dr. George McCready Price Aalla Aaila College College Place, Aasnington < Dear Dr. Price: Anat yon say aoout tne antnracite near Banff is very interesting in connection witn my tneory of tne Aleutian Islands. It also seeus to confirm tne tneory tnat antnracite is formed primarily oy neating, ratner tnan oy age. if you will take a glooe in your nand and loos aown on tne nortn Pacific you will readily understand now tne Aleutians could mark tne nottest side of wnat was once a molten dqoI formed oy tne impact of an asteroid, and now tnat asteroid could nave cracked tne eartn along tne lines ot Kuriles - Japan -Pnilliopines in one direction, and Hookies - Andes in tne otner. Sucn a vast addition to tne volume ot tne eartn would nave caused great activity in all regions tnat ever were in+ clined to mountain ouilding. But in tne slow recovery tnat tollowed we would expect tnese otner regions to settle down long oefore tne crack lines did so. Ine Soutnern Appalacnians are wnat geologists call a "dissected peneplain". Ine first stage in tne formation of sucn a region may oe ooserved in tne Mississippi Valley, wnere tne strata are level, ana wnere, in tne lower part of tne valley, strata are still forming, ine second stage may oe seen in tne mountains near Baniif. As I recall it,, tnese mountains nave already progressed to tne point wnere tne ridges are synclines and tne valleys anticlines, out 1 iust saw it from tne train one day, and took some snapsnots. Am 1 rignt aoout it? In tne next stage erosion nas progressed to tne point wnere tne mountains are all worn away and tne land reduced to a plains out witn tne folded formations under it. inis penepla in may later oe raised or lowered, in tne mountains I know oest it nas oeen raised and somewnat folded. Ae nave groups ot mountains rising as nign as 6,000 feet, out tne general elevation is less tnan tnat. Seen from tne air, tnis uniform neignt ot tne mountain tons is very distinct, ine appearance is tnat of a neavily gullied originally level field, ine materials removed in tnis 3AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN. HERITAGE ROOM gullying are not witnin several nundred miles ot tneir original position, iney are in tne Piedmont and tne coastal plains and in tne Mississiooi valley. As iar as my ooservation goes, erosion of tnis gully forming type does not take olace under water, it it was tne work oi tides, tnen tne mountains, at least, must nave oeen exposed at low tide. A current tnat overtops tne ridges will not oe guided oy tne ridges, as tne currents forming tnese valleys evidently xaire. tou can account for every topograpnic feature oi tnose mountains oy tne erosive orocesses now going on, assuming tne region to nave oeen originally rolling or level. Put it would take millions ot years for sucn streams as we nave tnere today to do tne worn. And if it was done oy tides tnen speeds ot a nundred miles per nour would nave oeen necessary for tne tides to get tnere and oacK twice a day. hly it, and you will see. Ae nave, tnen,. tnis dilemma: It tne u'lood levelled tne originally folded strata it could not nave termed tnem. It it formed tnem it could not nave oeen tne levelling torce. And it it did eitner it could not nave performed tne final erosion, creating tne mountains as tney are today. No, 1 guess you’d call tnat a trilemma.. My oeliet is tnat all coals in tne Appalacnians are older tnan Aestern coals, wnetner tney oe antnracite or oftuminous. And tne aosence of Lepidodendron at Bantt tits* tnis tneory. I tnink tnere is Oeoidodendron in cne sott coals oi Virginia,, as well as in tne antnracite. I understand Lepidodendron is related to tne ground pines ot today, and nas, or ratner nad, dew oorne dolien. More modern trees use tne wind, or insects. Inis gives tnem an advantage, except in tne wettest ot climates, and even tnere, today, we do not find trees of cne Lepidodenuron type, but 1 snould tnink Lepidodendron would nave oeen oetter aole to survive tne Ijlood. Do you find Gingko in tne coals near Bantt? 1 understand tnis tree is found in American coals, out is now extinct nere altnougn a native of Onina. tor tne in-situ tneory of coal formation it would oe a fair test to snow tnat coal is now oeing formed on tne eartn today, i snow of several regions wnere tnis seems to oe taking place- Almost any large swampy area; sucn as tne cypress swamps - j- ot tne Soutn> will till tne oiil. Anere tnese swamps are near tne sea a silent rise in tne sea level would drown tnem out and cause oeacnes to form aoove tnem. Retreat ot tne sea mignt tnen oring oacK tne swamp. Anere rivers flow tnrougn tne lowlands tne river oanKs, as you snow, tend to ouild up aoove tne general level, until sometimes even tne oottom ot tne river may oe aoove tne level ot tne nearoy swamp. Inen floods oreak tnrougn, and tne swamp may oe suomerged in mud and destroyed tor awnile. By sucn means you can account tor ail pnenomena I nave ooserved in coal. You say tnat you “cannot tninK tnat sucn ’accidents’ are in tne naoit ot occurring in a universe run oy a wise and good God”. Is God tne Boss, or is ne ]ust a oellnop, tnat we nave a rignt to say wnetner or not ne is wise and good? for my part, I do not oelieve sucn celestial collisions are accidents> as tar as He is concerned. But pernaps tne moral reasons tor tnem are none ot our nusiness. Dr. Higley, commenting on "Anen Aorlds Collide" suggested tnat tnis destruction mignt nave oeen a Judgment tor sin oeyond anytning we can tninK of. It nas occurred to me tnat, it tnat oe true, God mignt not merely nave killed tne offending race out wiped out every trace of everytning tney ever did. Anen 1 nave to Kill tne old dog I’m very careful tnat tne young dog Knows notning at all aoout it. And God would naturally do tne same, if no good could come to us from Knowing wnat nad nappened. In farad i se Dost Milton gives a nignly imaginative picture of a reoellion in Heaven. Mignt not sometning like tnat nave nappened on tne eartn, and tne Carolina Comet oeen tne punisnment? Ine Bide tells us a worldwide reoellion was tne occasion for tne flood. And it we tnink of God as naving a four-dimensional mind, it is a simple matter to tnink of Him as Knowing, millions of years in advance, tnat certain tnings are going to occur, and timing otner tnings to fit in witn tnem. Sincerely James R. handolpn JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ' ' ' ANDREWS UNIVERSITY SERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN AlfflOra, HERITAGE ROOM Park Pak Avenue, Camberley June I5th 1936 My dear Professor McCready Price, Very many thanks for your letter and aporeciatory remarks on my "Man; A Special Creation." The book has made a fair start and I hope that it will be necessary to bring out a new edition shortly. I am trying to arrange for an American agent for it. Of course you ar«disappointed that I have not said anything about your deluj deluge theory in it, but much as I should have liked to cite it, I did not ^^o so, because, althou gh it gets over immunerable difficulties, I cannot ^bring myself to believe it is correct. I cannot see how one huge flood can have sorted out the fossAs as we find them, how it could have formed the vast areas of chalk the nummulitic clay, Barbadoes Earth er the fresh water limestone of Suvergne which is almost entirely composed of the deb-ris of caddifw^ms. I caanot see why s ch a flood should have deposited th fossils in such a way that we never find associated a dinosaur with a laee o • I placental mammal, or an ichthyos^r , a plesiosaur, a mossaur with a cetac-^^an, a sirenian or a seal^ or an arthrodiran fish with a teleostor a fre, frog or newt with a labyrinthodont, or a toothless bird with a toothed one, and so on. As regards the theory of pre-Adamic ruin, I do not accept it, but I ment-ioned it in my book because it does get over the difficulty about the lengt: of time and it cannot be disproved, and I know of no geological fact that is opposed to it. P As% I think I have told you, my own theory is that the true exlanation probably is that the creation of Adam and the harden of Eden in Genesis II, is 2. an event which took place long after the creation of Genesis I. That t^K? Genesis I describes a creation much like that around us except that Man had not his present spiritual attributes. Later God created fully spiritual man and pt£^ced him in the Garden of Eden, which he also created a number of harmless animals to amuse Adam and Eve, and this was a paradise within the earth; then came the fall anf) the degradation of the occupants of Eden afld their expulsion there^o*T* into the earth, and their mingling with its earlier inhabit ants. i The earlier creation can have been made within a period of six dayst Even if we accept as more or less correct the orthodox time-table, Geology does not ^fcessarily contradict this, because, as the sedimentary rocks known to us are only those laid down in sea and land coastal areas, the late appearance ®; of any gro,pu=* group of plants and animals in it may merely tell us when to they m grated to it. If the earth has been cooling down ever since its creation, the coastal areas when we first know of life must hat/e been intense ly and only inhabited by heat-loving creatures; those adapted to mild conditi a -6-c tfons if such then existed would confined to the cooler open seas and the / ' A iiighlands. As the temperature fell the heat-loving creatures inhabiting the Oastal areas would die out and be replaced by ujig immigrants from cooler regions; in course of time these immigrants would die out and be replaced by other imMgrants. I have adumbrated this theory briefly in the enclosed article. I have worked out the theory in the light of the known fossils verj carefully and find that the sequence of fossils of all the animals and plants in it can be easily explained by it. I have the ms. oj. a book on this^hich ] have written, but as the book would probably be bocotted I doubt whetghl any publisheer will publish at his expense and at present I cannot afford to put £150 to get it published, but hope to be able to do so eventually. I switched off from this to the book on Man as being less costly to produce and more likely to appeal to the general public. If this sells well and get me fairly well-known I shall feel able to take^the bigger risk and publish a book showing howlag the successio ns of the floras and faunas in the rocks known to us is capable tfe explanation on these lines. I am glad to say that we are making so/we headway in England in the campaign agai^nst evolution and that the rationalists and orthodox biologists are so afraid of us that they are intensifying their boycott. An article of mine on the subject is to appear in the Bible League Quarterly next month, which hope will open the eyes of many people. We are up against such a formidable opposition that we cannot expect to make great imrcediate headway, but I anticipate that before long there will be a rather sudden change in opinion. Meanwhile we must continuing the undermining process. With kindest regards. Yours very sincerely J. L. MCELHANY, presidlnt DIVISIONAL SABBATH SCHOOL SECRETARIES! miss Helena Lewin, Australia MISS BESSIE MOUNT, CHINA J. H. McEachern, far east M. BUSCH. CENTRAL EUROPE NO. 1 H. L. RUDY. CENTRAL EUROPE No. II R. R. BREITIOAM. INTER-AMERICA W. E. Nelson, treasurer THE GENERAL DEPARTMENT: E. D. DICK, SECRETARY DIVISIONAL SABBATH SCHOOL SECRETARIES: J. A. Stevens, secretary S. A. Wellman, associate secretary W. K. ISING. ASSOCIATE SECRETARY Rosamond d. ginther, assistant secretary W. T. BARTLETT, NORTHERN EUROPE L. L. MOFFITT, SOUTHERN AFRICA E. D. Thomas, southern asia H. Struve, southern Europe j. L. brown, south America SABBATH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT General Conference of Seventh-day adventists TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, D. C. TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS GENERAL CONFERENCE" WASHINGTON, D. C. August 9, 1938 CABLE ADDRESS “ADVENTIST” WASHINGTON Professor George M. Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California Dear Brother Price: Some time has elapsed since your letter addressed to Elder Ising was received. Wien he left the office at the beginning of the campmeeting season he left your letter for my attention. I am just dropping this brief word to say that according to present plans your Sabbath school lessons dealing with the flood will be put in shape for study f in our Sabbath schools the third quarter of 1939. It may be, of course, because of the lapse of time since these lessons were written that some work will need to be done on them to bring them up-to-date. You will know better about this point than will we. I am also interested in your suggestion that the little book, “The Modern Flood Theory of Geology,be used as a help. I haven’t looked into this book as to price, etc, but such a volume to serve as a help on the lessons should be rather harmoniously related to the lesson outline and also sell at a price that would enable our people to purchase it and study it in connection with the Sabbath school lessons. Perhaps you do not have a duplicate copy of the Sabbath school lessons, and so will not be able to say off-hand as to what revision or changes would need to be n»de in them. However, any suggestions you may have will be appreciated, as we shall delve into the lessons in the very near future, getting them hammered into shape for publication. Wishing you much of the blessing of the Lord in the work you are doing, and with kindest regards, I remain ^AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Sept, 21, 1936 Dear Price, I was pleased to hear from you again in the Ms, which I enjoyed greatly, the latter essays particularly, end I hope the thing makes a hit, I saw the statement the other day that Bacon’s serious essays never had much effect, but that his Utopia did a whole lot to liven up the minds of the readers, and I hope your book has the same effect. There is not a whole lot of news. In a few days I hope to send circular letter to members. The enclosure is draft which H. approved, but on going over it again I noticed several places where improved wording was required and made those changes. My opinion is that if names of several individuals are xatsKtrnft sent in, we should list them for election—the five highest, and more if ffrve-names or., more are append pfl,, Ben Allen sent me carbon of his letter to you on Mt. Whitney trip and I was delighted with it. Full of meet. Some time back I completed MS. on The Theory of the Barth (special attention to the age of the earth) and sent carbon to Lane, which he forwarded to Holmes. Sot time for reply from Holmes, but Lane is rather stirred I think; some of my evidences are a little too strong for even a hardshelled geologist. There is a prospect that he will visit California soon and I have invited him to get in my car and knock around a lot of the state and see soma geology with me. My farm paper work allows me to get around a good deal. Ought to hear from him very soon on that. Berdmans said they would like to publish a lot of short stuff on creation. First on the menu is a debate with our old crony B.T.B. taking the affirmative on organic evolution; it is a short thing, F'O to 60 pages. Two exchanges have been finished, making about 25 pages. Of course B. has done nothing but stall and misrepresent, but he made a break in preparing preliminary statement on what the thesis meant which about killed his chance to stall on the point he planned to stall most; then on his first paper he made another break— a true statement by mischance—which killed prospect for dodging and if the thing runs to completing he will be a very sick Brewster. Berd-mans seems content with progress so far, so there are finally prospects of a show down against an evolutionist. Meanwhile a friend of Lane, biologist emeritus of Harvard, may be roped in to do honors for evolution in a real discussion if Brewster misbehaves beyond the limits. I have been busy, but completion of walnut harvest; being well ahead of farm paper work, completion of age of earth Ms, etc., now promises a breathing spell and I have done some work on Ms for Berdmans on what constitutes the days of creation. Higley called several weeks ago on the run; visiting Giant Forest with some friends, so I got in the car and went up with them, I can see why every one holds him in high esteem. I also see that when he has an idea he has it and that Pre-Acamic ruin geology is a settled matter. You may be interested to learn that he and I are both ex-Dowle-ites, as they were termed. Apparently Dowie had something when two of his followers constitute such an Important part of the working force of The R.S.A. How beat that for a ooinoiaenoe. JAMES wh,te L|BRARy Trust that everything is lovely with you, ANDREWS UNIVERSITY1 Jp ' r* BERR,EN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN ---------------------------------------Helper Exet.ir, C lif; Sept. 56, 1936. To the directors of The religion m? leinnoe Association, Gentlemen: ?7cv will herewith copy of Totter »*nt 4 ■ of onr association by the roguest of our president, nn? it seems fitting for me to ,'jv~ seme "o ort of the ^bn*ltlnn of +he < * ticn. vv bocks sho*? that -jo have *3 shtlve foMborfc an? e sr delete members, eacH of -rhloh psi’ membership fee of $1.00, Tvo or three active timbers (Joo v 1? s membership fee. In addition tv o members serf in /•’b.OC e -.ch to help: ?. of. Brloe tin? » i . . 5 LOe Angeles. The only expenses the secretary has he? thus far for «hich he bos use? treasury money h-ve been for printer envelopes er? str.npe, also post eart<, The envelopes cost 1-4.64, including sales tax. There «re a number of xm> ler~e enrolor.es left- but the sratll envelopes «re «!• Set exhausted. 1 think that plain Jpee c n >e user an? the few prints? envelopes use? for special purposes. Th -v^ is .tn •■•h"‘ ’ 'ots ■ •? . ■ . , ' - 0 . / x su.^ost the possibility oi postponing the election until /the spring meeting an? having it there. th e Ln institution ■ uour' bo * opYj? go ra^ks future aieotxons eendtfeto? on thst Y sis, if an annu‘1 meeting is to be hel? m? this prolan should be desire?. You not9 the surest ion that members submit names of nersons thay shoul’ 1x/k3 to ise on thj jillot. fosalbJy it uoul/ bo '-*ell to put} vhe names of those su^ge^to?, not more than five, or norhaps all, on the nxllot, aven if oa.\ onp n.■'?£ no li/03 in tna ?»^st an^’ can aw ten? the an •iu.-u. iae*>tin^, i i • t Gert :iiily it is imxittlng to have h secretory hb 'ocs not ; ml as* the election I Inbah? uo &ibmit resi’nation on this basis an? suggest that you consider the posni^illtv f ■ mltr&Ie SAOGossor for me. Of course I a.4 not sure, iY-V tn annual meeting will be hal?, but since the Association seams tn eon-t-.yupT.ute no other ctivvties than the i-oting tint meeting will be hel?. you noy bo interests? in 1- .min* th?t I un ’eb .tin;? the rib-jeet of or-T^nio evolution ith star, . :' ;v g Bor-u'.ns ocenr ing tc the ent rogram, discussion '•ith Kalnon on th* oxt^nt nf ohan£* er iicn -m cle-^ ties I -.iOpe to suo’hit this to r? nans for Leaticn. ns ‘'*cnid LiJ I] 9 to pub" 1 ■ ?r n?9tiTial on th-’ u-p' 1 > ■■ of co nc me that a fin> fisl* for associ vtlon ^.otivity is possible h^re r interest In by uy mo 1 am working on tnig purely aS an ln?ivl?ual. J -Ox . 3c f^r, ’’J.3 J. I, <5 0 (/j CO tr UJ if more information is on assoc! un’ersigne?. ion 'otivltiss, kin?ly< Resrsectful 1 v venvs c c V '' z- ——xJAMfeo'V/HITE LIBRA R> ^ANDREWS UNIVERSITY Revise! Coastltutioa>'' .berrien springs, Michigan of the ■ HERITAGE ROOM Religion and Science Association 1*The name of this organization shall 4^ Association* ft*The purpose of this association shall be to investigate various problems of science in their relation to religios belief, particularly their relations to the Holy Scriptures, and to make public the findings of such investigations, 3»The officers and members assert t’ ?ir disagreement with the principle of evolution which governs so much of the thinking of modern scientists, this principle bein'; that nature must b? .Interpreted solely in terms of commonplace or "natural” processes, through the alleged action of matter upon matter in accordance with the so-caLled ''properties1' of matter. In opposition to this natural!stici philo sophy, the officers and members affirm their conviction that the various phenomena of nature are only the objectified ways in which the Sod of nature- conducts the ?j f-v.r< of nis universe; that He 1 s not hampered by any so-called "laws'1 of nature or "properties" of matter; and that He has often mads matter act in ways that transcend what we call the natural processese They affim their belief that definite- acts of flat creation were used in the origin and the ordering of this earch and ius inhabitants, and also in the rest of the universe. They also affirm that the Bible account of the origin and history of the earth and of mankind is correct and should be believed 4.The governing body of this association shall be a Board of five . Directors, who shall select a president, a Vice President, a Secretary-Treasurer, and such other officers as they determine. 5*Membership in this association shall be of two grades: (1)active members, who alone shall be eligible to vote and hold office; (2) associate members# To become an active member one must hold a position some recognized Institution of learning, or have had special training in natural science, or have made a special study of sone problem of science which has a direct bearing'on rcltigious faithm and shall subscribe to thl secoinstitution, One may become anaasso cuate member by subscribing to this constitution anc.payi.ng a registration fee of one dollar, 6,The election of directors shall be held annually. Active m members may make nominations, any person receiving the endorsement of five members being p.lacod on the ballot* The five persons who ■'receive the most voces shall be considered elected. In case of an interim vacancy in the directorate a majority of the directors may appoint a new dire-director for the unoxpired. term,. 7.Amendment and changes in the constitution may bo made by a four-fifths vote of the directors; but all such proposed changes shall be brought to the attention of the active members before the next annual election, and a majority vote of the members against any such change at the annual election of officers shall cancel tne proposed changes. Dudney J. Whitney, Secretary-Treasurer. L.Allen Higley, President. Exeter, California. • Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill. J'ellow Member cf The Religion:en* Science Association: \ /'• . '-3 The tinu is approaching for the first annual election of directors^ for oar Association an* I hMve been requests* by our president to sen* out this letter, The response to news notices regarding the Association has been v?ry encouraging on* we hays a very $~tisfoc.tory list of both active ax/' associate members, the activ* members being compose* of men of standing in representative branches of natural science. *• A two *eys- meeting ws Baid’this spring at the Moo*y Institute in Chicago, papers being presents*, ^ith discussion, upon subjects of irn^ ■^ortanca connects'- v:ith the, problem of creation. The attendance was -.a^go. many of those atten*ing having come long *ist.one^s, Efforts have been ma*e to hav: the Proceedings of this meeting published. The cost of publication is too great for the Association to meet, but u publisher nov’ examining the papers may get the material out at his own expense. At the present time it is not oartn'in -he-ther such meetings '"ill M an annuel event or not, If they are, spool J. efforts vi .1 1- ma*a to issue an annual Proceedings, comprlsi i--|the paper, r. ’an* such other matter «s the Association wish-s t *> hevc nublishe*. The c-eidbituvxnn requires th t changes in th: constitution be ccllr' tc tln; sent Lon of active members, who nr.y veto such charg e if txiey sc *ir..r,, One change was m *e this year: active members >e-iiag rAcuivu’’ sign the constitution as well as associate mem: ::-73. If any uoTuh?r? H;->h uc veto this amendmentr please notify the s•ec..,'-'t:-r to that Ux’sct, A copy of the revise* constitution is ^nclos’,*. not sign.i* tn constitution is requests* to *o so. Any member ’ho h-r? .An election of -directors will be held soon after opportunity h*s been giver aTL. members to reply to this letter. The directors r ? i outo motlcully .car.i? tes for reelection. Any member who is suggest,,-’ director by fxv> members will plso bconsiders* nominate* . In or’ ?r |to rr.ve as representative a directorate as possible, --n* one most pj.a as irg to th? ”nmo ership, ’, ach member ’ho has in min* some in*ivi*uol ’ horn h- shout- lx e to hove serve as director is requests* to sen* in th5 name of such individual. _ The five 'tractors serving at present are : Dr. L. A, Higley, pr:s-ic-ent; Rev, Tyron C. Kelson; Oconomowoc, Tis.; Geordi McCrea* y Prl e. d'vLTm-.:i of tm board; Dr, ’Theo. Greebner, St, Louis Mo.;- an* Prof, Chrk , Anglin, Calit. M-^bers -re also requests* to sen* in their suggestions reg^r^ing '■'■•vs in which this Association coul* promote the cruse for which it n. -i c r °’sr I z e* Respectfully yours, D. J. Thitney, 5 icratary-Tre surer Exeter, California September Pn,j. 3ames white LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN. pcpiTAcp ; AJA .IES WHITE LIBRARY ANDRE’... ' iVERSITY . ^B.ERRIEN EWEINGS, MICHIGAN Ll HERITAGE ROOM Los ...aggies, California. •h. ■ October 7th, 1956. Prof. George M. Price, College Place, Washington. Dear Prof. Price: Word from one the brethern at General Conference suggests that the Research Plan would be more readily adopted if the proposed labors and their cost were laid out in more detail. The Resolution seems to be pMlxi anc t.mnle, but they desire a more detailed statement of the labors we plan, and the probable costs, for their guidance in considering the Plan. Of course the very nature geological research in the field is such that the tine and cost cannot be accurately put down. So far as the library part of it goes, that is only the cost of the salary of the worker. In the field, however, there should be added gasoline costs at least, and help/on car upkeep. Food and lodging in the field, so far as I an personally concerned, would not be especially great, for I always live in and around my car, and board myself. I never think of eating at a restaurant or sleeping in a lodging house. But the cost will still be more than at hone. I have no trailer as yet, and that is one of the things I will have to get. But of course I would still have to pay rent on my room here. This can’t be done on an ordinary salary, but the excess would not be too great, perhaps not over Only a glance at the geology of the Grand Canyon shows that it has some plain and powerful messages on our side, and the world wide fane of the Canyon makes these messages all the more striking and valuable. It can be used in all our schools and by all our evangelists. It may take two months, it may take three or more to make a thorough study of it and take enough screen picture for perhaps three or more lectures. These pictures should be made available at cost, and each set should have with it a printed or mimeographed lecture, with full information for any speaker. An Adventist sister lives in Los Angeles who is a well known maker of glass screen slides, and a brother in San Diego who makes film slides. The latter are very much cheaper, but the film projectors have not come into general use yet, nor are they adapted as yet to a large enough audience. The picturelecture production will not cost the General Conference anything, as they will be distributed on a cost basis. Of course, it will be a little hard on me to get this started, but I might get some money advanced for it, a kind of revolving fund, say §200.00, to be repaid. Before turning out anything final on the Grand Canyon, I would Insist on you going over the ground briefly with me, as much as your physical prowess will permit. We must have detailed counsel. We just must not go wrong. The same holds true for all 2 of the work of whatever place* Bryce Canyon is close by, and so is Zion Canyon, the Arizona Petrified Forest, and the Little Colorado Canyon, all famous, places and of marvelous beauty -nd wonder. They are all in the same neighborhood. Not far away is the great Carlsbad Cavern, which can be taken as A good example of all the lime-leached and domal caverns, and it has a powerful message on our side. Each of these places would require sone weeks of study. Then there is Death Valley, becoming more and more famous, not far from here. I gave a lecture to a three reel movie on that at the Hoover Tabernacle here. It was a regular”talkie" film, but we had no talkie apparatus, and as the"talk” was all "evolutionary” anyway, I made the picture speak our message instead! But it will cost too much to put on movies, and talkies would be prohibitive and not necessary, in view of our plan to furnish printed lectures for the sneakers cnyway. I would prefer to put on the Glacier National Park first, because of your great discoveries there, but that will have to be done in the summer on account of the cold and snow'. Now I don’t see any great costs to be afraid of. The screen pictures and lectures will have to be put out at cost, therefore, they will not cost the General Conference anything in themselves. Of course I would like to have you \ ith me all the time this work is going on, out I know that would be impossible. However, I feel that you must give the ground the "once over” with me to check up on what I do. Your gasoline and car expense and salary will have to be paid of course while you are doing this. But we could plan this so it would not be excessive by making one visit do for all that country. All the time while either of us are in the field we can be carrying on profound first hand studies in geo-dynamics and structure, of course^which will not only go into the lectures, but build us up into a stronger and stronger position. We can be building up a true system of physical geography instruction, and sending out material for our periodicals that will be new and striking. You will see our schools taking much interest in the fossils and the country near them, in terms of the Flood. Your laoors have laid the foundation for a campaign in whi-ch every .school we have, and every speaker we have, can take part? The whole 'world will hear of it, and that very soon! I feel that you should be stationed in Washington, D.C. part of the time, on account of our need of the Congressional Library. We all feow you are the prince of Library research men. But I 5 can’t see how you are going to be available to teach in the Advanced School there and have any tine or energy left for this research work* It can’t be done* I an worried about that. When are they going t° quit grinding you in the school treadmill, anyway? There is a great and difficult work ahead to prepare earthhistory material for our grade schools and academies, for let no one get the idea that these screen slides will be anything like as thorough as our schools must have. Your new G-eolo0y -ill do for our colleges. Our work will stimulate a demand for all your books. But the screen slide labors are something we can do immediately, and they will serve to lead out into more thorough instruction. They will also give us some much needed practice in field work and uesentation. We can thus make our field work in itself productive, while we workers gather from it greater experience for more detailed wad -ifficult tasks and greater victories on ahead. Sooner or later we will draw the fire o-f the dragons of false Geology, but my judgment will be to pay them no mind. My burden is for the humble and honest in heart, first among our own people, to strengthen them, and fit them better for service, and to all those who are willing to listen. We have no time nor energy to spare on debate or controversy with high collars or high hats. I say this, though I served on the Debating Team of my University, later coached debators, experienced further debates before the law courts as a lawyer, in legislative halls, in people’s forums, and in political campaigns. I am different now. Now I am writing about these definite plans and costs to you so that you can add to, take from, or alter them to your best judgment. As for researches in Biology, or any of the other subjects, they need not be taken up till the General Conference Committee sees fit. I have not been much in touch with Prof. Clark since the General Conference at San Francisco. He is very busy, I understand, on an outline for a good text book on Biology, which we should have had many years ago. His plans or labors need have little to do with geological research, though.we would like to have him as one of the staff of three^supervisors of the work in Geology, if he cares to serve. 219 Ho. Grand Ave. Exeter, California, Oct. 10, 1936. To the directors of The Religion an3 Science Association, I have Just receive*3 a letter from our president, part of which shoul3 be brought to your attention. He says, * "I note with Interest your suggestions regarding a meeting next spring.'As the last meeting was one carrying out a pre-arrange*3 program, It woul3 seem that the next meeting shoul3 be one^for conference an* discussion. Last spring there was no time at all for conference^3 very little for discussion. An3 what discussion there was merely took up the papers given on the program. In your correspondence with the members, an3 especially'with the directors' it *oul3 be well to ascertain their wishes regarding this. It woul3 also'be well for them to express their wishes regarding the subjects for 3iscnsgion.n SEUSS’S™: election as suggest,*. a * eels ion In fr f03t-10n9 the tors. These letters from H^lw 13 ’tree, it appear.* well to write to you at once. S witala a ®y«. "Kelson, after the Chicago meeting, in a personal letter hai* ne wish** we "coul* all get together aroun3 a table for a while ah* also indicate* that he wish,* we ooul* have some geological j.1.1* work together. A general impression is that we shoul’ get together to is-cuss our program an3 various problems of creation, so I suppose you as directors shoul3 communicate your wishes to the president an3 make tt possible to figure what we can 3o. D3 The larger part of our members are in" the Ml33le West, though we have" quite a numbex* An the'Pacific Coast an3 some on the"Atluitlc seaboard 7 Personally I shoul3 like to see a conference hel3 at lit, Harmon, in the Santa Cruz mountains in California, but for the Assocla-^ tion as a whole I think a gathering in the Middle west woul3 be better, h I also believe that if essential topics fbi* 9 isoussion were announce3" x In a3vance through the religious press an3 the gathering cohl3 be hel3 3urlng the vacation perio3, a large attendance coul3 be hel3. 1 also co think that the Proceedings of such a ‘gathering, if they"coVere3 problemjf of great importance in creation, coul3 well be publishe3 an3 more than < pay their way. U I 5 c Q U <2 L ^uhiacts whictr occur to me that ought to be discusse3 arb: (1) whnt were the six perio33 of Creation Week? (Actually the 7 perio s); (2)'Pros an3 cons of the Reconstruction Theory; (3) What are to do geolo-gical ages? (4) With the FI003? (5) How much change after creation shoul3 we allow in plants an animals? We"probably coul3 not agree fully on any one of these questions, but we coul3 at least clarify the Issues greatly. A four or five 3ay conference, taking up some of these subjects an3 perhaps' others not mentioned, shdul3"be vary profitable". I think you better'’001*0 about it, an3 while deoPing about it, deci*a whether" we will hoi* an election soon or wait for such a meeting. I can then sen3 out announcements to our active members, 'll. J. Respectfully yours. HFRITAnp pnnq aatcU/- 7 at/PCC fCf M /ficT/fla^'&'z/' ySA^l^t^^ ^CW'UZct f ju*CrUS^f ^c^vc^^o/' Vtsh ? Off^ y***' Jfa Q>» i^LCC C&i /3aZ9t J c^ru^ ^Juu^c- Zi~ 4-t^ <* &CbVC jtZ /ItU ? (£/l GC&C 9 // oM/M. 3 10 /I JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY' BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM I I & /b^U. /ty 1367 Columbia Street Eugene, Oregon Nov. 28, 1936 hr. George McCready Price Walla Walla College College Place, Washington Dear Professor Price: During the school year 1934-35, 1 attended the University of uregon, here in Eugene. My chief interest lay in the field of Economic Geology, and 1 took what courses were open to me as a Freshman. in the course of Introductory Geology 1 was astounded to see with what little regard the Christian principles of our forefathers and founders of this nation were treated. Biey were treated with utter scorn and ridicule; mostly, of course, in the treatment of miraculous powers of the Almightly. Frankly, 1 was dumbfounded and very much upset. ± groped for a time without success for a basis of critical examination of the materiel offered. To one who was entirely uninitiated, to one who was limited in time because of financial limitations, and to one who had hoped to be able to put confidence in his instructors, a basis of criticism seemed almost impossible. The material was arranged in so plausible, so seemingly probable manner, end so decisively presented that there seemed no "out". For a time I did not detect the very unstable foundation upon which the ’’scientific facts” of geology were founded. Then, slowly, as 1 found time to do a little outside reading, the blindfold was rei oved, and one by one the theories, nightmares of misdirected thought, were laid bare. I had great difficulty in finding materiZal that was critical of th c-.ocl of hodernisi , falsely so-called, 'unce or twice 1 got onto the trail of e book at the loce 1 library (Univ.) only to find that it had ’’strayed” or w&s ’’lost”. To my Geology instructor, who oneiday made a rather slurring remark about "fundamentalists’; mentioning your name, I was indebted for putting me on the trail. 1 lost no time in finding some of your writings e nd read "^.Jtfi.D.", ’’The Phantom...”, "Back, to the Bible”, and "The New Geology”. In these 1 found inspiration and encouragement; also references to other works f I now- had something upon which to stand. It was the third term before I begun this investigation; the term in which Historical Geology was treated. I had just finished "The New Geology” when the time came for submitting a term paper; 1 reviewed this work, quoting and commenting on it, 32 pages in all. This was the first disclosure of my attitude. A few days later, in class discussion I upheld my views, tho was still rather uncertain just what position to take on many matters. To my knowledge none other questioned the evolutionarjr teachings in any matter — out of el class of 35 or 4C. Shortly thereafter I discussed the matters privately with assistant and later the Geol. Prof. The latter I found especially frank and sincere (?). He offered the suggestion that with further study 1 would change my view’s and gave me a copy of "Evolution or Christianity" to read. A more insidious and demoralizing book I have never seen. Yet it widened the breach and made me the more determined. Mamies white library ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM G. IlcC. P. Page 2 Since that time I have been unable to return to school, because of pressing family finances. The only time 1 have been able to give to sty$y was a few weeks last winter. With few exceptions, I chose books/renown among "Scientists" examine them critically and making notes. These I hope to assemble some dry in a treaties. To an ennouncement in a scientific journal 1 am indebted for knowledge of publication of "The Todern Flood Theory...” which I bought from the publisher. hay I take, this opportunity of commending you for the almost single-handed fight you are waging in the geological field? I am thankful the t the lord has still a few servants who are willing to meet the enemy on his own ground. I assure you of my support as you fight for the Cause, * 7 Dear Price, I think there is nothing more to add to the enclosed. Clearly we can never change Hfs views and I cannot see how a publicity agent i who was thoroughly satisfactory to him could be satisfactory to us. The greatest hope as far as I can see is to let everybody speak his piece publicly and have its merits and its faults set forth. The weaknesses of a crazy theory set fofcth in black and white should discourage it. As far as making any real progress through the Fundamentalists is concerned, I think it is hopeless. They are too sold on that ruin theory and would sooner die than admit that they are wrong. Randolph seems ce I spoke I’d like to have some science pro* agree to criticize my case. It should be a big drawing card. Then i* he *ell down, as he would, it would convince my audience and put him in a hole: it would bring the thing to an issue be*ore the scientists. A geology pro* at the U o* Cal. h s promised to do this *or me 1* I speak at Berkeley. The thing might be tried any time 1* I could give a series o* talks at the B.I. Los .mgeles. I know Rood and he is *riendly. However, 1* you, Price, et al. would like to see this tried( you will have to ask rhat crowd to give me a hearing. I, will not do so. vC irbon to Price) Best wishes, D. J .Whitney .171 yv . / , JAMES WHITE LIBRARY '' .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY .BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN Stony Plain, llberta HERITAGE ROOM I)ec- ' 36 By own dear Brother-. It is with a heart filled with anxiety, and yet with hope, that I begin my reply to your last presentations on this question of the sanctuary. I am (D.V.) replying to your notes on. the "Brown" pamphlet, and Sallenger’s "lying" in a following letter. Oh Brother, let us not allow the enemy to triumph in this thing, engendering bitterness and sarcasm in our hearts, brother against brother, but let us longingly seek our Saviour’s guidance, and determine to follow where He will lead. First, I wish to commend highly the clipping from the "Signs" which you enclose, from the pen of 7.G.Wirth, Ph.D. I thank you for that clipping, for as you say, "there is eminent good sense"in it. Certainly, as to the correct interpretation of Dan. 11: 45, parts of Bev. 17, as well as to the exact time of the crucifixion, Prof, firth well says, "able Bible students differ", and we should "not be dogmatic on details". Gould to Cod (I speak it reverently) that Adventists could bring themselves to say the same regarding Dan. 8: 9-14, Pev. 14, and some other parts of the prophetic books. But it is the details of these difficult Scriptures which are considered so ."crucial" to the Denominational existence that when Ballenger or any one else tries to point out error in those Church teachings they are denounced as trying to tear down the Church itself,and doing the devilTs work. or as to Dan. 8: 14 they know exactly what took place and when it took place -to the month and the day. Candidly, and in all Christian kindness, \whjf can jwt -this___req-lXv difficult Scriptureaj-go be_ open to ^rell-investf ga tion 'andoemade neither a/ test^oi^a gool Advent:ist"wof "of "warring a gain stmt he Church" and against the truth of God? And especially should this be so when the reasonable and the Biblical objections to the Church’s theory are so very serious as to make an i^n^lligant ^gresen^^tion oipthat theory, in the light of those objections?an utter .impoib iI i f y« "Creta inly the S.D.A. Church would be far from lost iT it should revise its teachings in regard to the sanctuary, bringing them into line with well-known Bible facts. She would be vastly the stronger for it (just as would the Baptist Church if she could see and. adopt the Bible Sabbath) and she would go forward with far more of the power'of the God of Truth. And oh that my Brother might be in the line of this xafonn. which ^is surely comin ; and know for a surety that one,with God,is a majority? You say that only by my last letter have you learned what 1 myself believe in regard to the "2300 days"; that heretofore I have been too busy attacking the Adventist position to present my own. Yes, I fear you are right there, and 1 regret it-, for I should be free to state my own position as to ask you to state yours. I shall now try to do this. My "creed" (I use the word for brevity of course) is,.npt free from difficulties, 1 know, as even, the Sabbath truth, and the "sleep of the dead" are not. But mine, violates no vital principle of our Christian faith, nor are the difficulties which beset it nearly so serious as those which hedge about the Adventist faith, - say as presented by Branson. And I invite you to criticize my presentations freely; you may help me to see some of my mistakes, which 1 doubt not do exist - and may 1 not possibly help you ? There are truths in this subject which neither you nor 1 have yet .seen. I may add that you are fully at liberty to make the fullest and freest use of my statements on this subject that you care to make; the more widely you make them known to others the better I shall be pleased. God helping ne 1 am not too greatly afraid of being shown an error, nor, I trust, of retracting it when seen. I believe, then, on some points more clearly than others, much as follows: 1 - The throne of God, His dwelling place, must always be in the ost Holy Place of any sanctuary on earth or in Heaven, nature tells us this as well as God’s word which tells us so repeatedly, "He dwelleth "He dwelleth between the cherubims", or words to that effect. As one prominent Adventist writer has well stated, "Wherever Jehovah actually is must be the Lost Holy Place". / 2 - hen Jesus ascended to Heaven He entered the immediate Presence of /His rather, there to present the offering of His atoning blood for man’s sins, r There He has since been ministering for us,"at the right hand of Cod", with His father, ’upon His throne", "in the bosom of the ather", "from henceforth awaiting untit Eis enemies are made His footstool". These and many similar Scriptures picture the closest possible intimacy of presence of i the Son with the father, and forever preclude^ the_thot jhat Jeauawag ^epa-| jrated frqip His Lather fj^ ygag^^fter^F ASQ^ndgd," - separated by any । "inTefVeniiTg veil, "OF 15 y Jo e • L j, ,:.d; :.L', or by anything else whatever. Sy His own blood "He entered onee for all^into the holy places" "having obtained eternal redemption for us. 3 - ith these two basic Christian truths before us I have to believe that Jesus has been ministering for us "within the veil", in His father’s immediate Presence, in the Lost Holy Place of the Heavenly sanctuary, since He ascended to Heaven - and so He could not have ministered outside, in the -i ~i -> -■ -i , —, i i a a MMw less holy place, from cl A.B. uo 1844. 4 - It seems to me most beautifully true that the great antitypical | Bay of atonement began in 31^.B., when the Lordls Coat was slain, and our great” Sigh-priest appeared Tn TTs father’s Presence, with the atoning blood, ( to have that wonderful.offering formally accepted. 5 - The atQ&gffl^nt for our sins was made upon Calvary’s cross, at the beginning of%he^great Pay of Atonement. The atonement "for the sins of the whole world”, ” for all the people of the congregation", was there made, and I know 'bin other atonement ever made, or yet to be made, than Christ’s blood shed for us. "By whom we have now received the atonement". 6 - There is a sanctuary in Heaven, where our great High-priest still ministers for us in His father’s Presence. But we cannot mpfae, it ,_c on f oy~q :o closely to the ear tabernacle v;J ici. loci rave to his people as a suitable object-lesson to teach them, and us, of the great plan of redemption. In the Heavenly sanctuary we cannot picture "jj^e&h-hooks" or ^snuffers" or the washing flaver" or even e.r of--bu-rnt - o f ringj seeing* there are np_ yj-ft,t4tlS--.fr 0 be offered there. I doubt greatly that there is any literal ^veJ1 b in theSeavenlysanctuary - to separate the Son for 1800 years from •tEt*"mather, or to separate both the Lather and the Son from Hj.s lav^ and His mercy-seat, for those long years. The Aposthe tells us that the veil vzas ghfist '-a giesll. which when broken or torn i'or us ret tried our biu-priest to the,.; ather’s immediate .Hreaence, in the Holy of Holies, and admitted His people to fasten their hope there, as a sure anchor, "within the veil", where their Porerunner had already gone before them. 7 - I think that this Heavenly sanctuary has been open at 'all times for man’s needs eviex.since sin entered our sad world; the felch.esidek priesthood (which I am far'"from'understanding) functioning during the first days of sin, and Angels serving as ministering priests. "Are they not all ministering spirits...?’’ 8 - I do not question the jgact .Qf ap, finvestigative judgment", nor ^even of a get tiiqe. being_allotted to that solemn work. 'uch may be true; but when that set time Hegins or ends I do not know. That it began in 1844 there is little or no warrant for saying; more likely it began with the begin \ ning of the great Bay of Atonement, 31 A.B. 9 - I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist people and their work are of God, quite as truly as was the Reformation of the 16th century or the revival under ,/hitfield and Wesley in the 18th. The Sabbath reform and the Gospel of Christ’s soon coming a^e, vife^ to gnd’p^work;.. to-day. I can believe too that the 1844 was h±_Gnd^ resulting in the conversion of many, leading men to an earnest consecration to Him, and to a closer study of the prophecies, a knowledge of which vzas to be more . clearly given in these last days - when knowledge should be increased. But tho I believe that, it to.iiflfLa lias Qj urojphecy pointing forward to, or ending in, 1844 than it is to hunt around and find some line of prophecy pointing to, and ending in, 1517 or 1758, of the Luther or the Lesley movement. ^illep. v^s.-wholly wrong, we know, when he proclaimed that Jesus would come in 1844, more wrong than Luther and Wesley were in some of the errors which they taught. killer proclaimed his mes -sage in the face of the direct statement of our Lord, "of that day and hour knoweth no one”,(A.R.V.) and earnest Bible students were right in rejecting it - while rejoicing in the spirit of love and devotion which went with it. iller was sadly wrong in the event, and there is no more evidence in the prophecy itself that he was any JPQreearly righty in the time . And 3.D.Adventists were just as wrong when for several years "(about 1846 to 1851) they taught that mercy had^clo§ed for sinners in that year, 1844. And again today there is no more Bible evidence that the event which they now preel aim took place in that year is right than that either of the former proclaimed events vzas right. This whole question of the sanctuary should be carefully re-viewed and revised, wholly in the light of Godfs word, and not in the Tl^ht^oi any presently-held church theory, or the teachings oi any modern writer as authority on the subject. ho reform in the past has been free ^■rom serious error, and so continual reform is needed. fO Ss” -he cleansing ot the sanctuary, and Dan. 8: 9-14. hirst, I would urge strongly that we cannot safely take so,, vague and uncertain a line of prophecy and make our interpretation of it so assured that we take it as^a. .taJSO, or foundation-truth, and make other more simple and vastly more vital and fundamental gospel truths conform to it. feather should we, by all means, limit our interpretation of any line of prophecy to conform carefully to all more obvious Bible truths. _or example: The ”7 times” of punishment,(Lev. 26: 18, 21, 24, 28) according to the. Ru^sg]-lites, began in 606 B.C., and therefore those 2520 years must _epd._ ip 1914. A.-D* .hen the end of the Gentile times occurs and Jesus comes. Logical enough and correctly reckoned, but - such an interpretation of that prophecy contravenes the much more plain statements of the Angel of Acts 1: 11, as to the cpmipp. Which should I doubt, the certainty of our understanding of the prophecy^ or the evidence of the more plain statements of the Angel? So, to begin with, any interpretation of Dan. 8: 9-14 which contravenes (propositions 1 .ancL^-pf my ^£££££1", which seem most reasonably true and. Biblical, I must at once discard: at least until u^til I have more evidence on the other side than I have now. Some of the Bible prophecies have a ..doublew.application, as. you say, and it would seem very possibly the case with Dan. B: 9- 14, - but of that later. think that the direct and obvious reference of the "little horn” is tn^Antfochus Dp3pl-rpgR . intiochus did come out of one of the horns of Greece, which Rome did not. Rome was a major world power, ranking well with the ram or the goat, and could not well be represented. byyA..’Ilitlle. horn” coming out of Greecia. She‘was the reading, world.' power when she first me£ the Jevzs, in 161. Antiochus waxed Jt great ”towards the south and towards the east and towards the Pleasant Land7; Rome waxed great towards the north and the west as well. Both Antiochus and Rome did trample down the sanctuary and the host of God. ”He shall stand up againstjhe J pince j)f pj.lp.Qes", or "the prince of the host", seems to iavor Romib^^rather tiian~Sntiochus, —^..freeJLy admitted. ew interprelations of prophecy or vital Bible doctrins, but sone Bib1e passages can be presented which seem to weigh against them. Je can only take the weight of evidence in each case, making the one or two passages seemingly opposed, conform to the four or five passages seemingly in favor, of any Bible truth or doctrine। Isn’t that highly reasonable? . However, I touch on this passage later. Antiochus was ’broken with-qut _han_dJ4. Rome was not - except in its Papal form, when we believe it will be. tr ■ I/ . How, as to the time given, - "2300 days". I cannot see how lome ful-fl filled that at all. Indeed, ildventists say that ome doesn’t need to - while fl they, and you, insist that Antiochus must. Your statement, "In the last 1 I analysis these symbols include all the Satan-inspired world-powers which I are in existence at the time to which they apply" - -ris_^sp^ jziague as Ild Jbe use- * That "little horn" which came out of one of the di v i s ions~of tfce .'reek Empire referring to "all the Satan-inspired world-powers which were in existence" at that time - between 457 3.0. and 1844 A.D. ??? Ch dear, no; that could not be, even in the"last analysis", or .long-time application; much less in the direct application, of which I am speaking. Ho, that " "little horn", which came out of one of the horns of Greecia, was surely a ^finite "king", as definite as was the ’great horn between his eyes". Surer r "thus Ts so. The tire given is definite, the tine during which that "little horn" should tread down the sanctuary and the host of God, as the prophet had .just seen it doing, in the vision. Whatever that "little horn" was it ust arise and da ihs the, dgath of Ylexapder and the divis- ion of his empire into four parts - or after 323 3.0. Isn’t that logical? How Pome, or any other godless power, began to tread down God’s sanctuary, fl the daily sacrifice, etc., in 457 3.3., ' cannot see at all. 'Thatdate is a very SL stwAEin’’ point for the "70 weeks of years" of Pan. : 24-2u, 1 ;.f. ,e:.e allotted go tie holy ci g _.md _.eople, uUu I cannot see ^niow it could mark the beginning of the L ?ork of that "little horn", no matter what it is, in taking away the daily sacrifice and defiling the sanc-h tuary. "3. at date marks more fittingly the restoration of the holy people, Jl, the sancf^^ry**aST**^crT?Tce, not their treading down. 4Lhat ,_is. the^jtrnnjj^.j Advent i s t s -4 gn p re _, th cjug g t i on . ashy 1a in _ r s 13 and tab eilF an s \ jer~ o f v e r s e 14' as a detached statement, 'or^aT:e‘*ansv/er something rot asked in the guestion at all. How can Truth be arrived at thus? Yes, I have looked a little into the time riven, as applied to fntiochus, and it may fit well. The following items I take largely from a pamphlet by lohn Easterly, of Healdsburg, Calif. I am sorry that I do not have the ff I. accabees^ but Easterly gives entire chanter 1 of that book,- I lac., verse 54 we read, "How the 15th day of the month Casleu, in the 145th year, they (Jintiochus men) set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar", etc. r'hen in ch. 4: ? , "How on the 25th day of the ifopfS ninth month, which is celled the month Casleu, in the 148th year, they (Judas’ men and priests) ... offered sacrifice according to the law, upon the aew alta which they lad made. ed it." Three times in this chapter it is mentioned that Judas’ men ’cleansed the sanctuary" at that time. The length of time of defilement here given, as you will see, is 3 years and. 10 days. Smith’s"Bible Dictionary", art. "month", says that the Hebrew months were 12 to the year, making ^.bout 3y4. days, with an additional month inserted "about every third year". If we count thus, 3 time's 354, plus 29 , plus 10 we will have 1101 days, (the extra da/ would, I suppose, be dropped, or a whole day added, with different years). The. ■ ,'ives"2400", instead of 42304", while "another ancient vers- ion mentioned by Jerome, ... gave 220U<"- possibly the one which Josephus speaks of receiving from the templeT ^aking this last number,"2200" even-ings-mornings, we would have 1100 days during which the sanctuary would lie desolate, with the daily sacrifice ceased, and the ne^get day (1101) Judas and his men restored the sacrifice upon the new altar which they had builded. If we had data to fit other "time" prophecies as well as that we might well be satisfied. As to the validity Qf. that version "mentioned by Jerome" I do not know, but I am ageing further information. 'hat we want is final Truth. Josephus, in speaking of the event says, " Th is d-PS olat ipp q^me t o n a s s ^S.cu4Aag i>i-c / m nicl, vhioh was glyen 408 years Before^’ Prideaux says or these prophecies of chapters 8 and 11 that they were very "exactly’^ fulfilled; while Porphyry, the "anti-christian", considered them so accurately fulfilled that the statements in Daniel, he thot, must have been historical and not prophetic. Barnes considers the "little horn" to apply to Antiochus, as.Ju^JXo±i^»i^ gepqral.ly, I believe, so I am not in so very bad company. can see then, how the time given may fit Antiochus exactly; I do not see how it can possibly fit Rome. You argue thaj Rome 13 work do^g not need, to fulfil_ thetim^liroit at all» e i wA*?filfik 6f "EreIdeiitSYh 1 s^workmu&t ^Fit’ Tne J1;ime~ exadnEfy, a.Ua you jeer at me for possibly not letting "wild discrepancies in these matters" trouble me. Aven if we take our A.V.’s "2300" evenings-mornings, the discrepancy in time for Antiochus1 work is only 50 days, while with home’s it is about 300 years, at least. TBythe way, I have an intensely thrilling book of some 400 pages, by J.H.Ludlow, (F.H.Revell}. It covers these four years or so of the wars of Judas .accabaeus and his brothers against Antiochus, from the time that prince defiled God’s sanctuary with the slaughtered swine until the cleansing and restoration under Judas; and showing most vividly how"the sanctuary and the host"were trodden down during those three or more years.) But seemingly the greatest weight of evidence in favor of Antiochus, and against Rome, is in the cleansing,- "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." This is perfectly plain and simple of the cleansing of the temple, under Judas and his brothers, as mentioned above; but of the cleansing from the defilement Rome, according to the Adventist version, the matter is so complicated and so uncertain as to be altogether hopeless. It is just as I have said, that the Chjxrch’s teachings., .divorce the. answer in y. 14 from the questh?n askej--tp vT-TjUent irelyx -'ot one writer ihat T~know of at-te ipts to give the connection Ketw£?n question and answer at all. "D. &R." does not give it; "Gt. Con." does not touch it. Iranson, in "The Atonement does not mention it; Spicer, in "Our Bay..." doesn't give it;"Bible Readings gives nothing of it. "The Atonement", "Gt. Con." and "Bible Readings", while making those "2300 days" of such stupendous importance, do not even mention Rome, or the uestion asked, an this connection at all,- so far as I can see. Talkrabout, taking a text away from its context and^, hoping to arriy^.^at sacked Truth thus I I do not know of a more“glSTtng instance of sucliunsaTe’ method of interpretating Scripture in the writings of any other denomination. "B. & R." and "Our Bay" give "ome as the "little horn", come up to the "2300 days", then hasten over to ch. 9 to find when those "days ’ began, and then go to the 1 osaic type to see how the sanctuary was defiled and how cleansed - forgetting that verses 9 to 12 tell us just how the sanctuary...was defiled, in this case^.”but they do not attempt to show how the answer meets the question. They show how the sanctuary was defiled, "uhdtfr the "osaic type, by the confessed sins of God’s people being transferred to it , and how these sins were atoned for and pahdPhi^ blotted out on the Bay of Atonement, and placed upon the head of the scape-goat, Satan. Jut how can all this possibly apply to the sins of Rome, that "little horn" which trampled down and defiled the sanctuary for "2300 days"? How can you chide me for suggesting that Rome must have confessed her sins if the sanctuary was defiled by them,- i.e. if the method of defilement stated by all these writers applies here? Please, Brother, explain this thing to me, I beg of you, and bring some order out of this chaos. You say you don’t know why I should ask you to do this; but why in the name of sacred Truth should I not ask it? ouldn’t I gladly do as-much for you if you asked such a favor of me - if I was able to do it at all? Th en. th^.. Adv ent i s t theory that Jesus did not entj.r->1thgHal-v RTfioe to articles 1 and 2 of my "creed", as mentioned above-, which "arTicles" I believe in my heart that you agree with. And if you find the thing impossible, as you surely will, fear not to face the facts frankly, as a brave man and a Christian, knowing that thousands of noble men in the past have had to face similar facts and make decisions for the truth - and such men God loves. But to) revert to Ban. 8: 9-14. I said above that the phrase, "Prince of the host ” counts against the Antiochus theory and in favor of Rome 5 but it is far from being conclusive. Qruden’s Concordance says of ’’Prince'’, '’This name is given ... to the cCrieQEthe priests, called the princes of the sanctuary, Is. 43: 28.” The high-priest", 75nias_. who lost the priesthood and his life under Antiochus might quite rightly, 1 think, be called the prince of the host, or the prince,. 0^ princes; he was no ’’petty Jewish official”, as you term him, but Tod’s highest representative on earth at the time. This same Daniel called Nebuchadnezzar ’’king of kings”. Barnes applies this to Antiochus’ work against the God of heaven, as he stood up against Eis work and Eis people here. The LXX renders this, in v. 11 ’’the chief captain”. Still, I freely admit that this is one count against Antiochus and in favor of Pome, and nearly as weighty, perhaps, as that the little horn came out of one of the four horns of Greece is against jfome and in favor of Antiochus. Of heavier weight against the Antiochus theory, I think, (or rather, in addition to it) is our word’s reference to the "abomination of desolation" as being something yet future in Eis day. This makes me think that besides the primary application to must be (or seemingly is) a ’’long time" Antiochus there '"Or does our Lord refer to JDaru_9p J.7 _an Moubtless refer to Rome’s cTest ruction 0 "ee.'S to refer to the era of the ,._ayacv tion of desolation" passages, a ning 10 the prophecy, _ as you say« % to 8; 13? The f 0 rm er does”* Nusal’enT'in 70 A.D. Dan. 11: 31 I5giit^j)Uts it. Do these three Iso that in 12: 11, all refer to the I wonder about it, Do you consider Smith right in ”D. & R on'/Shis last text? I try a good deal pray God to guide and help me. 0 think how these can apply, and I But pray Brother, let us talk these things over kindly and Christ- free from harshness and sarcasm Try to think that I ma sincere Christian, and quite as honest as yourself; and let us both recall old Cromwell’s courageous remark, to which you once referred me, T y brethren by the bowels of Christ 1 beseech you, ? .bethink.you, tkath VQU may. je mistaken. ” four suggestion that the "daily/ sacrifice^might p o s s ib'l y refer to the actual daily, or constant, ministration of Christ in Heaven for His people, is good and well worthy of thot - in connection with the "long-time” meaning of the prophecy - , also, ’’Then think of how the Toman Church has, by its 'wafer god7, taken away this work of Christ, placing its own abomination in its place.” ^X^s^Jlpis is good, and I have thgj i t. p off s i ble. Hay fe you to develop this Particularly ask how the " was de I’iIff d by tl ese ^ins 0 of confessed sins to the sanctuary, which all Adventist 01 tl: writers on the subject insist on. I read one most interesting article a bit ago urging that very point which you suggest. The writer (not an Adventist at all) developed that thot of ^.ome supplanting the kno1 ledge of wife 0 orifice of Chr: - its own nsacri ide c 1 rSs’T, as the great 1 ’**Su?*TiTTad the clcansinm; io begin with the Reformation, / ^'d^ifNinueuffcTer Tesley and the Baptists, etc., and to end under the ’’iller movement "about 1844”, when the last of the great Papal errors was dissipated He did not mention the^gab-bath preform of that time, for he was not a Sabbath- mer, but it might well apply there. ” 1 - is,, m e t h 0 d 0 l&l y siD ?' * r 0 - ’ ■ .C1..01 .i... lAopdJesj u-s ia -•..-0 for 1^. ’ /he v riter ade no men- l ■^‘tiono f t^Trans f er 0 fth"eb^on?^s^f*si^T*o^^^ ’ s people to the sanctuary,-and got along much better without it; but he also failed entirely (as do the ists ) to show how th^janggy began^a s/crg/joe -1 ear^. y beT .0 r tT¥ of further thot. u say, "As for Rome not being in evidence in 457 B.C. this is very f the mark; for we are dealing: with a continuous line of prophecy, and the date, 457, certainly falls within the scope of the prophecy. ’ I cannot met this at all. Te are not dealing rath any "continuous line of prophecy" whatever except the vori: of the "little horn"; there is nothing else mentioned in the question save "the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden, under foot?" It doesn’t include anythin-’ done by the ram, the goat, the first big horn or the four horns (if it had included all these then 538 would have been the date to start, not 457.), but only t_Kqse eyil_.thin gg 4-one, b34.th1 it t1 e hoTP-"« How could language be more plain ?- "How long shall be the vision concerning..." those things then mentioned. Ho, my remarks are not in the least "directed against the very text itself", as you suggest, but against the beginning those "2300 days" of treading down the sanctuary and taking away the daily sacrifice by that "little horn" in 457 B.C. To illustrate: In Dan. 8 we have a "continuous lire of prophecy’’ but who would say that the "time and times and the dividing of time", oi verse 25, might begin back at some time in the days of the lion or the bear, say in 606 or 536, or any date other than one down this side of the uprising of the ten horns and that other little horn from among the ten, or not earlier than about 476 A.D. ? The same applies exactly to 8: 9-14. f?his "little horn" must rise and do its WQ.rk some time later than tT.'is ±s r^asoflaole. Isn’t it just as I have repeatedly said, that Adventists divorce the answer of.14, from the question asked in v. 13 altogether, and maTfe 1t”"answerJs<5Tne thing not asked in the question at all. If you should ask me, "How long do you expect to remain in Alberta?" and I should reply, "Tor the next ten years", when at the same time I was definitely planning to return to Hew Brunswick this next spring to live, my answer would be no more misleading than is the answer of verse 14 under the interpretation forced upon it by the Adventists; for hew Brunswick is no more foreign to Alberta than are the confessed sins of God’s people foreign to the evil work against the sanctuary done by that 'little horn". I could more easily find Sunday sacredness in Acts 20: 7 than find the beginning of those evils mentioned in verses 10-13, in 457 3.0., or than to find any confessed sins of God’s people referred to in those verses. Then as the theory must violate either one or the other of articles 1 or 2 of my "creed", which seem to me as axioms of Christian thot (and which I believe you hold as truth) , I say fearlessly that the whole theory of the sanctuary as taught by the Church must be re-concidered and restated; which it certainly will be some day. hy Adventists cling so despairingly to that date, 1844,when they repudiate . iller as the founder of their church, I cannot see. Tiller was desperately mistaken, we know, so .were Seyenth-d.ay Adventists for some years, later. ..hat, guarantee have we that the date which they proclaimed a was. right ..hen the events which they* dec laired in connection with that date were wholly wrong? Is not the best authority which'Adventists have for this dogma the fact that thy___lhyrch teaches it so strongly9 I regret what seems to me to be a steady increase^'aon'‘i’flie’*parVbTcKurcn writers, of an insist- ancp pn ^hb,uj?ch authority in these matters, and an urging upon the laity that they avoid reading.anything upon these questions which is not sanctioned by the Church authority. You write, "All of which shows that you are absolutely incapable of restating the theological views of some one else, and for the very simple and clear reason .that you have never taken the pains to really understand those views." George, the fault is not in the "restating" but in the first stating. will leave it to any unbiased tribunal that I state the Adventist teachings on these things A^ideOy accurately than you do - Or than you state my writings on the subject. I can give abundance on this if you wish it. I. have never, by a single ’.ord, tried to suggest to any one that you do not believe that Jesus entered the Tost Holy Place of the Heavenly sanctuary in 1844. Of course you believe that if you believe in the Adventist theorv of the sanctuary at all, for that is the foundation and the cornerstone" oi the whole thing. n. ., . . „ ° iou must believe it m some way, even if, , like Dr. H.D.Scott with evolution, you have tonhold it only as an act of faith". I have quoted your following statement (in your letter of lov. 22 • 3 to several, and I donk know why I should not - any more than why I should not Luote your statements on the Sabbath or on evolution. "We must not be so childish and 1anthropomorphic’ as to suppose that there are such mundane things as ’thrones1 and ’veils' and ’apartments' and 'chariots’ etc. in the heaven of heavens where the Eternal dwells. Ho enlightened Adventist holds such a view." And you proceed in a long paragraph to enlarge upon the idea that such things are presented to us only in "kindergarten sign-language" in the 3ible. .’hat did you possibly mean by the above if not what the w wording states? This -was written in answer to my presentation that Adventists taught that the throne of Cod and Eis presence was in the outer apartment until 1844, and that He then.j2ranoon. $.23) As I think there is no literal-veil in the Heavenly so I think there are.^xti^t^^j^^xtments: certainly there was no veil, nor any- J thing else,.that separated Jesus from the Father for 1800 years after He ascended . further, as to my being "absolutely incapable of restating the theological sjf16 one else", and which I maintain (with all good nature) that I do better tnan you do. ° 7 that I do better than you do.,_ And this is not questioning your ability in the matter, even your superior ability, but it is because of the nature' of the indefensible "views" which you feel it your duty to defend. For example, You say (Feb. 10 / 36 ) "Time and time again I have stated that all Adventists that I know of believe the jeb.~6j 19„to mean the veil between the two apartments, or the one at the entrance o*fuhe l ost Holy." I must judge from this that you really know but poorly what Adventists teach upon this subject. Certainly ...Ider French teaches otherwise. A bit ago the "Signs" had an article of some length defending the "otherwise" view, even bringing out the Greek to defend it. "Gt. Con.", on pages 420-421, teaches the "otherwise" view strongly. Branson, in "The Atonement", p. 38, teaches it just as strongly. These all teach that the "veil" of Heb. 6: 19 refers to the outer^vejG., or cur.ta.ip.., not to the inner. Audreys, in "A lore excellent L'inis-^ry^/‘p,*o2VKtCoey^ t refers to the ire ;il, but that Christ enterd th^e^anly t< icate the sane for service, and th. str i -J.tray out and began His i is try in the outer or ’’. ' ‘ " Cfcourise Ire-^t'eaches' that tile throne OxTrod was then in the outer part also. /hat teacher besides Andross do you know vzho teaches that heb. 6: 19 refers to the inner veil? The same is true regarding what Adventists teach about the throne of God. (ou write me that beautiful sentence, " wherever Jehovah actually is must the ost Holy Place"; which is most true. aid you have said the same in other.words. But again you say, "I do not think that the Adventist view can be correctly stated to be that God first dwelt in the holy Place for a certain period and then’moved into the host Holy Place ’ in 1844. I think this would be a very crude and clumsy way of stating the facts. But 1 feel Certain that a cha^e...of... somg,.kind did occur at the .latt^X-. d^,t,e, the exact nature of vzhicnwmaynot' exactly under stand, ...". In a later letter you state "again emphatically" as you state here, that Adventists don’t teach that Jehovah moved from the one apartment to the other in 1844, adding that this kind take place, "why on " and that "she was only fol- . . ,... „ _ and Isaiah and John used in _pf "visions." How, I state just as "emphatically" that Adventist writers do generally teach that very thing, viz. that God dwelt in the outer apartment until 1844 and then moved into the inner apartment. -. Pub• Ass’n • -s it likely that they will set that matter right, they consider it not worth while? Oh, I could be sarcastic on these things,but 1 am trying to avoid it, for I wish not to hurt the cause of reform which I am seeki to advance. as you know, different "Union Conf. " papers have published/somei of these "Brown” letters too. But while these Church leaders steadily (i think that is the right word) to '..a^.e ii',ixt tne wrongs W'hich they publish in those letters (and everv "lying" expression should be apologized for, for «a2 .of such“ in' a single instance; and while those same Thurch leaders refuse to allow Bal-lenger an inch oi space in their papers to correct those mis-statements Ba.lXeager..haa^aLBiiandlne offjj-of^toace in hia .-haB.r- up to one half of’an issue, Tor any reputable Conf, o x f ic TaJ^T6 Afireo rre c t any mistakes which he may have made in the Call, or to present their evidence on the sanctuary, or other, question. This simple fact speaks quite strongly^for itself. h them also. 1 Yes, 1 do want them do not fear the truth and honest hea difference.Jae f. Brotn hfeem”s to Brovn arrai to do sonetimes or Of course le appropr iat i on i Ball to the E.G.White ger’s statement w truth is what we wa: , you recognize the ■ h ich e pp. un f o rtunate ly r in connection with his statement re the Sen te, and which 3rovn desirnetes iitted in connection with y have been even not true statement of some iTpff.Xgis. l^I'ey iq ‘ o Lnd. what nameless writer ^all^H, ile-feer as doubtless unwise, as I told him letter in the hay-June ’ 55 "Call" But Brown gives no proof of this, only t (himself) who says that h e " ip f opche d Surely we do no'u ‘class no vn with h imse nA.’n ’A ow of evidence does Brown give that Ba en he wrote it ? ITot the slightest. riation which the i^ju^WcUto the c purpose. for such I ext remain wh vzhere Conf, absolute and it by even untrue, let alone being a lie. had previous! nolusibn ssioly untrue, (and wl hut evidence of "lyin? and ei lew his stater?ent de for those debts, and he this appropriation as for such a' from the inside11 none whatever. friends in the ministry to You say that "the case of • Of England boasts of its broad, latitudinarianism, it constantly proclaims that a man can believe almost anything, and. teach almost anything, and. still be in rood, standing.” But again you are wrong, for the cases are very similar. Brabourne wrote only some ten years after the trial of Trask, before the Star Chamber,where he was condemned., and. from, thence was whipped and. im- prisoned, as were several others imprisoned for their Sabbath-keeping, and teaching, at about the sane tine. ”His wife, ' istress Trask, lay for 15 or 16 years a prisoner for her opinions about the Saturday-Sabbath”. Brabourne himself was "fined £1000 and imprisoned71. King Charles got Bishop 'Thite to prepare an answer to Brabourne’s Sabbath teaching. So whatever may be the case to-day, the above facts scarcely indicate that in the time of I r. Brabourne a m^jugould "believ ost anything and teach almost anythir st 14-1 ^"^oodJJ tan ding* in' the Church of England. Adye.nt_ists, haye' sp a r c e_ly ~shnwn the fr Aprnteaching that _” withyg-the ^^ m dans~ ~ 7.'. < 7 ?lg : l^ce. a c ''.eck . t? • w • 'hi-rcf p. " th :-.r it; jSgKtfSbO "the ^apba^^^e^^BS'SFlhgS^t "??Fv7 IBf'al) burnS • N o, e two cases arevery similar, as are those of ’ycliffe, Huss, Luther, and the host of • ormers generally. ±h is, no^ one oX.lund SM &£ bLo apd ____y •/ ■■■■■: . It is this wi.icl makes the one case at the worst but a wild d’i’^’o r o"J" Jud gm ent - even if not just the right thing to do- and the other case as bad as Tany thing in all the history of the Jesuits”. Lay I suggest, George, that your.very harshness and overstatement shows the weakness of the cause which you advocate, and that yo^ feel /thatweakness, if only subconsciously; for if you felt its strength yoifwbWlioT need, To be thus harsh, and to overstate. E.g. If you had said, 1 think the case of Lev. T. Brabourne is hardly similar, instead of "has no possible similiarity”, you would have presented your case more strongly, if a favorable effect on me was desired; and the same applies emphatically to your remark, "I dont know of anything in all the history of the Jesuits any worse than this.” A strong case needs no such overstatement• Really, in this case it depends almost entirely on th e^iut§ryre t ation which one puts upon that phrase, ”wo rk fr om^ th e ins/ide". Put theworst possible construction upon it and the advice’^wasTa^f decidedly; bad. But the best construction on it and it may well pass inspection forhonesty. - as in the cases B. the reformers mentioned above. The time likely comes, in any case, where !.e reee.t^p 0^ the sanctuary question as at present held, but I well believe there are t£’ousands""‘bf them who would gladly welcome Tth^ijik -tfea,t __the c ontri b 01 i 0 f- jh j a c?|,a^ m ight 1 .go .to he^p, ;Hosefrie/H? ob’ A er, ■ .ho are ' teachirw four-fifths sound biivent-ist* doctrihb ahywayi ^and^Zho are earnestly s'e'blrfhg only'"the highest 'good of the Church. I still think, however, that 3allengerTs ”advice” was not good, chiefly because that as worded those who are so disposed can easily make ij__appear in a very bad“Tight. Let me quote a few lines from Ballen££z2.s~ last letter. "There is no small •group at headquarters in Takoma ParlT who are using their influence to bring about some necessary reforms in the teachings of the Denomination. In fact > I am convinced that the y^ are. in..the _pa.jp rity..^.t headquajters. ... They want to see the Denominat10ft 'put onTa sound’BiSle basis. rhey still have faith to believe that they will succeed in their reform. One thing in particular, they have worked persistently to secure a o^iftXLfor the study of the teach- teachings of the Denomination, .as jaetii-ioned by the Australian brethren." That is good, it is encouraging. Undoubtedly there are thous^cU of honest, intelligent Adventist men and women who see the fearful weakness of the sanct-uafy^dU'c'trine, as S/Tpreseht^held, and long for a faith upon this point which thev are not ashamed of or fearful of being questioned upon. Yes,jGeorge, J?.22in8> either with the mass of the Church as a body, (and can we hope Tor'such an unprecedented thing as for the church as a body to reform its doctrines on any vital point ?) or with thousands o£,hprie§tJpeople in the Church. God grant that you and I may ever be in the line of true reform, how, very possibly you may not be called of God to enter actively in this work of reform. You have another line of reform work, which doubtless is God’s special calling for you. 3ut just as surely as you have a God-given message of reform for the world of science to-day, so. surely has .God yi£Ssage of reform for His Advent Church to-day, calling upon them to remould their teachings into conformity with His word. "Why should it be thot a thing incredible with you " that God has a message of reform, a .testing message, for Eis Church in these last days, when such has been the boon of His church in Advcwt Isfs every other age ? And I beg of you from my heart, dear Brother, do not fight this reform; for your soul’s sake do not fight it. This does not •jan; do not forward every reasonable argument, from the Scriptures or Brom common sense which seems to tell with you against the right equsness of this "reform1 message, - bring these up freely, I invite them, /we)invite them; for Truth is what we want; but I beg of you se> and with such useless arguments as; "The Devil’s work", "absolute lies", "intentional dishonesty", "as bad as the Jesuits", etc. Is God’s Laodicean Church to continue to boast that they have "all the truth", that they are "rich and increased with goods and have need oi nothing", and the best that you (plural) can do is to hurl such epithets at those who are striving to show the Church the better way ? "lien we point out the most serious wrong of declaring that the atjojieff eja/L.f0r s j ws/1PAVcomp 1 Q.t,e <1V and even was"not made** upon Calvary’s cross, you chide me for saying anything about it. When I show how contrary to God’s Word it is to teach that for 1800 years Jehovah’s throne was "between the cherubims"but in the outer apartment of the sanctuary, the best you can do is to deny that they teach that thing - when that is the very thing that they do teach. ken ± state that by the entire weight of the language of the Book of Hebrews the expression, "within the veil" means in the holiest j|lace of God’s sanctuary, and Adventists should never say that it means in "he outer apartment, the best you can do is to tell me that so far as you know no adventist teaches that thing. And yet these very erroneous teachijigs are n§qes^firy tp th^ nnhoIdiro.. pres'entl r held doctrine of the ^Sopt^ary^ - iJe. unless ^e^rnit' The skill more ufcs^iptur^l teat that TesiJsmThistered for those 1800 years a waji from the father Eg Pye sene e. separated from Him by a dividing veil - and I know^'oT buT bne^man, one minister oi God’s word, bold enough to suggest that thot. When I beg of you to present a clear line for the sanctuary theory in the light of the truth, of these things just mentioned, also of Dan. 8: 13, 14, you steadily refuse to do so. I do not blame you for not attempting this, Tor I know, and you know, how hie the^.thin^L is•. but I do blame you for continuing to fight this Effort at reform of the Church’s teachings, especially with your present method of vituperation as the strongest argument that you can use. Do you know, that tl^j^ore^. cpnsid,er this sanctuary question in the light of God’s word, and the more I consider the kind of arguments put forth in in its defence by its advocates, also that this doctrine is largely responsible for /chose evasions, and cpncealEL$jits, which have so s;-.llic. 1 ... -cod name of che Church; so mucl the more do ? realize that it Ts* an in-';, Trorf ‘ffiicnTne Church must free itself if it would stand approved of Christ and-ep^eved by /AL f ’ I quoting your remarks on the ( sancTuuaryque^ion to other'adventists. It is difficult to assign any suit- able reason for this. You do not object to my quoting your statements on evolution or the Sabbath question to others, I feel sure. objection to my quoting you regarding the sanctuary ? Your suggestion that I quote your statements "doujbtl^^ J.n jg^arbled aj^d twisted 4’orm". is neither kindly nor brotherly, nof~^oes-T/T*mafeyour position a dI'I' stronger. It is just one more item added to my general impression, "If George had better arguments he would use them, and leave all this harshness alone." But again, why your objection? .This is no private family matter, but one of universal interest, J.zhy...ohjt_.Qjher Adventists generally^knowing^what you believe on this subject ? Why noF rather be 'glad' to have your opinions as widely known * as possible ? Piusgmot feel that. yoJK_st_gAemeats are soimi aad logical, kr and __we 11^ worthy oj being prese^ed to others? That is the way that I feel l^^abouf mine, aW^Tw^Oe glad indeed toJ have you repeat my presentations on tSce subject to every Adventist. you meet. I will gladly pay you f 10, if you can place my entire "creed" in the columns of the "Review" or the "Signs". But the best I can say on the matter is, Jgp, not jwritgs an^jthin^ to,.m^e„ pn this w: c;; ", restion which you are u * filing io: me to repeat to others. I do t you i ’not only willing, but glad, ’•"others to know, and wlsaTTyou are willing to sustain. You say, "The fact is, Charlie, that this whole matter has got to the stage where I shall have to take some measures to protect my own reputation by making some public announcement that I have no part or lot with you in your assistance of Ballenger in his work of trying to undermine the S.D.A. denomination ..." First, let me say that Ezekjol was not trying to undermine the Jewish Church when he pleaded, "Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die,..." nor was ee Luthgr trying to tear down the Roman Church when he began to teach righteous by faith instead of by works; nor wasLesley seeking anything but the highest good of the Church of England when he condemned their formalism and presented to them Bible sanctification. I^oj’^gre Jqnes and .'aggoner trying to undermine the Adventist Church when they presented to them the’ glorious truth of "righteousness by faith". Bor am I trying one bit more to injure that Church whenjurge upon them the fact that a gulj<- not a1 partial‘ - at one -rnent for our sins was made on Calvary’s cross, that’ since that -TTTTfe"^our'~~great High Priest has been ministering for us in the immediate Presence of His Father ^■in the ost Holy Place of Godrs sanctuary. If only you could get this thot once fixed in your mind! But no, it is this effort of mine at healing, for which I an so bitterly condemned. But do you mean to intimate by the above, that I have been trying to convince any one that you hold with me in my general views of the sanctuary, or with Ballenger in his work? -Tho ever suggested such a thing to you ? Please give me his name and address, I would like to talk with him. But by all means make some public announcement to protect your reputation. Ind if you wish it I will gladly furnish you with a good page of matter testifying to the fact that Prof. G.E.Price has no part nor sympathy with me in my efforts to reform the Adventist Church, that he is an A-l Adventist, holding faithfully to the teachings of the Church. And I will gladly word this in the strongest and clearest way that I know how. It will all help to bring this vital issue to the attention of the Advent people. Publish it in the Review if possible. "I therein rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.". ■ 'Kt, brother, if _a _wqq!_ of_ mine has hurt vou, or d.oetg Wg-Ypu. I am •7- /sorry, truly sorry. As to my ;rplaying’ off' one Adventist againsr another", & ? don’t you do thaty^reputed scientists, in page after page of your go ringed work^Y You quote Spencer vs. Lyell, Scott vs. Parwin, Eoworth against Jy geologists generally, etc., etc. You do this in order to get at the truth, and to get others to see it; isn’t that right? And if you state to me that you believe God’s throne must be in the lost Holy Place of His sanctuary, should . not yw-: fAAvrer’a; n.- u. is poiiy; to ofix . . ' y ■ ' ’ - much of ffrutti, as agains:.: tz ooe ' To tooei that’Tehovah1s throne'was in the outer apartment for those 1800 years? There you declare that ’’the veil1’, of Heb. 6: 19 refers to the inner veil why should I not :uote your statement to show that some Adventists believe the truth on this point, tho most of them teach that that passage refers to the outer veil ? I appeal to you, my Brother in the name of sacred truth, dpjx’.t be .ypfrald to stand for your faith, against man or devil. You have a sounderfaith on several hX phases of this sanctuary question than have the majority of Adventists. Stand to this sounder faith, in the name of God. Femember Wycliffe, Huss and Luther,,who for the sake of their Saviour who died for them, and for the truth of God, sacrificed the friendship and the good-will of the church which they loved, fearing not to point out to them their many errors and praying them to accept the truths of God’s /ord. These men suffered many losses, but how great their gain ITow, do not think for a moment that I am a^kinr: you to disconnect with the Adventist Church. But I do beg of you to take your*sTan5'Tirmly on God’s word rather than on g&urgji frad it ion. 1 when next Prof. A., or Alder B., J^g^F^youiT Je£ovab'f^^Mong~was_ in" the LT ost Holy.~Plac e before 1344, reply, as ~if in the'-presenO^* of God, "Yes, I'fibY AncTif he asks next, "And do you Relieve that Jesus ministered for us in His Father’s immediate Presence, jting 1800 su be1oys 1844reply, as if Jesus were by your side, ^Certainly I do; don’TyoiT?0 And if your questioner next asks, Und how do you harmonize that position with the Church’s teachings that Jesus did not enter the Lost Holy Place to minister until 1844?n Simply reply,”1 don’t harmonize.. it_,.t^iat is not my business (perhaps ’’line” would be theHoet^er worcTT. ~ i “beach Science and Christian Philosophy, not our special Church dogmas. You harmonize them if you can; let me see how you do it; also how you fit the reply,of Pan. 8: 14 to the question asked in verse 13.>* - and get out your pencil and begin to take notes. tJTOly. do nothing about at all (except in your own heart before God) unless, someone “asms ~you about the subject; and then tell them straight that you "don*t imSers^^^wF, that you can’t unravel the tangled mess• and throw the job back to them. Tell trem Ao aar wider' A ., or Pro:... B., to explain the 'matter, end to explain it in-the light of God’s ‘..'ord, not of Church tradition. Set them thinking about it and see if they understand at all - on this subject - what they-believe. The time may possibly, come when the church will demand a more ^orplete adherence to churcl dogma, then remember the multitude o_ past JI yes who have stood faithful to God’s :ord, ever at the loss of all earthly things, that they might obtain the better inheritance. Thousands of the best names in the Adventist Church will before long, I believe, be demanding a ftnd_a^ rej^8tat«pent of thia aa^tuarywi|uastion making church tradition o’ive way to the authority o^ God’s i^ord. Were shall we stand when the test comes ? And let me assure you that you will find a very sympathetic heart in your brother. Whether or not you see light and truth in this thing, as I see it, God forbid that I should, by word or deed do anything to make your course hard. I realize a little of the pain that is caused, and of the courage demanded, when we see light and truth lying in a path not trodden by the many friends whom we love. Did not Huss and Luther feel that pain when advancing light at last forced them to separate from their friends of Prague and 'ittenberg - or at least from many of them? Can we not feel a little of the heart-ache of Paul as he listened to the reproaches of Gamaliel, for his abandoning of his Jewish faith and for being a traitor to his people - tho he felt in his heart that he was truer Hebrew and had a purer Jewish faith than ever before ? And oh, the ’’recompense of the reward” I ■ith loving affeption, . Your brother Fellow directors, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY 1 BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Ooononowoo, >71 b. "eo. 12, 19% * Jhitney sent mo a copy of a pronouncement he had prepared. I can not sign it booauro it seemo to no to open the door to evolution after creation too wide. I havo prepared another of my own which I submit in plaoe of his. .'hitnsy and I do not agree as to the criterion which should bo used in sotting a limit to oliange after creation. He thinks that morphology can betna.de a criterion. I do not think, so. Start to admit that forms now separated from one another by various degrees of sterility, because the forms havo different numbers and characteristic sets of chromosomes, such for instance as sheep and goats or horses and asses, havo had oomon ancestwrs, and there is nothing but sub|ectivisim for stopping anywhere until co much evolution is allowed that it ceoms nonsensical to no not to allow it all through. All division of living forms into genus, order, family eta. is purely artiflcal. It is impossible fbr morpljologists to agree there a genus bogins and another one starts. I can make a gradation of living things on u morphological basis from sheep to oxon, and from oxon to antelope, and from antelope (through the tiny little tiling which is exactly like a mouse excot for hoofs and io/ called a •mouso-deer’) to rate and musk-rats and weasels etc. I can likewise make a gradation from lions to malls and challenge anyone to give a good reason why a line can be drawn anywhere as a place to stop in allowing evolution, and he can not do it in my opinion. Therefore I do not care to sot up limits of evolution after creation on tho baois of morphology. In view of the £act that there are certain groups of pl ante an animals which have charac/toristic sets of clircBOuoaes, and therefore readily interbreed and produce fertile offspring, after the analogy of the liuman race, I prefer to let the basis of tho amount of change after creation bo found in genetic or reprodvati e qualities. Horses, of which there are mam- breeds or varieties differing widely, all have'THe same number and shape of chronoaomos and are therefore roadily intorfertilo. The number of ahroaoeaaos in horses is 1R. Asom* t.:? /hick j-,-, are many breeds o~ varieties, iH have -- '1... er ent number of chromo sones and different chapes of chromonoma3 from horses. Ths number of chromosomes in all asses is 5*^s and all assos are readily intorfertilo therefore. Therefore I say that all horses havo had a oomon ancestor and /// all asses havo had a common ancestor, but thooc ana er tore were not oomon with each other. Of late $oars cornerIff or ont typos of Drosophila (flies) have boon produced from ono sot of ancestors. All these different types are alike in having the same ixtibor and shape of chromosomes (4) (Tho epocios is called Drosophila Molanogaster). They aro all roadily intorfertilo, and unable to rate without difficulty and phenomena of sterility with flies of othor sorts, o.g. Drosophila Siriulona, which has a different number and stylo of chromosome. All the evidence therefore points to tho fact tliat plants or animals having t o numbar artf style of chromsomoc and readily intorbroed aro descended from common ancestors. Anything 'T ---i i ’• scionce. It is p':i?.oopphy an spec • ■ ti';.- 4.:/Cjd sii, 1 », ax 1 puts us in a class with the evolutionints as speculators. I object to this. I say stick to scionoo, stick to labratory experiments and thii^s iStare analogous with labratory experiments. To say, as ilhitney doos, that tho horse anti the ass, which show infertility in a degree when eweooed because they are combi rd pg in their mala offspring two different sots of chromeomos, ojio Ip and tho othor 52, have had common anooptors is pot in my opinion science at all, but pure speculation. Thoro vs nothing by way of actual experiment to go by to uphold it. It is usii^ the evolutionary argument from comparative anatomy, which says that because things are al ike, therefore they have had a common ancestry. Tiitncy will say that there all degrees of sterility between distinct species or forme, and therefore aterility can not be used as criterion. I deny there are all degrees. There is cone more and eono loss, within very snail limits. 1 It is easier for eomo seta of chromo uomos to oombine with other distinct sets than it is for others. But when distinct and oharaotoristio sets of chromaoEYJB, like those in all horaoa, can combine with other distinct and characteristic sets of chromosomes, like in all asces, there is always some sterility set up, and usually pretty severe. That statement that there aro all,degrees of sterility between alll types of living things and therefore genetical qualities can not ba used toddotermine anything about the limits of species or of ©volution after creation is evolutionary hooey put out first by -na.ru in* On those tilings Whitney does not agree with me, which is his privelege* But I refuse to put my name to th© statecsit of hio regarding chaise after creation because it oj?jLip l&a s w r e than I^anj willing, to grant. My own statement sets no limits either Ills’way or mine, but ft gives more the fnprescion I think should bo given. I grunt that, it is well to admit a certain amount of change after creation, but j^is.. bad#_in. my opinion# to &dmit too miioli us to admit too little. Change with&interfertlia’groups# or wIG?in*groups*h9.ving the earn© number and stylo of chromosomes ( as determined under the micro seep© and by brooding) allows fey un immense lot of evolution, and is as far as I am willing to go* May I say that I don’t think our association is over going to amount to much in view of cur great differences and out lack of time and energy to thresh thsrii out and oom© to one view. It is too much to expect. The enemy does not agree among himself, and we can’t expect any bettor. Brother Higley with his, to ne, absurd Pre-AJamic ruin business and Price and Whitney and I with out Flood ideas are as far away as the iltii/ polos, and have about as little In oomnon as a moans of fighting the enemy as a cat and a graahopper. I think our lociation h£y-’*fc* Q b^qausq are $uoh < hodga-podge of idea® and no cljpna.3 tQ gat together. I haven’t time or energy to do a lot of writing or meeting for talks, and I don’t ^K.J?Xi^ilng~aiiy,.ay* We are all old dogs and can’t bo taught naw tricks. I hope no ono takes any offense. We are alike in this, and that is that we believe in Jesus, the Incarnate God, as our Saviour. I have plenty to keep ne buejr/ in my own synod. If I can keep evolution from getting a hold In my own church body and its schools I will bo doing well. Hastily and sincerely yours Byron Q. Nelson* I am not ovon going to road tills over, because I don’t want to find mistakes and correct them. Hopo you got the sense. B.N. PROrDUNCELOlI?- NO. I, Religion and Science Association. V’e wish to bring to the attention of believer0 in both tho theories of organic evolution and of special creation a serious misconception as to the nature and Import of those theories. To most persons it appears that evidence that two species or typos of plants, such Ao cabbage and bruseel oprouts, or two opocies or types of animals, such ao wolvoc and d gs, are apparently related by descent, constitutes proof of evolution, and therefore proof that tho d'etrine of special oroation is false. This is a largo and fundm^ontal ni sconce >t ion of tho facts. In the doctrine of special creation a certain amount of change or evolution 1g allowed. As reason for this it io pdluted out that all the types or 1 species1 of Ionian bairgo on the earth - Pigmies, Indians, Ohin so, and ./hitee have descondod from Adam and Dr©, It is granted by creationists, therefore, that out of originally created plant parents have come ouch widely differing types aa cabbags, brusoil sprouts, kale, cauliflower, cnllards; and that out ox originally created animal parent© have come such widely differing types as dogs, wives, dingges, and ocyottos. Those various etype3 of planto'aixl those various typos of animals are related to on® another exactly as the various races of men are related to one another. The assertion, therefore, that anti-evolutionists demand absolute fixity of species or types, or that they hold to the view that that the kinds of plants and animals found on the Galapagos Inlands wore created there and have remained unchanged there since they were created, and that those in South America ware ere-ted there and have remained there since they were created, and those in other parts of tho world likewise, is a false assertion. Anti—evolutionists hold tliat throughout the ages since creation now types of both plants and animals have arisen from the original/ created forms by natural descent and variation provided for by the Creator - the evident purpose of that provision of the Creator having been to rake it possible for the original fbrms to exist under widely different conditions or err/iroiT-.ents. They hold tliat many types of both plants and animals now labelled dsitinct specios are descended from common ancestral creations. Tho theory of organic evolution, when held consistently, demands belief that animals as distinct as men, eagles and wlialoe have dosca ided by purely natural variation and selection from fishes, that those fishes liave descended by naturally operating processes from simple one-celled ancestors which wore mad© not by special creation, but by purely natural processus. It daosuids the naturalistic origin of life, of tho eye, of the wings of insects and milk glands of animals, and of all other organs. For this theory there is not scientific^ evidence whatever. It is based pu ’oly on false philosophy, or on logical arguments and evidences wlxioh can be met v/itli logical arguments aiil evidences of equal validity and strength. True science demonstrates that there is and has bean considerable natural variation and natural selection within created typos, but it demonstrates beyond tint nothing of a nature aafficiont to warrant or coopolX belief in tho groat transformation which the theory of evolutiond cmnds. Signature of directors WHiit LIBRARY ----- .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY _§ERRIEN„SpRlNGS, MICHIGAN-_-__ Dear Price, HERiTAGE ROOM I send you the enclosed stuff mainly because I think you will "be interested in Higley and the ruin theory; particularly about Buswell. ITm not going to waste my time in arguing cut a-thing by private correspondence. What we should have is a committee—perhaps a special committee for each problem—to go over the correspondence about each problem and make a definte finding on the problem^ When I am footloose enough to get to it I may write Higley asking him to work up such"'a committee aT~Wheeiton—not irecossarlly-as a part of our organization, but for the good of the cause, and I think perhaps a similar thing -can—be done -at-Bryanr-3-i-f--they- are as -interested .aa_ I gather from Randolph and Winrod they seem to by. (I suppose my ______________Anyway, Randolph’s correspondence has come about to an impasse1, so I am suggesting this committee ~afTalr. 'Absent mindedly I made an extra carbon of my last to him and will enclose it. This will give some news of the debate. The Truth Seeker is coming out a-s-a weekly and the de- — bate should run through rapidly. B simply cannot come honestly to any issue. -1 -am—doubtful if I’ll ask for a committee (Buswell plus) if B does not play the game, nor will I care much for book publication. However, if. .the type can be used for book publication and Bryan U will take a lot of them at cost I might risk a little money on getting a surplus. • ■ —-------------------——I------------ Lane is not willing to play the game. H'S’11 do.it for a consideration, but it in a pretty pass if-the fundamentalists...would have to buy a hearing. He is good as ever about putting me on to things, etc. But thenF the- geologists, haye._made_.such a joke about Creation 4,004B.C. and Brewster showing all signs of using that as -his point^Ath^Aisqussion^ up thedare all of a sudden and get somewhere. “Tire Lord maketh- t e wrath of man to praise Him, etc. He that diggeth a pit shall fall therein. Rr n h has saia that the engineers are so much more reliable than'the’p¥6fT5S'Sors-and-I-afree ■-with-him, * *Who taat JBffiUE— Geology and biology would not do do! So my idea is in my challenge— if it works out for it-to dar<. the-Atheists to get any geologist to prove that the sediments (save the Archaen) are morethan 6 000years old. i get one Judge, they .get another, Lane gets the third who _..at not be a geologist, but an engineer, physicist or jurist. The '•■'Aston- If standar* “■eology is substantially correct, the o er ________ •non takes everything. If I triumph, ! keep~ my-money and own the " vahk If neither he nor I win, but geology needs a complete re-skis.“"X— slble? I think it looks like fun enough to risk olOO on. Thiq business of having committees to decide moot pro-V, <= J bZst bet I wanted it from the beginning; by trying it blems is our best be . . m Nelson correspondence with Randolph I may get it g°^g id 1 y tion ana to have a similar h®^^6;o(^e directors on my sidefj prepare a jg^rcular letter like more more than anything to have that pre-Adamic ruin “business handled in this way. Randolph uses the ruin idea as a way out. If I could get him licked on his geology it would put the ruin theory on the spot. Here is something that may interest you. Hint of it in R paper. I have seen from the “beginning that there- was something screwy in the thickness of sediments: sediments run down hill, “but here they are ^mountain top, etc., etc. Then they are supposed to have been laid down in shallow water. You remember also my thesis that MT ■ uplift came “by the expansion of deep seated rock--such a simple fl and plain thesis that it cannot be denied. (Yet nobody seems to have paid any attent to it--men cm use gre>t mental ingenuity in fl figuring out an involved hypothesis but be completely unable to see what is plain and simple before them.) Anyway, ocean floor is about 12,000 feet down. There are in the Alps,-Canadian Rockies, etc.., about 12,000 feet in thickness of sedimentary rock. Therefore when this was laid down, the rock on which it was laid down was not continental shelf, but deep sea floor Expansion of deep seated rock lifted portions of the earth’s crust । far above their original location. (The peresent earth is clearly 1 far different from the antediluvian earth.'O The thing is absurdly simple—so simple that I did not see it during these long years. Wet weather and it is giving me lots of time indoors. Things 1 Diretf.ors: ^1 * sf -e Higley does not support his interpretation by passages in Is. and Jer. (which other ^re-Adamic advocates felt they ought to support it by) he rests his interpretation on a single passage, and on a single passage which is eminently capable of meaning something entirely different. It is like hanging a mountain on a straw. 2. In contrast to the obscureness of the destruction idea in that single passage is the clarity and explicitness of the statement in Gen. that God destroyed the earth , and, in support of that statement, the adittional statement in Peter that God, in the Flood, destroyed the kpgnas (which word has a variety of meanings: universe, earth, inhabitants of the earth, ungocTly multitude, worldly affairs). Flood advocates have undeniable grounds for their theory/ in the Word of God. Pre-ruin advocates have not. 5. The translation ’was1 is not all right. Higley says ef'her •was1 or ’become1 will do. Yes, either will do once the pre-ruin idea is adopted and one wishes to find justification or permission for it in the verse. But my point is that the translations in the Bibles show that the church as a large whole is against the ruin idea, as shown by the fact that it translates tho Bible in a way that obscures completely, to one not acquainted with the -pre-ruin idea, that interpretation of the verse. No one, in the absence of information M which might be supplied by other parts of the Bible, would ever find any ruin idea in verse 2. The thought one would get out of reading the first two verses with tho rest (ff the chapter, on the face of the present translations, is that God created the heavens and tho earth, and their condition, at the time of the beginning of the creation, was that of being ’waste and void’(tohu wa-vohu, which means waste, void, confused, Indistinct, obscure, unfurnished, ^tojvisble). Ko one reading the passages would ever get any other thought out of them unless wlaeone, like Higley, should tell them that a ruin doctrine was there. low, the point I make from tho fact that the translations are as they are,(i.e. ’was’ which obscures the ruin idea instead of ’became* ..hich promotes it,lie that the pre-ruiv ady are at odds with the consensus of opinion of the Spirit-filled Qhurch as a wh le, and are, therefore, probably Wrong. It is reasonable to suppose that what the large majority of Spirit-filled Christians (sincefthe turth in the Scriptures is spiritually discerned) find in God’s Word is what is in it. f i 7^/1, (g ' e' {ft <-^t v . 4. No reason why God, would // destroy a physical creation in vengeance on a spiri ual being can be conceived. God is not wasteful of effort, to make a vast multitude of animals and cruelly destroy them again, without good reason. In contrast with the lack of reason God should destroy a physical creation in punishing Satan there is the very obvious reason for the destruction of the earth and animals in the Flood. Its obvious purpose was not only to punish men, but to fashion a now earth on whip ch men might try again. In fashioning a new earth as it was done, animals would necessarily incid ently be destroyed. 5.If the earth was destroyed, as God’s V/ord says, by such imnense amounts of Z/Z water as was ^^d for the purpose, vast amounts of geological work must appear to an intelligent 1 an to have ^Jkn done, and obedience to (Sod’s »Vord ill not let reason raise objections to such geological work. To illustrate: If the Bible says that God created man,certain consequences followed (e.g. man breathed) which, to deny, is to deny the very state ent of the Word of God. The Flood, as plainly described in the Biblo, had certain geological coral aries which$ tod any, is to deny the Bible. To give all geological work to the pre-ruin is to give nothing of the geological work we now see to the Flood, and that is to deny the clear implications of the statements in the Bible concerning the Flood. 6. If the Flood destroyed the earth (X/// haaretz/- same word as in Gen. 1:1) as tho Bible says, and the kosnos perished as the Bible says, all record of any previous destruction would be wiped away. " reason 7. Objections to Flood geology based on the ab^pb'ce of human fossils rests not only §n human / in opposition to God’s Word, but on poor human reason at that. The objection is an argumentum ad Ignorantiam, which is al rays shoddy. It is based on our ignorance of what may be in the earth. We might let Higley’s use of the argument from ignorance cancel my use of it in regard to the inability of pre-ruin advocates to give a reason why God should destory a physical world in punishing a spiritual being. We may say there may be good reasons why God left no trace of the pre-diluvian men and there may be good reason why God left no trace of a reason for de st trying the earth in punishing Satan. 8. It is inconsistent to maintain that a God-backed pre-ruin destruction could produce all the fossils and strata, but a God-backed Deluge des ruction could not. ObjectionSwhich mitigate against Flood geology also mitigate against pre-ruin geology, since both (as shown by the startt) were accom lished by water. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY Higley arges against a six day creation on the basis of a ANDREWS UNIVERSITY ... BERRIFN SPRINGS, M'C'i'nAN supposed distinction between create and made, whereas those words are synonyms when used of ’ God,^ they mean the same thin$, and are used interchangeably. The reason far this is that God ^can as easily make things out of nothing as out of something. Tho following passages show there is no distinction between create and make as applied to God. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the earth .156:5 To him that by wisdom made (ashah) the heavens. Is.45:12 I have made (ashah) tho earth and created (bara) man. Sc.7:29 God hath made (ashah) man upright. Is. 45:18 God formed the earth and made it (ashah), he created (bara) it to be inhabited. Gen. 1:26-27 And God said ’Let us make (asha) man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created (bara) he him. Gen.2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the oarth when they were created (bara) in the day that the Lord God made (ashah) the heavens and the earth. 10. Higley says there is no passage in the Bible v/hich implies God created anything by stages, or process requiring time. How about Gen. 2:1 ’Thus the heavens and the earth were '' fcedjand all hoe of ho r.\.t.’ tiro -J:. ?i j.-r- Finished khd r st imply a process. The heavens and earth were created (Gen.lil), from and that creative work was finished (impl/ying a process). worl 11. Higley says that ’and the earth was without from and void etc.1 is the only act recorded in tho entire chapter fd/MUdJ in which it is not stated that God did it, hpd asks a reason for the ormiisionjg>fthe name of God. The reason it is not stated that Wod did ii is Wa 1937-1 '\ev. yroa C.Nelso”, Ocononowoc, ’*13. ■fy dear Mr.Nelson: Your statement addressed to the Directors was received sever il days i o. It was u i lerstanding tl at the subject was to be taken up merely by the two of us before presenting anythin to the other Directors. owever, since you lid not u. iderstand it that way, I have sent a copy of the attached Statement to each of the directors. I nve not seni a copy to the Secretary, as he is not n. director, and he is occupied with other tatters just now. I send him a copy later. It is to be oped we stall all pray over t e question under consideration in order to find the truth and obey it. ■’he basis of the whole subject is sin. vo one can ever understand it unless he has an appreciation of eternal righteousness of toI, and his constant opposition to sin.1 Nor will it be understood unless we have an appreciation of the fact that the higher the creature, the reater his responsibility and the renter the consequences of .is sin. Lucifer was a higher being than !ao has ever been. ban’s sin caused the I elu^e according to the Scriptures. Lucifer was a -reater sinner when he fell, hence Satan’s fall was greater than nan’s. There is no need of recording this except as it affects nan. fhis is why so Little is said about it in the bible. The subject is primarily a sin question. It is of academe interest only in a secondary way.; Prayerfully yours fJAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HEHTAbF F^bl * ✓ To the Birectors: JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM v^*»7. I have been asked to comment on ,9r. Higley’s reply to Halson’s tan points. In underta-dng to do this, I regret that Vie limitations of space uvl time roatrlct reworks, which might well be exP?inded into a small booklet. 1. Higley’s statement that both anl ^acorae w u$ed as translations is a complete evasion of the point at iSsSe. For Holbbn’b contention ( ml that of all Hebrew scholars ) is that bet^y ,|3 no .^oal Vanslat ion at all. H. Merely repeats without any attempt at proof whit he uvi loon had denied with reasons. H.’s repeated asee tton is no proof, I hannot -ind any competent Hebrew scholar to defend Agyyaet as oh? translation at all. /idm T TuVe consulted say that bega^ae is no ^aMslutlbn at all. but a complete perversion of the original meaning. F>c*thermore, the >ords translated "without form anti void” in the A. V. do not carry the meanings which , H. md he Scofield Bible try to attach to them. The original Hebrew words roan merely in an e<-ipty, unfurnished or »minhahited condition} they do not carry a single implication . of 3 previous ruin or desolation, The latter meaning is read into them, not from them. 2. - b. Nelson’# clear and adequate discussion of the pas ages so much used in this controversy by the Soofiel1 dible and its followers is wholly ignored by H. The reason is obvious S.’s argument is incapable or successful cent adiotion* 7. No believer In Flood geology has wer claimed that "all geological work was done at the time of the Flood," as *1. expresses It. Very mush was done as the Fleed was subsiding} very meh during the years and centuries iavtie Ila-ely following, and some since. In far the majority of eases it is quite impossible to separate these different kinds of geological work, though the first and the last are easily differentiated. I honestly believe I have metevery scientific argument directed against the Flood as the cause of most of the fossils. If there are any facts wdoh are "fatal** to this view. 1 rant to know want tuey are. 1 a-hait I A&ve never tried to answer the old or standard one that miracles never happen, and hat a Physical miraole < f the magnitude of a universal Flood and of the world’s complete recovery from it is too absurd for sober consideration. This latter is not a scientific objection, but a philosophical, ’ghat legitimate scientific objections still remain unanswered? 8. I an glad that 8. adiaite that the Tlood was world-wide. 3nt how meh geological work would an absolutely universal Flood accomplish, either in the way of transporting rock materials or In the way of killing off animals and plants? $h&t is still more im- portant, if this universal Flood has intervened between that ancient world and the present how is Br. H. going to discriminate among the stratified deposits and the burled plants Sfii'SGSlJ'; teiTJhs tis M'f'lfe'XWwr-MXtrti or^«rww«l'4w'.Mf «hitoMf4Mk-A. results o^ Flood 'vuUa zus «o fcund^tiOA In U^^UU-4xblo record or la cPWiOn-eenae^ It is a well-known fact that many kinds of plants aud uiinwls liave been found, in the ’“Oss 11 form which seem to be iMra lupliaatcs of the kiri.ls now living in our modern world, 'sfhy sho’ild ntfctloal, non-sciorxwfG kwtsBII he broujit in by the Zduln theory to tell us that OU” eyesight is deceiving us. and that these fossils havo no relation to the modern living kinds, though th^tsstC. look ^o .very jpoh alike? This nvstlcul theory of the Flood assures us that these kinds found ns fossils were not burled by the 2 Flood of BO'Vi; for all t.*© forms of Ilf© of u*o .nielli avian serld were utterly destroyed without any traces? the fossil# aye the relics of the ?re-Sdenic world which was destroyed before the beginning of the present floras and faunas. Such an explication ym$gt in Jn$ hyn* rar.lfled air of $ prA.or^ sPc^iJUtlftn* hl J* above all »aere objective science ••,;T even above 3c'Mptf .we:'but T 4o net know ho? to meat such fantastic reasoning* for 1 aw not skilled in its methods. j. — 10. T lfj HOswn-odd claims which d. makes under these numbers are based on the alleged distinctions in the m anings of the verbs create* m.gke* etc.* though these distinctions do not hold in the original Hebrew words* as any °ne can readily see by consulting a good analytical concordance* Shore a^ga W»9 chief Hebrew words here concernads bAT-M h^ohfl with some other-* .. ' ■ ths word Wed in Gen* 1 « 1» and hero V^TuOrd b* necessity has tiie meaning °f bringing into being something out of nothing, or ax nihilOi is tho theologians express it. Yet in Gen. 1 i 27 the very 8-jw verb Is used three times over to describe the making^. who the Bible says was not Male ex nihil0 but of the dust of the ground* seme have contended that man may have been wade ex ni uilo? for Joi nay have created a now supply of the dust of the ground- from which to fashion man. But thia is a forced Interpretations and it will not fit the beginning < :^t%9 V*o gh t.ha same verb ip used* ?htar a^u verb hgrg i« again used three times in G^n. p 1* g. He certainly was not mde ex nihilo* but with several Intermediate 3>.;.;5» that is* by a process? which H. positively denies. Klsewaere and other Hebrew u- rda are used frequently both for the creation of ma and for the creation of the eart.u In Xx. 20 « 11 we are told* "For in six days Jehovah gsah heaven and carta* efcc.a ’&*e saae word Is Used in Gen. 2’4^ tell of tae creation of the oarta. let in the first verse of the Bible the word is bgrg. From these Passages ( md mviy more might be given ) those original Hebrew verbs are v» But t. fs entire argument »n this point depends upon th® denial of a^JTsue neo of meaning. JOra<-; enlargement hero my be in order. In speaking of the origin of mn in Gen. 1 • 2/ we find oara used three times* as already stated. Yet in Gen. 1 : ./>, in describing the same event* je find asah used* while in Gen^. ■ft. t th© v$rb y^taar Is ■" «A* ^*ra« ^bs nsetl In the very some verse* and all have the svae meaning: ‘’ghom X have bara for glory* I have yutsar* yea* X have a#ph hin.w p'wthermore, in Isa. 4y..: 12 W Mvc tine phrase vas.the earthy and bora nun upon iti ’ while in tM Genesis record we have this very exietXy reversed: -b 1:1 it Is «G®d earth?” while In Gon. () : 6 is Masah man. in t .e light of a-ia.i texts* and I have by no raeiins exhvist-' st* how cun we trust i.*s claim far accuracy ’then he contends that these words are not constantly used interchang®nbly? With this much settled* we also can have no difficulty in evaluating his wholly ne^ and unheard-of theory that the six-day creation is a myth. ?o gum arise thus far: i. first gives the ord ^create” the solitary meaning <** nthiloi he then proceeds to say that the work of the six days wis not a creation* but only a miking. /hug we arrive at the wholly strange and unbihllcal teaching that aan was not really created by God* he was only made. All tide In spite of the express declaration in Gen. 1 : 2/* three tlmoe repeated* that Gad created mn* — icing the very word bara which H. says mavis create, tt seems to Ml that t .is comes J^<,d^n^^ou§|y n- l; -it; .• . ■>. ..u^toU.-Ah. in this c onneat1!M?^Stfnrtyn». *. n.« a hajcjUg^sil^^ ln the use of these Hebrew verbs than had the writer of tlie .look of Genesis. !fho explanation for this very curious situation Is that P’ • i. has gone off on a wholly novel .ahd "msaholarly sidetrack. A.u-' sooner or later every false doctrine runs foul of nome positive text of gcript’ire. Where then are we? In the record of the creation of the earth and its Inhabitants* Including mn* the true distinction is not between making without the ’ise of preexisting materials and otlwr methods of making 3 That ie an artificial distinction which H* has Invented himself. It is not la th® 3eriptUtes. *o be sure, the first statement .tn the Mbit about creation mst imply the absolute creation of the earth. ex nihllo? for the Past eternity of matter is a pagan idea, with nothing to Justify it. J(etit '’s /Mae and ^s$r|Mw4 to, w -Vwt other a^to of God in irirtL f^'is life - on .t&e s^rth were not true creations; for itton delates tha^ dteatrA* An it is wholly false to say that God !aaMe never ^^or^aied inyfclng by stages or processes requiring tlnel'* for the inspired s, /hich certainly wise above what let I agree vith h* that all Creation is of th© nature of a miracle. It is quite beyond our compre.be ns ion, because we haaEM^M.^1*^ ^ro^sses or analogies with which to compare U. Wb. do .^ot.^^eno^n i^ut. the Mfferont mthods of the ' ■•;'ly* At leastare recordedi the first making of the earth, which was ex nlhiloj the mklng of jmb» which was from the Inorganic elementsJ and the »$klau^of A¥e» which was from previously made organic. Materials* Very probably trier© n-iy have been otlsor methods; b it it la safer to say that we don’t know very meh sb*rvi; It Ml. The real llstinotloji which the Bible draws between the original creation and the present preservation and perpetuation of the earth and its inhabitants, is that that C^ea$lonA XlMsheh,. »Wloi <« ^d*sP ««t Shia listlastion the Bible very positively eake’sl and it facords that the Sabbath was ordained by Jehovah gg NMg.ri^life X.U 11nluM| til toft OftB -i.-c-dU'i tfid Mt IM tdl WAAll fato JM:^C*Wll«*,and otijer f«m of raaWwi and it is th* B«>^&gjSSL8^ - »«« 7 huT”F!r t r1* remember this distinction which lie Ufblo Itself makes, instead of his artificial one, ha will avoid such absurdities as saying that »od never created Eve by a process, or that Adorn was not truly created but only made. And now, in the face of the repeated use of the verb ha a in the 21st verse of Genesis 1, and three times in the 27th verse, what are we tn think of h’s areasing statement t fat t ie Bible Moes not use the word create anywhere in tlie aceO’Uit of the six days’* ? And what about Ms view that Man was not created, he wis only made? I suppose tnat all theistic evolutionists my agree with hbaj but it seeag to me like a naw and uncalled for heresy among Bible believers. As for his ar^ireent based on the precedence of lijht over darkness. It seorss to me hardly wnat wo sh-’-ul: look for in a man of soinnc®. I graH* tta omni/-r^senee ef MU but this omnipresence must ba consistent with an..abe^naa. 9X rart« of His u»lv«rM> j4e*iM -«? Ms 'i-at '■’« UjiC.-’T Xt- is aa entire bej\;lnj of tne questTon fOr H, to eay that this occurred only after the 1 .pas or 3uinj for we must repeat that there Is no express statement of any such condition. All his dlaousslon ai«V toes* liae. Is which has no express foundation TBTSeri^nre, eUch as v/e are accustomed to demand for all doctrine ;nd belief. $nero io ne ejtpre>.fc 6UU4Wii 1A ~ pl^t or animal ever existed. *Wt| bbrth ^eforaz...W dioc^fcl^ earth $ith llvlnj nta s orded tn t>xe first ch'ipte- hosts. ?hc anln theory demands that we believe In a lon^s.ftri^°f animls iving in ^‘^Wiir8 iy\for ojesh^fo-^ Aa© second verse of tn© Bible. ,\u •. Anis means that this suffering .and. cruelty existed fox* lonj ages .be^Ara.maA- existed, or sinned, which is to charge God with something which is not in accord with Bis character. TAo belief in a I’re-^xlenio ituin cannot evade the Jxarge that there Must have been^Mwi^M^exil ( suffering and death ) long before there is any express statement o^ sin anywlxere in connection with this earth. It is fantastic and arbitrary first to declare that there w& this physical evil ( which the Bible does not hint at ), and then to acccnint for It ny assigning it 4 a« a consequence of the sin of hlble WMM? 8^ -W Placed at the headship aCthljr earth » though long a*terwnrta he dldJS^^the dominion from A4an» the kl rig or head of "all the beings on thio earth. in oonolnsiou I wish to soy that the well-known laws of evidence are Just aa applicable to the study of the Scriptures as to any other department of thought. hoj ago the»^fl^a|.>^r^tes>?ant thsolo^lahs laid down the rules 'vhi0 should be followed In dotermining what the SIble teachos on Any specific subject. Tanoiful theories which have no explicit statements of the Scriptures as their foundation qhojijd^ not be tolo. As<1‘ 4m-< *inj; anJHUaxance must mver bo built upon another inference; stc.» etc. Ionian Catholics on the ot ie* hand have constantly employed obscure texts in violation of all such rules to support their doctrines of the headship of ?eter ©r their theory of a wafor-jod. And now it seems to me that this 2uln theOrg has revivol the san© ..■_ ,.- 0- roaaOiU, to :r:.-;-''t ttr T 3 — r - aav® to say this; for I )u.ve a hijh regard for the persons of sOjsc of the man who advocate It. But in its disregard of the laws of evidence and the nanons of rxroof I cannot but protest that its methods of reasoning are dangerous« whether employed in the study of tne Scriptures or in the st'idy of God’s created works. i«?ry trul^ years» George 2-&aCrendy ?rice. College x’laoe* Wash. January l.|» 1^37 — JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN X’O ** StwP.o-.t HERITAGE ROOM X have been aeke : to comment on Jr* .Iigley*s reply to kelson’s ten points* In undertaking to do this* I regret that t'.e limitations of sPaoo x>vt time restrict Ry remarks, which mljht well ha expanded Into a small booklet. 1* ziigley’s statement that both yg© and heq„v6o may 0 used i» translations is a complete evasion of the point at isaue. -or -fnlsoa’a contention ( j>1 tliat of all dobrew scholars ) is that beenme tg no rani translation at all* H* merely repeats ithout any attempt at proo^ /hit he had before chiwl and whit ; risen had denied with reasons, repeated asst tlon la no proof* I earmot find any competent iebrew scholar to defend baaame as any translation at all* Those whom I have consulted say that b^c/yae 1» no translation at all* but a complete perversion of the original meaning* Furthermore* the words translated "without form and void’’ in the A* V* do not carry the meanings which M» and the Soofield Bible try to attach to them. ’!'^ original Mrw words neon merely in an empty* unfurnished or uninhabited condition; they do not carry a single implication of a previous mln or desolation. The latter meaning is road into them* not from them* • - 6. ?Jalsajif3 clear and adequate discussion of the pu? ajos s© mah used in this controversy by the Scofield Bible and its followers is wholly ignored by &» The reason is obvlo as I 3* *s argument is incapable of sngoessfnl cent adiction* 7* '<© believer tn Flood geology has over olainsd that "all geologUaX work woe done at the time of the Flood*" as 1* expresses it* Tesy wash -sag done os *ho Fl*wM was subsiding; very nnah during the years and oontnrleg immeila^ly following; and gome since. In ^ar the majority of oases it la quite impossible to separate tliese lifferent kinds of yeolojlaal work, though the first and the lost are easily differentiated* I honestly believe I have metevary seientiris argnm-nt directed against tne Ploo. as the oa'ise of moat of the fossils. If t?isre are w fasts which are "fatal" to this view* I want to knee tmi txwy are. 1 admit X have never tried to answer the old Or standard one that miracles never happen* and that a pl^ysieal miracle f the magnitude of a universal Flood and of the world’s complete reaov^ry from it is to© absurd for sober oongtdsration. This latter is not a saientiflo ©bjaotton* but a philosophical • ’Mat legitimate scientific objecttong still re iln unansw rad? 8* I sm plad that H. admits that tne Flood was world-wide* But how rnieh ^olcjical work would an absolutely unlvers-1 Flood accowpligh* either in the way of t ansportln^ rook materials or tn t)ie wa;- of killing off animals and plants? Mat is still more important* if this ’universal Flool his intervened between that ancient xvorld and the present how .is Br. H. jjeiny to dlMFlmln&te u”.onj the stratified deposits and the buried ‘plants and inlmalg* telling us that Ike knows which of Vtostj deposits and which of these fossils were due to BOah’s Flood* aM all th© rest wse node by tl*c ?re-3?Ienio BblaT W often accuse the evolutionists with assnulnj n arupernatnral knowledge of the past; how o xn a* avoid the gam© accusation? The ne ./orld-wido Flood we know about; it mgt have cma between osr Mdeva jorld ©Ml all thit ever happened before* Bow is any human bolnj to bo onre of Just which deposits and which fossils wre due to this Flood of which wo have positive knowledge* and which 'iwjre d-ie to a lonj-preuedtnj Bnln of which we ixave no oxpl lol t record* but only so.mc highly pyeblei^tiaaX inferewet based ©n In^s which ore beyond any tesf,s by either soioaee or Jisvelatiou? As for I.’s object ton ahnnt fossil man* I belle e that true ’inte~dilnvlam toimn fossils have been found* Jut /jyen if none have yet ho^n reoovored* how In strict lo^la can their absence or scarcity be used aa an arjnreent ijjalnst the Flood as Vie cause of the other fossils * without brizvlnj in so^ nystlovl or uetaphyslsal theory about tM results of tn© Flood wnica aa» a© loujadatAOia la tW plain Bible record or in so^»©n-«ense? It l» a well-known fact that many kinds of plants and animals have been found in the fossil fern which seem to be ssere duplloatoa of !'se kinds n&w llvlnj in o^ir modern world* Why should soma Mystical* noii-solcnti+'lc reason he hroujht in hy the Min theory to tell ng th&t our eyesight Is deeelvln^ us* and that these fossils havo no relation to the fltodem living kinds* then^h th© two sets look so very mah alike? This iv»tloul theory ef the Flood .issureg us that these kinds found as fossils were not burled by the 2 Flood of Soaaj for ul t/*e forms of Xlf* of uo Medllutlan .^rld were utterly destroyed without any tracesJ thu ^Of?ells are the relics of the rr#rfMenU *orld which r*l destroys I before the beginning of th® present flora® and faunas* .inch an explanation moves In the high, rarlfled air of priori speculation* high above all rae.ro objective science and even above Scriptural but I do not know how to meet such fantastic reasoning* for I am not skilled in Its /wtheds. 9. — 10. $ -e dosen-ndd claims which u makes -Ander these /timbers are based on the alleged dUtt.netlens in the m anings of the verbs errata. make* cte.* though these distinctions do not held In the original Hebrew word®* as any one can readily see by consulting a good analytical concordance. Share are three chief Hebrew word® here ooaeernod’ by a* a# uh, g.jt^xr, with some others* Bara Is the word used In Gen* 1 » 1* and here the word of necessity has the moaning of bringing Into being something out of nothing* or ex nllitlo* as tho theologian® express it. Yet In Gen. 1 » the very verb 1® used three times over to describe the making nf nun, who the Bible says ./.is net male ex. ryihilo bn . dust o* tho ground. SMk hev^ sutoaded 1 let WB' have been made ex nthllOi for say have created a ne*'/ supply of the dust Of the gro-ind’’ from which to fashion nan. 3ut this ie a forced Interpretation! vM it will not fit the beginning ?- 3v®» though the some verb is -isel. ne verb bars, It? again used ttirea times in Gen* j < 1* 2* Bve certainly was not made ex. nihllo* but with several Intermediate stages* that is* by a proeeosi vhlch H. positively denies* Elsewhere as&h and other Hebrew w rd® ’need frequently both for the creation of man afld for tue creation of the eart u £n 3x. 20 « 11 we are told* "for la six days n H*fs entire arg»wi«t on this ?r4nt depends upon ths dentil of any amah e^niwaleim of meaning. 3«ie enlargement >wre «hy be in order* In speaking of origin of nan in Gen. 1 i 2] we find bara used three times* os already state I. Y^t in Gen. 1 t 3^* In describing the 3;*«c ev*nt» we find need* while in Gen* 2 « 7 the verb yutgqr is employed with the very rwso meaning. In Isa. 43 s 7 we find 4.1 throe verbs need in th® very siMH verse* .a»d all h&v«3 the ivae meaning: ^aom I We b^r^ for glory* 1 yatsar* yea* I have a&ih him.** Parthemore* in tea* ,|j ? 12 w have the iWoae ”&eah the earth* and bqra min upon Itl ” while In the Genesis record w have this very exactly reversed? for in Geu. 1 1 1 It la **God bare the earthj* whllw in Gen. 9 ? 6 the phrase lo "asau man. in the light of such texts* and I have by no means exhausted the list* how can we trust K.*s claim for accuracy when he contemds that t;*ese words are not constantly used Interchangeably? ftth this meh settled* w® ilso can have no difficulty is evaluating his wholly new and uaheartWf tuecry that the sljr*day ©rentIou is a hyth» ?o ®u» arise tlm far* <• first gives the -orrl ’’create” the solitary Waning ulhtloi he then proceeds to say that the vork of the six days w-mi not a creation, but only a miking* .’’hus we arrive at the wholly strange and unbtblleal teaching that »an ‘ros not really created by Godl he was only made* All this in spite «f the express declaration in len. 1 ; 2/'* tnree repeated, Vut God ar^atod mn* —— using the very word hara *^lch 4. s.iys means create* It seams so m-; that t.ui® samas very d.'xngero'iflly near snyi»g '*^d made a mistake in rising this term in this connection* gnrely H. la not going to claim that -io )us a finer .discrimination In the use of these Hebrew verbs than had the writer of the hook of Genesis. ;fhc escplnnation for this vary cwrlons situation is tlMt Dar. ;i. has gon® off on a wholly novel and ^weholarly sidetrack. And sooner or later every false doctrine runs fowl of sone positive text of scripture. *lbl© Itself Makes, instead of his artificial one, ho will avoid such abnrdltieo us ssylng that God never created Sv© by a process, or that Adam was not truly created bat only ^ode. And n«w» in the face of the repeated uee of the verb ba a in the 21st verse of Genesis 1, and three times In the 27th verse, wl^at are we tn think of l.’s ancslng statewit that the Bible “does not me tm word create an/^Biere in accowrt of tho six day#" V And what about his view tnat man was not created, hti was orly made? 1 suppose taut oil thoistio wvoluticnlsts my agree with lliaj b*it it seer^ to me like a now and uncoiled for heresy amoiu Bible believers. As for his argument based on the precedence of light over darkness, it seem to me hardly what we should look for in a man of seienoe, I gr^«t sue ami.?reseace of G“dj but this omnipresence must be cOjteistent with an Absence o* light 1n an.-a? partr ** His universal else why the necessity of His saying* nVet Vriere be light.’’? It is an entire begging of tne question for H. to say that this oeourred only after the 1 >poe or a»iin| for we must repeat that there Is no express state»w»t of any such condition. All his discussion aloeg these lines is eystieal, arbitrary, based on a pre-<3«ncelwed theory which zias no express foundation in Bcripture, such as we are acoustomd to den?vid for ali doctrine am belief, wnere is no ia V^e Bible t.uat a single plant or animal ever existed on this aartn before the stocking o^ tne earth with living things as recorded in the first chapter of Geneais. The dnin theory d©n?fcn,t.s that w* believe In a long series of aitlmls living in cruelty and blood, killing one another and suffering in all imaginable ways for long ages before the second verse of the Bible. And this means that this jriffe^lng .-M cruelty existed for long ages before man existed or sinned, which is to Copy to Professor Price Wheaton, Illi nois, January 18, 1937- My dear Fellow Directors: The reply of Rev.Byron C.Nelson to my letter of January 7, was duly received. Today, I received a second reply, this one from Professor Price: Both are along the same line and are very enligbtening. \ helpful reply would require much more time than is at my disposal at the present time. However, there is need of still more enlightenment. For the time being, let it he assumed that all of the contentions in both replies are true even to the fullest satisfaction of the writer in each instance. Then, will each writer please write me further setting forth as fully as he can, just what he claims is gained, 1. For the .cause of true science. 2. For the Bible as inspired and fully authoritative. 3* For his own greatest personal satisfaction. , Thanking you for your kind indulgence, I beg to remain, Most sincerely yours, L.AHen Higley 0AMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN Exeter, Vaiif., Jan. 19, 1937. JAMES UTE LIBRARY MDRE..G university BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Dear Price, Thank you very much for sending me the enclosed. Since H and I had battled the thing out after a fashion earlier I think he should have let me in on his writings along with the directors. However, what is the differenced I trust that you will let me see anything which develops later. H’s line of reasoning is a wonderful psychological exhibit; mystical, as you say, and about as definite as a phantom. Ho one can lick his 1. That is both conclusive and unbeatable. And I111 bet that at least nine out of ten ruinites would read what you both say and decide that H had all the better of it. Now, that is not saying anything against your case; as I read it I said to myself all along that you were an^iilating him. But what is the gain in anihilating a man who does not know but what he has all the better of it? Nelson has made one false assumption in which H has the right of it. The ruin theory is commonly held to trail along with the ages. He assumes, as a matter of course, that H takes this. The paper which H had Haas read at the Chicago meeting would justify this assumption. However, H does not accept the geological ages. I do not know what his geology is, though the students in his classes may know. Dewar, for example, was figuring on a proposition that everything was created together and that the Palaeozoic sediments were laid down in warmer clima tes than the Cenozoic: at the start the temperature was cool enough for ma mmals only near the pole: the invertebrates (marine) got a whole lot nea rer the equator than the vertebrates, and the dinosaurs could stand a warmer climate than the mammals and so their fossils were laid down earlier in the temperate and tropical parts of the earth. Overthrusts mean nothing to him; a freak condition, not a true overthrust, but an exception which is meaningless. Maybe Higley holds some sort of geology as this. I wish the directors could find out. Anyway, I’ll bet this: you do not convince H or do anything except make him still further convinced that he is right and you are wrong; N of course very wrong too; both of you weak in science and with a lamentable slant in theology. That is where I stand with him. Teller of the Truth Seeker informs me that the debate will start x?eb. 6. Winrod will not run it because he does not want Brewster to have the chance to get the reasons for believing in evolution before Fundamentalists; thinks I’ve done some fancy work in getting my case to the heathen in the heathen1s paper without giving the heathen a chance to show our crowd their case. Well, maybe so. Teller is to hold the type and see about book publication. If possible I’ll get some copies printed. No word has come from Randolph recently. Higley has asked Straw and Leedy if they would go over my correspondence with R and figure how the case stood and they agree. I have asked Buswell to say his say about Brewster debate and when I get his reply will go after ene of the men you named, the one which B. suggests—this is assuming that he agrees. Higley thought Riley should be the man to ask, but I do not want unreasoning partisanship; I want scholarly opinion. I do not think that our directors are likely to agree on any real program against the enemy. — Brewster is not making a real fight: he is emaphasizing resemblances of men and apes and nothing else. Yours, ° Kan. 22, 1937 p Prof. L. Allen Higley, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill. Dear Friend and Colleague: I am fairly overwhelmed by the mass of carbon copies to which this controversy in our Directorate has given birth. Let me inject a new note by saying that I cannot agree with either of these propositions. Re Pre-Adamic Ruin: The continuity between living species and the fossils seems to rule that out definitely. Besides, it is pure theory without any basis In demonstrable fact or In historical evidence. The difficulties are staggering. Surely the sun must have existed if there was a plant world to supply the food for the animal world that was ruined later. But this contradicts the record in Genesis on which we all are standing as against Evolutionism. In spite of all that I have read about the flood theory to account for stratification, erosion, and fossils, I cannot view the mountains without losing all faith in that solution of the problem. I cannot believe that 10,000 feet of limestone were first laid down, loaded with fossils, and then eroded like the flood bed of the Mississippi, of the Colorado, the Columbia or even the Wisconsin, not to speak of the canyons and glens which owe their origin so plainly to glacial movements, and accept the Flood of Genesis as the explanation of these highly complex and really tremendous phenomena. I do not understand why we should be called upon to account for stratification and fossils. No one denies that one can do field work of any kind in geology with the same success under a scheme which views the earth’s strata as series and systems as under a scheme which views them under the aspect of periods and epochs. WW may use the entire classification of the historical geology simply ignoring the factor of time which has been imposed upon it. In the second place, we are dealing with concepts and mental constructs before we have the factual evidence that should form the basis of such theorizing, when we are work- Ing with P-A Ruin or Flood —* . — ____ -r Wheaton, Ill., Jan.22,1937. requelis greater 1. 2. How have reading, Just how a saved : card just received from Brother Nelson ■ clarity of questions. ' you reached your conclusions? Through prayer, or reason? r have your conclusions enriched your life as man? ■—nt for these physical B changes which the rs. And I warn my a in a field of which am of those many things b claimed by them as bng it took to lay down r Directors 3. Have your conclusions given you more truth, or more of The Truth? r, ’’v' ■:r- ’■ . Most cordially yours, BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN .HERITAGE ROOM ffan. 22, 1937. Prof. L. Allen Higley, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Ill. Dear Friend and Colleague: Professor George Me.C.Price, Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington. I am fairly overwhelmed by the mass of carbon copies to which this controversy in our Directorate has given birth. Let me inject a new note by saying that I cannot agree with either of these propositions. Re Pre-Adamic Ruin: The continuity between living species and the fossils seems to rule that out definitely. Besides, it is pure theory without any basis in demonstrable fact or in historical evidence. The difficulties are staggering. Surely the sun must have existed if there was a plant world to supply the food for the animal world that was ruined later. But this contradicts the record in Genesis on which we all are standing as against Evolutionism. In spite of all that I have read about the flood theory to account for stratification, erosion, and fossils, I cannot view the mountains without losing all faith in that solution of the problem. I cannot believe that 10,000 feet of limestone were first laid down, loaded with fossils, and then eroded like the flood bed of the Mississippi, of the Colorado, the Columbia or even the Wisconsin, not to speak of the canyons and glens which owe their origin so plainly to glacial movements, and accept the Flood of Genesis as the explanation of these highly complex and really tremendous phenomena. I do not understand why we should be called upon to account for stratification and fossils. No one denies that one can do field work of any kind in geology with the same success under a scheme which views the earth’s strata as series and systems as under a scheme which vievzs them under the aspect of periods and epochs. We may use the entire classification of the historical geology simply ignoring the factor of time which has been imposed upon it. In the second place, we are dealing with concepts and mental constructs before we have the factual evidence that should form the basis of such theorizing, when we are working with P-A Ruin or Flood. In my own classes, I never presume to account for these physical phenoma. I acknowledge my inability to crowd the changes which the globe has undergone into 5000 or even 10,000 years. And I warn my students against attempting to offer explanations in a field of which they do not control the facts. I also remind them of those many things which have been sacrificed by evolutionists, once claimed by them as their strongest "evidence." I do not know how long it took to lay down the strata, nor does anyone KNOW. I wonder whether we could agree on that? This letter goes in carbon copy to the other Directors. Yours very JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN J';’ MERITAGE ROOM My dear Fellow Director: The letter of Jan.7, in order to be brief assumed on the part of the readers a degree of familiarity with the Scriptures involved. The replies indicate that this assump- tion was not fully justified. Hence, the misunderstanding. The letter states that the word create is not used a single time in the account of the six days with reference to the physic al wo rld. Possibly the expression, the physical world, was omitted by an oversight in typing and not added later. For the future let us have an understanding to at least some extent: We are not supporting personal views on religion, nor on anything else. Nothing mystic, nothing speculative to uphold. We are upholding the Bible only and this Book as fully inspired and accurate even in details. In doing this, it is sometimes necessary to set aside commentaries and even dictionaries when they are not in agreement with the Bible. Possibly this could be called academic heresy. The position taken in the replies is very familiar. I have great sympathy with those who hold such views, I try to help them. I too, was cnce confused with the explanations they gave. The confusion comes from trying to understand Biblical problems through academic lore, not realizing that the latter is essentially hostile to the Bible and is never to be relied upon unless veri-^Now we shall take up the letters in the order in which they were received and shall try to avoid repetitions as much as possible. We shall omit subjects too lengthy for treatment just now. Mr.Nelson’s letter received January 4: 1. Asserts that my reply is based on only a single verse(Gen.1:2) and that even here, it rests mainly on a disputed translation of a single word. More than a score of other instances of evidence could be given frotn other passages. This cannot be given here fully, for this is only a letter, not a treatise such as evidently you expected my former letter to be. 2-5. Scofield Notes are true, but were not used because they require amplification to convince those not familiar with the subject. Ample evidence is to be found outside of these Scriptures. 6. You say that the ’earth’ referred to in Gen.6:13 is the sane word as that in Gen.1:1. Yes. The former reference is one of an earth filled with life, hence one would conclude that the latter reference(Gen.1:1) was also filled with life and therefore, a completed earth.So much for analogy. 7. Your reference to II Pet.3_:3-7 is misapplied. Neither the word flood nob deluge is used by p^^r. Nor is Noah's name used either. In contrast, when Jesis referred to the deluge, he used NJ^'s name to identify it (Lk. 17:26). The language of Peter does, however, agree closely with the condition mentioned in Gen.1:2,9,10. He mentioned no man's name because »an rzas not yet created. Peter referred to the ^irst flood mentioned in the Bible, not the second commonly called the delug* 9. It is the Bible that settles its own disputed questions, not the church fathers. 10. Contains erroneous assumption. Hardly have the space to correct it nere. Mr.Nelson's letter received January 13*. 4. "No reason why God would destroy a physical creation in vengeance on a spiritual being can be conceived." This reveals lack of knowledge of the Bible. If you will pardon a statement borrowed from warfare, It is a poor soldier indeed who fights an enemy that he makes no effort to locate and identify. Did not this very sane Satan cause ran to sin, who in turn caused the de- struction of the physical earth according to your position? Hence, Satan as a spiritual oemg was the original cause of the very physical destruction in the form of the Flood that you seek to magnify? Please read Revelation for further light on Satan's power in the physical world. 10. lour citation here shows tnat you have ris-rsad the Bible. It was what 3od made that re quired time, but not what he created. Surely, no one would hold that Godjrequired a whole day to create animals, and another whole day to create man. None of the miracles of Jesus were processes requiring time, especially those dealing with the. physical. No, it was what God na_^, or reconstructed that ?ook time and this because of sin. Of course, when the six days were past, the process of reconstruction was finished. It involved incident ally^two acts of^creation. 11. mow could the condition referred to, come from source other than^d, if ,his , if primal creation before sin entered the world? Your illustration of a dead cat, is not to Ue JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY 1 BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN -2- * poimt. It is not dead cats, but dead theology that concerns us in this discussion. 12- "Physical darkness in the presence of spiritual light is nonsense to ne."Head the Bible and you will understand. Did not spiritual darkness caused by sin, bring about physical darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour when Jesus hung on the cross? (Matt.27:45). Does not the physical eye respond to spiritual light? See Acts 3:3,8,18. Also other passages. 13. You state that darkness is the aosence of light. Correct, Webster and other authorities For sake of brevity, your questions will oe answered by asking two other questions in the hope that you will understand: How could light be absent before it was ever present ? Could a child die before it ever lived? Death and light are ooth effects, not primal conditions. Your last sentence is the logical sequence of your whole argument. Anyone would know this who had even the most elementary knowledge of the principles involved. please pardon more questions here. Do you know what theistic evolution is? How thoroughly have you considered this the most deceptive phase of evolution? I have known many who claimed to be wholly opposed to evolution in all of its forms, and yet they advocated and defended this form of evolution without being aware of it. This subject is most vital to us. 14. Gen.i:1 states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Nowhere else in the chapter is this word used with reference to the physical world. Accuracy would require the Iise of the sane word all through the same chapter for the same act. Instead, it uses made after y. 1, and this in a context of plainly implied consequences of sin. The evidence of this is too extensive to take up here, even as it is found in this chapter alone. You have been misled by commentaries. professor Price’s letter of January 14: 1. "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens(referring to Gen.lil); God himself that formed the earth and made it(1st.- 4th. days Because made is the word used here); he hath established it, he created it not in vain(marg. not a waste), he formed it to be inhabited"(Is. 45:13). here, the second word created is followed by formed in the sense of made, just as these sane two words are used earlier in the sentence. Plainly, creation was r st, and this was followed by refashioning. Thus, the same order is given here as that in Genesis. Now as fcr was or became. In Isa. above it states that God created the earth not a waste. In Gen.1:2 the very same word is used and rendered without form and void(Marg.waste and void). Then the earth was created not a waste in the first place, but afterward it is declared to be in that condition. Hence, of course, it had .to become waste and void. This i s jwhy) became is Referable to was. The context requires it. It is true that the word in the original has for its first meaning was, as all scholars agree. However, it is just as correct to render it became when the context so requires. This very same word in the original is translated became in Gen.19:26: "She(Lot’s wife)became a pillar of salt." To render this was and insist on it, would be to insist on obscuring the meaning. This has been my position on this subject for a long time and I have never seen any reason for changing it. However, to insist that the whole evidence for pre—Adamic judgment must rest on a single choice of words in a transx a tip 1i, is much like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. There is ample evidence far rweighty found elsewhere. You are right in insisting that so important a thing as judgment Oi this mag nitude should rest on greater evidence than became instead of w^5* 2—g, There is ample evidence to establish proof without using the Scriptures used in the Rpx>field Notes, hence the omission of this in my former letter. I did not in amy way mean to set the Notes aside. I did not have space to amplify them so they would be understood. 7. Objections to Flood geology are called for. Here are sone of them: (a) Numerous beds.of coal are found superposed in which many of them contain txes? 12 2113 at the bottom of the'bed of'coal. 'This ’establishes successive periods of time requisite for the growth of the successive generations of plants. If plants grew then as they do now an a similar environment, the tine necessary for the growth of the plants alone is far more than the short time at the Flood and following it. „ i apnarated with -thick formations of limestone, i w i Suocrposed beds of coal are some > i me 3 ... ....... Ih.t Um «e9rding...to scientific Thls of Plood no be added to that in (a). Again the time could not be confined to tne perlon matter how much the latter be extended. 3- (c) Above beds coal are sometimes interbedded with thick feeds of salt, or of gypsum, or both. 'f'heae beds eLow conclusively that they were deposited from water, in an arid climate. It requires time to evaporate the many hundreds of feet of water to precipitate ar+d gypsum. Tnis process alone requires more time than that at the Flood and since. ( ■) Ccal beds are proof of a humid, mild climate necessary for the growth of the plants out of which the coal was formed. The salt and gypsum deposits are proof of a hot, arid climate, ihen, bow account for a climate that is both humid, and arid in the same region at the short time of the Flood? fe} No coal beds have ever been found to contain human fossils of any kind. Many of these, such as artefacts and those made of gold, are as imperishable as anything. They should have survived destruction and should, be found at great Jjgtp^hs just as other fossils. (f) Human fossils are always found near the surface. Flood geology does not meet this fact. (7^ Evidence of ante-diluvian man has been found on, or near the present surface, thus showing that the Flood did not churn up everything and bury it at all depths as fossils. A Flood of such destruction as would account for nearly all fossils found, as is claimed, would have destroyed all evidence of pre-Deluge civilization. There are reasons for concluding that some pyramids now standing, also sone structures in Wjat&n, were built before the Flood. Reliable history places the date of these structures be-|B?e the Flood, if the Ussher dates be accepted. These dates have been established by some of the ablest scholarship, though this is commonly overlooked. They have also been confirmed as approximately correct by scientific calculations based on astronomical phenomena. 8. Of course we admit that the Flood was world-wide. The Bible states this clearly. We must uphold this always. But, let us not read into this what the Bible does not state, nor imply. as to fossils of life from a pre-Fdenic world, this will be clear after what has already been given is assimilated. We can take up this phase of the subject at a later time. 9—10 Are create(Heb.bara) and nah e (eb . as ah) interchangeable? According to all the conmen-/ftaries I have ever seen, ^y"es v>early always. Al so according to dictionaries. From your letter, lit seems that you have accepted this authority without question. You forget that these authorial ties are dominated by academic lore, and this kind.of learning is not particularly interested in upholding the Bible as accurate, even when they are taken at their best. Let us see what the Bible states about this when read on its own authority. The primal meaning of the word create with Sod as the subject of the verb, as it occurs in jh,. 1 : 1 f is to make something out of nothing. This is the only meaning possible that will honor God in this instance. Of course, it must be evident to anyone who knows language that this cannot be the only meaning incXli>of the subsequent usages of the word, with the same noun for its subject, a ridid way. runs through It would be a rare word indeed that could be confined to but a single meaning in However, the thing commonly overlooked, is that the primal meaning to sone extent its other usages. But, to claim that the modified meaning of the word create is interchangeable with make, is carrying it too far. This leads to confusion because the Bible itself does make a clear distinction in the use of the two words. To claim that God created a thing wholly by refashioning something that he had previously created , would be to dishonor him by implying that he did not know what he wanted course afterward without an external cause for it. in the first act, or that he changed his tioaable thing because it is counter trine Qn the ible. It is theistic This is "pppeess creation’1, a most objec It lays the found&tion for every false doc- evolution as you must readily see if you examine the sub- to note here, that if I have read your letters correctly, you vourself have been ni.led by this form of evolution. Apparently, you are not aware of this. Possibly you have never had to faee the problem, of guarding yourself against lt.s deceptions. Geologist, ordinarily have no occasion to do thl.^ .because that in ST.* the..rtung vr::-sane in waning, then the second vord adds an ject. Incidentally, please allow me -4- additional thought. It means that one reason for sanctifying and blessing the seventh day, was that in it he had rested from what he created; and that the additional reason was that he rested from what he made. A clear distinction. The record of the six days shows that his acts were both acts of creation (v’s 21,27) and acts of making (v»s 16,25,26). Thus the Scriptures are in agreement, and accurate. Why are both words used with riOt nor his body. These it had been in existence from all reference to bringing man into existence? Man’s were only made, or shi ored. eternity, it would have been The image was that e, was 3 o d. A s •t it’ at this time. newly created dust ncorrect to speak of creating t WSmadelyfnade after fche pre-existing model. Eis body was not created out of it waS/stRe dust of the ground that had been created previously. However man as the first living being of his kind, had to oe created by giving him life. It was only after God had breathed into man’s nostrils the oreath of life that he could be said to be crea- ted. In keeping with this, it will be observed that Eve’s body was not created either. It was made out of a rib taken from Ad am(Sen.2«22) • Her life, however was a creation of God’s. If tie two words are alike in meaning, how would we account for naming heaven first and then earth under create, and them repeating the same two words in reverse order under make as is done in Gen.2:4? If the two words are alike, there is but one conclusion and that is that Moses was careless in the use of wordsjbut this explanation is not possiole for such a book as the Bible, flfft us read more carefully. The order, heaven and earth given first, is the same as that of ^cn.l:i in connection with created. The repetition in revers® order which follows under made, is the same as it occurs in the account of the six days when the earth was first reconstructed on the first three days, and then heaven was reconstructed on the fourth day. Thus, what seems like carelessness under the synonym theory, becomes strict accuracy by making a distinction be- tween the two words. Accuracy and inspiration demand the arrangement as given in the ,'ible. Under the speculation of interchangeability, how could we account for the plural use of the word generatioua, there being but one heaven and earth and but one creation? No one would even tnmk of giving a rational explanation on this basis. However, consider it in the light of a difference in meaning. The heaven and the earth were created in the beginning and continued perfect for a time of unrevealed length. This was generation, or stage one. Sin entered through Satan and other fallen angels, a condition that continued for an unrevealed lengta of time during which the physical world suffered disruption resulting in Judgment as referred to in Gen.1.2. This period was generation two. Following this, there was reconstruction of the world and the •eation of man. This stage brought down to the close of the seventh day, the place in the ac- unt where this passage occurs, was the third generation. Thus there were three stages, or generations through which heaven and earth passed from creation in the beginning down to the crea- tion of man. Hence, the plural use of the word generations. That the making of earth and the heaven was necessitated by sin is further proven by Psalm 136. Each verse of this psalm ends with for his(God’s) mercy endureth for ever. is no occasion for mercy except where there is sin. Of And course, this implies sin; for there . to make God’s mercy in the presence of sin, emphatic, it is repeated twenty-six times. n *<* ■ Vs. 10-26 ae.l specifically with sin In connection with the deliverance of Israel out o. Igypt. In this very sane context of sin, Vs. 5-9 treat of the heaven, the earth above the water, t .e sun, the noon, and the stars. It follows the order given in the account of the firs, four ays of Genesis, and in each separate act, mercy is mentioned. So, the reconstruction was ---t'd with sin. On the other hand, Psalm. 148:1-5 where there is no implication of sin bec.ua. . there is praise, the word used is created. This a-as before sin More ex.uple..co.. d psaln 136 and other passages afford ample scope to account for all of the resu . found in the plants and in the animals before man's time, and which is re err. ° of page 3 of your letter. The consequences of sin cere are not charged to ..od mistakenly asserts. In fact one of tie things ve contend for, is with the consequences of sin at any time at all. tom ter God and arbitrary" What seems to you that of not as "fantastic be given, of s in the b o t — your lette charging my stic V* ’W -*-■ —' — — becomes clear In the light of what the Bible states when it is read on its own merits as apart from speculation that dishonors Cod. Consider next, in the Fourth of the Decalogue, why it reads "For six days the Lord made -5- finstead of created) heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh daj: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it"(Ex.20:11). Here, the purpose is to set forth the need of six days’ work followed by one day of rest. It is not a matter of giving theCexact orcfesof the reconstruction. Observe that Moses had come down from the Mount. He had been given tie law dealing with sin just after he had delivered Israel from sinful bondage in Egypt. Moses knew that man, originally created to live without working, now had to work as a consequence of his own sin. let, God in his mercy gave him one day of exemption from this penalty after each six days of work.The reason given was that God also had rested on the seventh day after having worked six days. This implies that the^necessity for his working on the six days, was because o£ previous sin-Satan’s. This is supported by the statement that after he had rested, he"was refreshed"(Ex.31:17). Infinite and therefore inexhaustible power has no need for rest -to be refreshed after work if it is only of a physical nature not involving sin. however, God is grieved over sin. The Son was grieved over sir also. He even said that healing the sick on the Sabbath day was work. The Bible gives other examples of divine grief and limitations over sln'That there was a distinction between the seventh day and the six days on God’s part, is to be noted in this striking fact: God blessed and hallowed the seventh day although it was the one day on which he had done nothing at all. Yet, he allowed thapix days on which he had done many things to go unblessed and unhallowed. There must have been <. Jg,g ajg op. for this. When he pronounces a dressing on anything, it indicates that he is happy over it. Hence, he was happy on the seventh w^y. If' he had been happy over the six days, he would have included them in his blessing. If this peen primal creation previous to sin, there would have been no need for such distinction. In fact, at primal creation when the foundations of the earth were laid, "the morning stars all sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy"(Job 38:7). No such scene is mentioned^ at the close of the six days, nor even at the close of the seventh day. This was not primal crea— On page 3, next to J^he last paragraph, a more scientific treatment of the subject of light is called for: There are/two kinds of light. There is created, or natural light; and there is eter— nal, or spiritual light.The former belongs to the finite world during its period of sin. The latter had no beginning and it will have no end, because is coextensive with God. However, sin may extinguish both kinds of light in the sphere of its influence. Eternal light has seldom been seen on earth since sin has entered it. When the time comes for the final judgment of sin, the earth and the heaven will flee away(Rev.20:11). After that,there will be created the new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Then, there will be no more natural Right. All will be eternal light(Rev.21:23). There will De no night then (v.25). b Since we know from the Word that after sin is done away with, there will be no more natural light, it should not be difficult to understand how it was previous to creation, with God who never changes his nature. Then, there was nothing to interfere with his will. Let us take this up: Previous to Gen.i:i, there was in existence God and nothing. God is all eternal light and in him is no darkness at all(I John 1:5). He is also omnipresent. Hence his eternal light was in the beginning coextensive with his presence. Under this condition, God c reat ed na,tur al 1 i i-- • Hence when natural light was created, eternal light was already everywhere in existence. The^tw^ existed together and must have continued together until sin entered to extinguish them. Sin would affect eternal light first, just as it does now. This condition would prevail,however, only in thT^he?? of' the 'rule' ’ of sin, which is the natural world. It could not extend to the heaven of heavens where God’s throne is. There is nothing fantastic about the idea that both kinds of light could exist^together^e existence together ha, occurred on “^e *han one occasion ^1 Qf Transfiguratlon seen* bv the physical eye. Instances oi tms are. me . the^liglit that struck Saul down on the road to Damascus, and other examjles^^^^ -s ly spec The idea that previous to the creation of light, mere was ’ qla,tion based on un-B.iblical and unscientific thinking. It assumes that a thing can be a.Dsent efor%) it ever could be present. That an effect can precede its cause. Darkness is the eft_e_S2^ of ex t i'r.Juisliiug light. Natural light is the effect of energy functioning in a definite way; and all primal energy comes from God’s creation. Both natural ligjit apd darkness are effects, latter could no more be a condition existing previous to primal creation than the former. The In view of the facts, who could adhere to the speculation that creation began with universal darkness instead of universal eternal light? The darkness would have to be natural darknes, but nat-u ure was _ftgt tJxgji created. What reason can be given for thes un-Bibliccal and unscientific idea? It is wholly absurd, as anyone must see, who inquires into the subject. Wheaton, Ill.,Feb.4, 1937. lost cordially yours, L.Allen Eigley. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY .ANDREWS UNIVERSITY •jo Directors* Berrien springs, Michigan HERITAGE ROOM Doctor Higley’s long treatise of February 4 is a conspicuous example *£ fact xn-at wnen one pets blue spec tad v>» all th® vorld looks bl us. And no .swh’int of evidence from persons living under more normal conditions oan Myo «yv weight. It also iUngtr .tea ths permanent evil of wholesale adding to the Wrd. of God, ta is don® tn th® Scofield *Mbl®.” God m nt Just what M said whan He denounced all adding to or taking away ?rb*» /rtt. Jfnbody ha® snfficloBt ^ortltMe of ftlnd to be able V resist th® tnfhs»g« of such ’’adding, ’ whdtt he deliberately subject® himself to its laflwitot month after month and year after year, it Just oan*t be done. That is -fhy $<*d said what de did. Tho Catholic Church has no objection to its people reading the Bible.— if the Catholic notes are also read. In tho early days of tho Reformation, so soon after the invent ion of printing, every now e Itlon of tM Bible Md its ”notos,” until th® people of England learned by^Wad eiperlenoe the Tolly of guih a aOUrssf then they had th® Bible printed absolutely without “notes.” Xhren ay Own chnroh has gone thr*vngh a aoaowait similar experience. 30^0 of our evangelists got out an edition of the Bible with ’’notes.’ Cf course, it has never had a wide circulation! bit some people have coapllined of it as as “Adventist Bible.” And very rightly so. Tory recently on* General Conference has had to denounce this insidious way of dealing with the public, and this “Adventist Bible** Ms been suppressed. But the Scofield Bible still goes on, iM the poor people who ns® it do not realise that they are the victims of tide “adding to* Cod’s Word which was 90 vt..;oronsly deimnoed In lev. 22 < !$• I oannot feel any l»w interest in further discussion of a theory which leads to $1* conclusion that man was not created, he wo® only mde! when God himself three times over declares that Be created both man and vWi» $aoh metaphysical Alrcusslons come irO'i the *ad Ing” to the written 5?ord spoken of above. Any idea which one sots out with oji b® defended by clcter ruoWr.U,—— :*M swdk dofoBsc will aIx^s aonvlnc® the one using this ’•hotel®, even If it has no effect on the other fellow. Only one point in this part of the discussion needs attention. It has t© de with the use of t)ie tw® words *created and made” in G»?n* 2 * 3* • rofesser Bigley ..usver heard of the rhetorical device Sailed hendiadys, whore word® con sc tod iy a oMjurwtien ar® used to express the fsM® idea as a single word with a qualifier? la 'Milish ws ns® such an expression as “with might and mini” and in Hebrew this rhetorical, device m® even wore comrnon. WMt the learned Doctor has written along this lino on pp. 3 4-Md 4 of this MPer is a most impressVf® exam lo of other rhetorical devlcoa to defend a wholly uatoAsble position which has been adopted by a previews M priori” method of reasoning, when one bee tees wise above what is Written* >it X aft glad for the Opportunity to say a fer.r words about tho scisntlflo objections to the Blood theory of th® fossils. Let m® deal with then in serlul order* (a) and (b). bods in situ, with lirte^tones are also said to have been formed by slow natural processes'’^?M^^3ratlo?u I douy both these ideas. Has Doctor H. personally tried to trace out th® roots •* the tree sVxmys In tM coal, or the other supposed evidences of growth In situ? X Mvs reiMtatedlg ejK^^ined suo’i alleged stumps tn .#ty* both tn this 'sountry an-i In Europe: and the physical evidence is always lacking. Horeover, in Scotland and in other places long Wee trunks ocu’XK in a vortio d position jruip.lng through aoYer.U sa.yas of aoA the ^..to*^W.Kug .sk4w { br ll)wfeon®si T. Xn the y.ar'd oF '"ih& TSr^abh"'^ 'Xh® British ^isenm at South Kensington, is u large rbssll tree probably forty feet high and »o»’no three or more feet in diawetor ( ns I remember it), with the mrka plainly visible of tM various alternating beds of cool and feMroug« which it was located. Xt is sheer -$his, tr®e..t£,!*nk X$XJXbeA$ supposed ovldencw of dry dlfliato and long eva?^ratlon. In many parts the ^orlX, lonraanla, Germany, Louisiana, etc., are hvi&s dow- shaped uplift® of the stratified rocks which haV® been jno2..ed Up by **f salt called Walt domes. 3«w» of these up-thrmst >wissos ©’ salt are two miles or ao tn diameterI while tn drilling into f*’vi et^lonts of this subject believe that these nawei""if MXV't nt loasT In 3*irope ) extend d’<”■« w ww? ->’«>•• , want viu to b*lloYe t/iat these incredible messes *>f salt wxe ■’Orrnd by %ue slow OYaporatleii Of lobes? Clearly these frodlgiw masses of salt * they ?wt be a Part of the orljltol moo ©f ths ^arth. Mt the material of those wmw'-s Me mtA, it has slowly jrlsoh through the stratified hods. forming these pings or dwaos o »U« or tw© in diametorl and tn sorco places the iwm-nf soe.^ to be still going ©n. And Vie print in thio oenneotiOB waloh U of inter at in this dloewsisn Is that a similar flowing or mov assent of the salt has also ecanrrod laterally ©r has penetrated between stratified reshs* g tv leg rise to the phanow&a quoted by Doctor Higley. In some <«eepogo Of.. 8.4? id s-ol^loa has a^ewHatod between strata! juotias in ©*$|? InstanaSs maSoa of irt'rt o-Jcbonaio Or o?-w substaneo* Myo tiria aoo‘tainted between stratified hods. This latter pheno^eon is a oe^sn and wall-knOwa fast all ©Yer the world. (e) and (f). iWn fossils ©eow only near tne surface* never in the so.al beds, an object’on based on Of OYlloaoe. Is always prooar‘ons at Mst* ashis r<-rt of objection based on ahsBwoff always the 3tock-ln-trads of the rtorltiao»w who have SPWaWiiy*iCmP^ and never -it any groat depth. shy? >oHi for one thing, the kinds Of life :-jhieh wo do find In ths deeper beds are those which habitually live deep down in the ooeoni :-v4 in any aorld-oenymlsion they would aataroll/ bulled flrat .v*d dooposl. The l«^d uilmla { zyaJ man ) wo'nld naturally av-. id d$*th aM.^nrl^l for a..c’WliV»ra^le. $*4Is. t*»* whea finally Overec»®e Wild. M bnrlt,.-’ twoomriratlwiy suj&r^toi4 M?la. TjW/re are o^xer sonslMratlens which I do aot have time tn oon.tider i*ere. (<) otMr st-wit^rea new stan In* are »4d to W too old for * laat twenty y«0* arcl^aeolo^ 1 in almoet astronomical fibres wMn dealing with Vie early hletory of mn in }^*ypt and ether cowtrlflwu -fodsy breasted. ^yer» and hsngdon .;iye the of d,gted history as diWWJ/ about JOOQ B< 0« if Doctor Kinley :70m not hioself ^uOuXnated by aandaiHio lo*s,w which ha rightly saye ”Cs not r.-xrtianlarl;- Interested in Jiphcldintf Lhs j'/n.iu aj avm?ate>'* X ion* * h?lAeY' . *- ’.?o\dd r?yor have norye to ;*r^ of IM results Of arohoaolo.^ as Mliv .ajjalnat the ??lood tieraly on t Of the dates Or the ©.'ironalo^y lorolyod* r>©r .9r« william Hales in his ahroncie^ Makes Vhs data of the Plood JljS ^*** ^hlle St. 3dn.-« in a revision of lalee mkes the date 1112.Jj. jg* vj. >;»or the dnVr? o’ the iv^vHds o- of '■" iiumn atr-wt’-ya on cart.’* can .jITO tw WLin^ldtyj ris-rve Ual with'ShMr'facts vi! do not .-view enra Ivee to he \>y M»m fcs spoiling the apostle^ ar^iioeat -md leseoa aM making it almost shoe* nenswnsn* I don*t thlak that ^ro is .any fnrtnor 'ice in yr ©longing the dieonsslon. , XMso hhifori^arl^ns • wMi is'gottg m ln / the' ^a?th' rtj \ m«v? Jeior s/iyr that they art? JU^^ant of the fast that this ’ ;r.*er.« orl,r of ■•'.>' m»o lM«rruptM JM£ .dcpn$tp.nou^ nulf©n?!^s;iV^Xe $lood) iTd3el« t© TMarrnpt It again by fire. | argwwni Is'‘aogeM .MSdvSwnuZ'lf w ^nderstasd this cverfl^wlrk; with water to have refereiioe to ,M$LCh...FlQ^d* To refer this to on imjbicry ^ro-3-.le«ia &iln is aboat os ttod -* 1 «*» eoncMv* of. It ^dght novar to be Ind^u.go''- th by any o-^ w© claims to he withstanding the wod^m tide ©f SvnlMtlens for It almost whcbly dgflCfeiO.•*’*'* •'•Q hi-ostle’e argw^nt. College rlase» Hash.. February 1J57* George Midroady ^rice My dear Fellow Directors: Fth 7^ Replying to several letters received recently*/ Professor Clark’s letter of Jan.27: Thank you very much for your letter. Yes, I understand your spirit as being not one of controversy. Nor is any one else engaged in controversy as far as I know. We are seeking to find the truth as we eriginally agreed to do. If I saw controversy in anything we are doing, I should be obliged to drop it as unworthy of brethren. Your position is clear. I agree in the main. Dr.Graebner•s letter: Your position is also appreciated. I was once in the same position. I get the impression that you would rather not be biArdened with so many letters, and I quite agree with this. The correspondence began with personal letters between Mr.Nelson and myself. My letter to him was signed in a personal way, and was addressed to him personally. However, for some reason not known to me, his reply was addressed to all of the Directors. Mr.Nelson’s last letter: For the present, this letter may well be allowed to rest as sufficient comment on itself. The letter leaves one definitely under the impression that you are not familiar with some of the problems vital to Christian education. And apparently you are not aware of it. Professor Price’s letter of Jan.26: This letter conveys the impression that your whole life is centered around a single idea-■Lood Geology. Flood Geology and Catastrophism is all right, I quite agree, but the facts will not allow one to crowd so much geology into so short a time. The main purpose of the questions that your letter tries to answer, was to draw out something else of deeper significance. This, unfortunately, has all been overlooked. Professor Price’s letter of Feb.9: This letter was evidently written as soon as my letter of Fek. 4 was received, thus indicating that my letter was read hastily and evidently parts of it were not read at all. You seem to assume that you can understand at a casual glance what it took years of careful investigation to produce. Of course, your letter cannot be taken up fully just now for lack of time. Furthermore, it would be of no use to do this until the former letters are understood. So I shall confine myself to just a few points. "I cannot feel any interest in further discussing a theory which leads to the conclusion that man was not created". This is the very thing that my letter does not state. Lest there be further misunderstanding, let me state here that the Bible states that man was created; but also states that man was made. My letter shows why both statements are made. The thing I seek to avoid is theory. My letter sets forth Biblical fact as fully divorced from theory. Please read the letter and if the point is still not clear and if you really wish to understand, I shall try again. Otherwise, the matter will be dropped. As to Peter in regard to the ^lood, you will understand this after you have come to understand other matters. You are right in saying that Peter refers to the evolutionists and uni-formitarians of our day. We should go still farther and state that he refers to the theistic evolutionists, because they acknowledge creation. However, this point alone does not settle our case. It is only a part of the evidence. Regarding flood geology, please do not misunderstand. I am as much for flood geology and catastrophism as any one; but I contend that the facts will not warrant crowding so much geology into such a short time as the period of the Deluge. I appreciate your attempt to explain salt and gypsum formations. Salt domes are indeed a part of primal creation so-called. And not a part of the world since man’s time. Then, how could such a formation possibly get in between two or more beds of coal that are said to be wholly of man’s time? You will see that what is claimed as evidence for Flood Geology, is really evidence for pre—Adamic destruction. Perhaps you have wondered why I have thus far said so little about the geology concerned. I am reluctant to set forth scientific evidence in a decisive way on a matter of this kind having distinct Biblical importance, lest it convey the impression that an attempt is being made to settle Biblical matters on purely scientific ground. It is far better to settle Biblical problems on Biblical ground. Then, let the science be added. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HEP'-"" POOM -2- Please pardon reference to personal experience bearing upon the subject: Abou-^4 dozen years ago, I used your New Geology and some of your other books to the exclusion of all others as texts; and have been using them continuously ever since, though in more recent years, I have not used them exclusively. Why the modification? When I used them exclusively, all went well as long as we were considering flood geology in general terms. However, when the students found that the author was attempting to crowd practically everything in the way of geological phenomena into the short period of the Flood, they invariably became confused and were unconvinced. I attempted to explain by supplementary theory based on the book. But, one theory called for another. And I want to assure you that in those years, I wore those "blue glasses" referred to in you letter, all the time. As I had to face students and others from wider and wider regions of the world, the problem increased. They objected to being made to accept a theory that was upheld at the expense of the plainest objective facts that they had observed themselves, and had read about. They felt that intellectual integrity was at stake. To meet the growing difficulty, I undertook a careful study of the scientific facts involved as clearly separated from the speculation. Then, I made a corresponding investigation of the Biblical aspect involved. And I found that the two were in perfect agreement if each was read and interpreted on its merit as wholly separated from speculation. This is what you have seen fit to call "pre—Adamic Ruin." A better designation is pre—Adamic cataclysmic Judgment. This apt in apy^seng-ft^a theory. It is the fact of the Bible. Also a fact of science. After ^taching this definite conclusion, I presented it to students and to many others in lectures and interviews as supplemental to the Flood geology as presented in your books, which I still use for their excellent qualities in respect to organic evolution. This, I have been doing for same time and it has always brought settled convictions both as to the Bible and as to true science. No matter what part of the world people come from, they are always of one mind after they have had the subject presented to them. Judging from the last letters received, it seems clear that this correspondence need not be continued much farther. However, in this connection it must be noted that some of the most essential things in my letters are still unanswered. Let us call attention to just one of them: What are the merits of the theory, more properly speculation, that an omnipotent God created the world by stages or processes consuming enormous lengths of time before sin entered the world to hinder God’s will? Or, even if the time be onl^.^ix J_it_ex-al days^the principle is the same Everything that God has created is precious in his sight. This must of necessity include his time. He commands man to do everything to His glory. Hence he must Himself be bound by Ke same rule. Consequently, previous to the entrance of sin, if God~ us^es time needlessly, wastes his time. Since he has the power to create instantly, he wastes Lis Lime if he does not create instantly. Then, how could he waste his time to his glory? Could he do this any more than he could commit sin to his glory? Since sin is not in his nature, he cannot commit sin. Since he is omnipotent, he cannot use time unless there^Ls—sqm JLjft^x.nak,^hind_exance. This must be true because of the fact that omnipotent power applied to a" finite work requires no time, Because omnipotent power is inexhaustible, it must always work that way. This principle is strictly in keeping with definite established and accepted law. It is as well established as the simple equation, 1 plus 1 equals 2. The speculation that God created something unfinished in Gen.1:1, working on it for an un-known^length of time leaving it in the condition mentioned in Gen.lPz, and that ne then created it j^urJU^pr*^thrlqu^h*?^ur233n^r*^j^A^3^Xp-£_c>iypiff tie-.the phys ical world, and , wopked_ jtwo _roore days to create animals and man, is wholly falsfe in fact and in principle as well. It is pure the— istic evolution in principle. Any attempt to rest our opposition to organic evolution on this false foundation will result in failure in the end. Most cordially yours, L.Allen Higley. Wheaton Illinois, Feb.15, 1937. I *' Wheaton, Illinois, Fe’°ruary 85,193V. Hy dear Fellow Directors: In Prof Price’s letter of Feb.9, in the final attempt to justify interchangeability between create and make , this question is asked, "Has Professor Higley never heard of the rhetorical device called hendiadys, where two words connected by a conjunction are used to express the same ides as a single word with a qualifier?" Yes, I have heard of it. Here is what Webster says: "Hendiadys. (Gram). A figure expressing an idea by two nouns connected with and, instead of by a noun and a limiting adjective; as, we drink from cups and gold, instead on golden cups." In Latin and Greek, the usage is the same, i.e. it involves the use of nouns connected by the equivalent of and. In the Hebrew grammars of Harper, and of Green, no figure under the name hendiadys is given. The nearest thing to it is apposition and this also involves the use of two nouns. The principle involved is that the meaning of two nouns is equivalent to that expressed by the first noun as modified by the second as converted into an adjective modifier. The i1— ration given in the letter is correct, though not fully given. As it occurs in the Standard Dictionary^ from which it was evidently taken), it is, with might and. main equal to by main strength. Thus, the first noun is modified by the second as converted into an adjective modifier; and this is equivalent in meaning to the first two nouns, might and ma in. The error in your argument is that of overlooking the plain fact that the two words under discussion, create and make are not nouns at all, but verbs. Hence, hendiadys cannot have ap-lication at all to the case under discussion. If the attempt were made to apply it on the principle of hendiadys, the second word, made, would have to be converted into a modifier of create and this would require that it be converted into an adverb. Hence, you would have to convert made into an adverb. Your letter does not show how this may be done. One naturally wonders if you were not misled by reading hastily the definition in the standard, where the definition is ambiguous, though the examples are correct. An good example the dangers hidden beneath academic lore. If you will confer with the Webster authorities they will state to you, doubtless, as they have stated to me, that many of the Standard definitions are copied from Webster but re-worded in order to escape the copyright laws. In dointj this, they have sacrificed clarity of meaning. Their definition of hendiadys is a good example of this. Another thing is that of coal formation showing evidence of plants .in situ. The evidence of this as found in roots found carbonized in natural position in the clay oeneath the coal bed is unmistakable. Also the fossils of leaves and fern fronds as found in the upper part of the coal bed is equally unmistakable proof that they were not drifted in by wave action, for they are in natural position. To question this is to sacrifice intellectual integrity. A second thing, is that of the evidence of great age as shown in the Archean and the Protef-. ozoic formation. To claim this these formations do not represent more than a few centuries is absurd to any clear-thinking scientist. A third matter for consideration, is that of salt domes. We do not yet know just what caused them, though one thing is most obvious: They were pushed up from below by forces seeking adjustment. This is shown plainly by the structure. As far as I know, no one questions 'JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS. MICHIGAN ROOM ► I this It i« too ohvicns een deposited from water and this^very conclusive. Furthermore, if the salt beds between the coal beds, had been formed by beta;? pushed into that position, it would naturally follow that they were the result of forces beneath the surface seeking adjustment, just as in the case of the salt domes. Such a force would find re- lief along the line of least. resistance, which would be directly up to the surface. It could not possibly be al or a bor 5. so M al line that of I}e£C5sitv would oe one of tar greater resist— anc?. Thus, your speculation to account for salt beds between coal beds, violates one of the Bi mp lest principles of science. Several times, I have been asked to state what I consider the geology of the world to have been. This, I havfcj irposely avoided because, I do not wish to be found in the position of attempting to settle disputed Biblical question^ on scientific ground. After we have come to understand the Biblical aspect, it will be easy/ to preuent the geology as far as it is yet known. One thing may be sjfca-ted he,|e. Geological time of whatever laJMfth it may be, cannot be di vided’Mjrf’C'o d.istfnct ages a1* where is no basis for such, division. One of the things/^oJ/yM. t; Up 1 s tnat of hiulical evidence of plants and animals previous to those ice .tiore4 in the six days. I am not givin" this at this tine because I can see not reason whatever for presenting it to those who profess to believe such a thing as interchangeability between create snd raake in the face of the clear Biblical evidence that strictly in keeping with inspiration. All the tore so, when my critics have never attempt-WFd to show bow tr.eir speculations uphold the inspiration, nor how they glorify God. Nor can I see any reason for taking up further evidence with those who have not even trieA to show tow their speculation of "process creation* glorifies God. All that nas thus far beeu presented is for the glory of man. It upholds his speculations. Ho one has yet shown how a God who is an instantaneous and miraculous Savior who never changes, can at the same time be a "process creator.,, Just how could he do this to Ms glory? Is it more to his glory to take more time to make inanimate atter, such as a rock, than it is to create an immortal spirit? Or, is it more to his glory to use time needlessly previous to sin in the world, than it is to create instantly? Where did tne idea of "precess creation come from"? Ho such thing is mentioned in the Siole previous to sin. Rev.Kelson’s last letter received about a week ago, is not in any way different from the previous one. Gntil it takes up some of these essential things, further reply to it is not necessary. I want some real evidence of open -" :i r ec '.es s to the truth instead of adnerence to dogmatism that upholds the traditions of man. As to geology, let us accept facts before we attempt ore discussion. Our main need just now is adherence to facts instead of dogmas. MoSt cordially yours, L to TK’" JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Various reasons it seems necessary for raa mkw one raere reply on t&a subjects that we are llsensslaj* Then bej-m* I CelUva that U.1 vers actuated by a sincere desire to a*ve eno i sU« presented fully and carefully* and then leave Vs* mt ter thus* for after all debates of this kind seldCM settle vexed ^uesticn* Xt I s v it alth muon ©orrewf th** Jr. T. sees* to he striving *Or a mere verbal o* dialectical victory, not to arrive at unknown truth* Fer instance* in hi# latest circular letter ( F?b» 2J ) he devotes aWnt a K*lf-pafle to tryin; t'> th’-oj? dust la the air about the fljure of speech known as "hendladys* ° This is 4 very dd figure* oor-won to all XanflWOS that I know anything about* an: is very co^oaly. used in the 014 Testament* Xn the Old Stilish it 'used to be called the figure of ** ** w *** writs the -rvrd» tal^s. <4mo«t dictionary shews by ths definition flivsn that the .$ ?>lly,,|0..Wbs t* |WR*« AM the Dictionary expressly spates .’■• ■■’"■ •- .e a tee* Acodrdinjly* shat dees all of Jr* h.*s • efforts to eonfiao the mme of relUlen always tone for vhat the ,?sr>esrators ealled ”t^ fllery of Oedi" On this acuonat I net t-iteyeeted in trying to settle Vw x^e tn t Is fashion* Bnt X aw very aeah letereijtH ta h&vta? •£. fao® the fa-it which t Jkiv« pointed ont repeatedly that the aaa* ^'*- T'ljlish i?H rdsojB the original Hebrew ) is used in -Son* 1 ill in treX 1 1 21} an’ a,al.$ -'Un* li. 2$.* tn the latter veme it 1» need first of Mam and than of 3ta* xt tn sjtie df -ill 4;hle piled evidence* T. still atiexa to 'ale et.-.’Utly a .ft* UH roasontM^e that God novor orxtot V "stalest" Mantee In B*. H* *« a grigri ov; i’Un this orxtlafl by riao^-ilv* stafloe omld not be to the "fllory of d»" Bus noeordin^ to the rales *hUh X .n followinflt when God epealw spool loally in thia fashion* a donlal or aft evasion of ths plain ota*aMent Of the Sarlptnre a&nnot bo to the fllory of God — ar of #?• M« * eujyoso it is nxlwss dUoh»es V*w xUhUfU <*spuate of the further, for very ol^arly Jr. I*eeisnoo is e^tlrwl;; suMrdlmted tn his arbitrary -vid fanciful interpretation of Sesaele* 3 *yo he believes in a univers *1 Plondj but »o fa* -> X xn see he cannot point to asiy single set of jhenomx, either la the way of stratified beds done by Uis FXe^k I an sorry that uo still sticks to the ont-cf-xte hypo^esls of t'iw in .alt1* orj^bt of coal, w)ien e^inont >aun la both this couatry and in have abandoned it. lie is clever in Making it appear that I did In ?v sta^^nts .about the 9 Ui deposits! for 1a ity denllnj with this subject X ?aay have mdw ^vself liable to M misunderstood. Salt dems do ehw slfltts of having Lntr’uied Into their present Jr-eltlxs| md vlian a moss of salt ooenrs in between strata ( as does tsatotiises oaanr on a amll scale ) by this process of intrusion* of oourse there would he physical evidences of the smoment. Rnvever* in my former letter dealijifl with this subject X snU« ”ln 50^ Lnstanoos >Cl£tlo» has acewmlatod betwon strata, itact^ncos moaes' o^ Tron oarbomte or pt.\er onbetoxeo th’i$ ai>aWjA$tadt Any Sf' the directors my see W looking up >v former letter taut 1 sm here repe.-i -inj what X s tic there* But Jr. M. cleverly tries to i-»Ae It appear that 1 wished to explain all salt and similar beds by Izitnislou. I an sure I need not ^ntlan to any one asinaiated with fledofly the be^^^^llnt^. or nodules of.silUa vhi/ri $r$ r^yutndly "^^4 -cc^yln.T -hslk &s?Mta* ^iwy look *i If they ciad been da posited where WflnTtnoBib^t every tfeol n^lst’ knows and owns that they We . .$* >11^>-Men mtere ^.roolsti'aj t^jrO'i^h the ch>Xk* M*vyr other TnterbeldeiT’de^^tts h^fe formd in t)*e same u tn.1 *' «*** “«• ’rtda)» “• *w» >» »••■ id 5xie aroaaeia* and the •Vroterosoia” ^*witl,ns *»,< t * JI Just h. has b.-.’vht thss. fwta-i. h^» ? » “ loss W ’“"'■’“•sfcxnd th. bod, of th, .a^hX X", *’ tira. usual!/ aasljJttd to Sooh’s Flood, de 4«, ^Jc, f’ iJ *? nt ?'* m «».». <.~m>-< <•-^(XS;ST,>-£' '“. j^T-fS-VKS u ■.»£.«. «»>■«“ — •*— question which «-e divided • Hstlnst a;jM» a» there is no hasty for such division”. ( Circ xlar Utt sr, Feb. ftj, 1)57 • ) I think ray i*jfttt«a Is tout inevitable tn view of these two fasts. How is he gooloytoal formations, and toold* Just which ones wwe caused by the Tdn of Sen. 1 < 2 V Could -here possibly bo h universal Flood, wiping out all the rase of mankind and all the land mhd8» uH not leave |0f$ *W?k3 Of its action? And how in the nam of oomen sense is hn join,; to discriminate vaony all ths varied jeolcjlad phenomena, and deal do Just which ones wore duo to thio wrld Catyolysn and whish w« due to the previous one, which la mver expressly mentioned in the Bible, but tshlch he thinks he can rood between the linos in th** early part of Genesis X t Surely if ?xa wants to instruct and convert the beni^tad believers in Fiend I he eu^ht to address himself vary earirisly to everything implied in the question stated ( above. This I take to be almost wholly a saiantlflG ^id le^ioal problemi If it is to settled by an appeal to motaphyaieal subtlltiy#, sneh as the differences between ^Rreate” and ’’make,’* or the reasons why darkness ovi be thouj/it of only gft having | followed lijht, I cannot pledge beforehand interest tn his -.nrwir. But if B*. H, t will let Uto the ysoret,..of M o-a» fossils which ware Oa'ised by IM pre-:5denie .-‘ -in, and whioh were this to Noah’s Flood, X shall consider his line of ar^iMent with tiw very greatest attention* F^r I consider the | problem roasted above o be i thousand times more Importaat than any Potty object tons /to Flood seoloyy based on the alloyed method of foreatien of seal, limestone, eto* Only I the line of reasoning weald lecicoily necessarily be the ©Vmr way around than the } plokin; out the results of the Pre-BdenU S> in first of all, Fey certainly results j Of Boah*s Flood are between our day and thnV hense we met f Ufnt. settle / what was. -ions by tne ":Flood'bef0r£ ?we;..O-oh M v aomon bense tells us we must ( In explanation ) work frtet present or t)ie modern back into the past I it will never do to start with some sJieor deadereokonlnj to work from tiiat point up to^tlio"‘present. I I ■t J t At afty rate, I v* Vastly interested in seeing how one son evade t e importance of Flood ^eolo^jy as a method of explataiaj at l**aot a lar but X have investigated them carefully and have found many points which not only must be recognized, but which when carefully studied, fit in perfectly with the picture which I am trying to develop regarding the Flood and conditions during the centuries following* The three problems presented above summarise at the present time the mopt detailed information which wo have over tried to present regarding the geological problems* The latter part of the book deals with the species problem* It is important that some of the early chapters on the historic development of our present ideas should bo carefully noted and then that we give close attention to the scientific problems involved* May I say without appearing to suggest too much of the personal element that I have tried to f bo very cautious and to weigh carefully the present scientific views on the question of species* It has been my privilege to associate closely with , ^fiiep^ists in such a way as to know their views quite thoroughly* I have doro seme original work in the /leldof Biology and have been in close tox> tact with others for a number of years* As a member of three scientific societies I feel certain that I know their viewpoints quite wells so I have tried to speak from the angle of science as well as from one who is trying to uphold the Bible* Ministerial Association four There Is danger of our trying to maintain a preconceived or fixed theory regarding tho problem of species without going into the scientific evidences thoroughly. Most popular views on this subject are in error since the facts of heridity are not coswmly known. A great deal of superstition passes for knowledge In the common mind. It is a very common opinion among us as a people that there has been no change in species since the beginning, but this attitude cannot be maintained In the faoe of well established scientiflo evidence trhich we cannot, of course, give in this brief letter. The manuscript, however, goes into these evidences very thoroughly. In the presentation of the material on cross breeding I have shown that what has commonly been supposed to be impossible Is not only a possibility but is a probability, and in fact, the evidence is accumulating rapidly to the point where hybridisation is becoming to be recognised as a very potent factor in the formation of new species. At present the principle of hybridisation has became well established although it is not a common process and the fapts regarding it are not generally known. All that I have done is to make seme applications of this principle which show its importance in relation to the creation and flood records. The original draft of this manuscript was road by a committee appointed by you two years ago. Jo W fAOts have been presented in the present revision except the more detailed explanation of the glacial problem. On the problem of species, additional evidence has been gathered, but nothing that in any way changes the attitude which was presented in the first draft. This other manuscript was favorably reported by alfc the readers except one and it was urged at that time that it be put Into print just as quickly as possible. Your seorotary sent all the criticisms to me and I cannot say whether you have any copies on file or not. Most of the criticisms were merely in the nature of technical detail which did not in any way affect the general argument of the manuscript. Since then I have presented these views in lectures to the Advanced Bible School hero at Angwin and to the Seminary at ’Washington. Tho manuscript has been read by several of your members and some of our returned missionaries have taken my classes and have listened to my lectures on these subjects. I can say truthfully that no one has seriously opposed me on any of these points. Only those who have not paid attention to the evidence have made any particular objection. The one report which was not favorable on my manuscript came frem one of our ministers and was not, however, baaed upon the scientific quality of the work, but on the other hand he objected simply because he did not believe in the principle of haying our people deal with any scientific question. It was purely and wholly a negative criticism with no constructive cements j therefore, it counted for nothing and could not be accepted in the light of the other criticisms or in the light of the work which I am trying to do. It was not in any sense an argument against the manuscript except on the general principle that we should leave all such questions alone. Now, I want our people to have the benefit of the studies which X have been able to put into these chapters. It would help them to avoid many wrong statements which are continuously being made regarding scientific problems. Ministerial Association five It would also help them to understand the place of the Flood and of changes in living forms in regard to the Flood and conditions from that time up to now* It is an attempt to build up a scientific explanation of the facts of the past and the present and to help us to make a beginning on the truth of scientific interpretation which would help us to meet the evolutionary theory. In conclusion may I beg of you to judge this manuscript upon its own merits and not to base too much upon the present opinions of some who have not done research along these lines. I have been facing a very serious predicament in regard to these questions. On many points it is extremely difficult to get a hearing in our publications because some of these points are not understood by our brethren. On the other hand, it is impossible for them ^ua^erqtaM thwn for nothing Jis printad for them to study. Now, may I ask you how we are going to gefc anything printed if we cannot publish anything until everyone understands it? I think you can seo my Iftgio of the situation. We must have a chance to study and compare ideas one with another. While I agree that a scientific book must of necessity be very conservative in its presentation, yet I do believe that it is not in the same class with books which present religious dogma. There must be more leeway and more of a chance for difference of opinion and for presentation of advanced study along these lines. I trust that this missive has not wearied you unduly and that it will help you to understand some of the background for this material and sons of the objectives which I have in mind in preparing It. Most sincerely yours, (signed) H. W. Clark HSfCie «y Dear Fellow Directors: > .. The stateeeBt is made in letter of March g that I am seeking »a mere verbal or dialectic victory.• -tot..In/ eouli bo farther from t» truth than such a thlr. . ♦ Are you not aware that all of »y letters contend for the accuracy and iBepIration of the Bible? If this outstanding fact is so completely for the solution of these problems that has satisfied others for a Bong ties. fee, even sharinf with you a secure foundation on which to stand ir t e fight Iains* or as 3c evolution. Ma» »»« twl.tl. ...Iulia, u>. U>. >1W.U. wbi.h w« keep out of if we are ever to succeed in our fight against organic evolution. While we uphold the evangelist who proclaims eiraeulous and instand salvation through tho >od who is ever the ease, we oust also be ln awr intorprotalion of Hie creation. If we claim that it the sa«» od aeoso of time to brintf the world into shape as a fit abode for man, ve place ourselves in the absurd position of claiming that it took God longer to create a» inanimate roek than it takes bin to create a© iaaortal spirit. We oust remenber that the physical world will pass away bocausa it is finite and has eose under the defilement of sic. An inmortal spirit is eternal and has no end. It is vastly the greater creation. Trusting that this will help to sake matters clear, and earnestly praying od’a blessfng upon each one of you, I beg to reaaio Most eordially yours, L.Allen Higley.. Wheaton, March lh, Illinois, 1GST. DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND GEOLOGY WHEATQN f □LLEGE March 20,1937. My dear Professor Price: Thank you for your good letter of March 12. I am sure that everything will be all right. As to the Secretary’s use of his official title, I had noticed it, but I did not see anything out of order. I am quite willing to allow him to use his own discretion in the matter. I appreciate fully what is stated in the latter part of your letter. However- He has Practically read the Millennium out of the Bible. Also the immanent pre-M.illennial return of the Lord with the expressed conmand to "Watch" for it. He also had some very unscriotural ideas about "Christian liberty." This, is why I have not recog-nized him as a scholar. It is true that the world will call him a scholar, because fought, to jl.g.^^e^wjld. I am also interested in what you say about prophecy and should be glad to take this up with you some time in personal interview, which I hope would be mutually helpful. It is too complex a subject to take up by correspondence. However, if you see fit to write anything, I shall be very glad to get it even if I would not have time to reply. Regarding the proposed meeting in April, I have not sent out any notices yet because I have been too busy to attend to it. I wrote to all of the Directors about it, but you are the only one who has replied thus far. All of the members that I have had contact with, seem to prefer that it be deferred.. They say that organizations standing for a single idea(more or less), and not of large membership such as the R.S.A. should not have meetings too frequently lest .hey fail to attract an adequate attendance. This has been my personal position in the matter right from the beginning, though of course I have no desire to impose personal convictions upon others, especially if they see it in a different light. I should be glad to hear from you stating what is your best judgment about it. If you and the other directors feel that we would lose by deferring the meeting, I am ready to go ahead. Very truly yours, n JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ' ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN M^P|-r.A-r JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM 838 S. Albarado St., * Los Angeles, Cal. Mracg 22, 1937- Professor G-eorge McCready Price, Walla Wall College, College Place, Wash. My dear Prof. Price:- your I received/very good letter of Feb.28th. I see that you have been a very prolific writer. If all your books are as fine as the three I have read, and no doubt they are, you certainly have done much good with your typewriterpen. I hope all have had a fine sale. About ten days ago I was in the Bible Institute Book Shop and bought The Modern Flood Theory of Geology. It is very excellent. I want to ask for your permission to make a few quotations from it, or will it be necessary to write to Mr. Revell? Through your book I bought the one by Prof. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone. It is one of the very best I have read. I am almost inclined to believe, had I know of your book and his, I might not have even begun mine, though so very dissimilar. before reading these two books, I had read about Dr. Woodward, and Mr. Williams. I found some very similar ideas in print as I had already written on conditions of the earth before the“flood. In fact it may be sai'8/lrgot my ideas there. I expect to get your book, The phantom of Organic Evolution, and also the other book by Prof. Nelson. These books are all more interesting, to me than a romance. What a pity they do not get into the best seller class, like a lot of the chaff that is gone with the wind. I would like to ask your candid opinion of the chronology as given in Genesis, which anyone can figure himself? Is it your opinion that any generations were nomitted? I can not see any lifeht in the ages given by Dr. Hale, or by the Septusgint. Of course to accept Dr. Hale places over 1400 years more into that period of the world. The stone in the structure of the Pyramids contains foliHis as do the nearby quaries. The Pyramids were either built within four centuries of the flood, or by the Hebrews in captivity. Of course as you know, the date is complete^guessed at. If build following the flood, by the same or associate engineers who built the Tower of Bable, would that rock be very hard in that time? There are evidences, you know, that diamond drills were used in those quaries. Dr. Hale is correct, and that the Deluge was about 32OCB. C. it would give enough time, but that upsets the chronology of the line of Shem. I do not. believe a hundred years can be added to the lives of those given It is not consistant.But I would like your opinion, for no doubt you have given it much?stddy. Of course this is not for any quot at i ons• J. L. McELHANY, chairman I. H. EVANS, SECRETARY L, E, FROOM, associate MEADE MacGUIRE, associate (Dinis trrial of Seventh-day ^/fesnriaium SOM Adventists TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON. D.C. April 25, 1937 CABLE ADDRESS “ADVENTIST” WASHINGTON Prof. George McCready Price Walla Walla College College Place, Washington Dear Brother Price: I appreciate your letter of April 15. I share with you disappointment in not being able to have a further talk together. As you know, I had planned to stay for a number of days after tne conference, and I thought there would be some leisure for sucn matters. I thank you for your statement concerning Charles Montgomery, Driver, fright, Bo^tflower, and Pucci. I am, of course, acquainted with these works, but am glad to have your definite evaluation and reaction tnereon. Your closing paragraph is interesting, in wnich you nave evidently gotten a wrong impression of my expression to you. There is not the slightest hesitation upon my part so far as feeling that there is any trespassing upon another’s territory. I do not know, Brother Price, whether men are frank enough with you to tell you that not a few of our leaders and of your fellow educators believe that you are better off ..wpen you kapp in the. field of-.your-specialty. They do not feel tnat you are primarily a minister or theologian, and that there are antecedent backgrounds of long years of diligent study and intensive research tnat lie back of any specific commentary on tne Book of Daniel, and tnese men nave expressed themselves to me rather definitely. It was because of that element that I gave expression to the statement that I made to you. I do feel, personally, that sound interpretation today must take into cognizance the historic background of interpretation. It is easy to see why certain positions which are not very satisfactory today came into being. It was because in the early days of this movement men were not thoroughly acquainted with the background, and I do believe that there is an indissoluble relationship between historic interpretation and sound interpretation today in a work tnat will really be a distinct contribution in the field. No my brother; I am not a dog in tne manger. I think that the work that I am doing will be contributory to tne effectiveness of such an undertaking. I am not seeking to either write a nistory of interpretation nor to in any way produce a commentary on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation, but to trace tne relationship of prophetic interpretation through the centuries to the one great theme of JAMES WHITE LIBRARY' ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOP Price—2. the advent, and the two are inseparable. We cannot have the latter without tne former. Be assured of my personal friendship, and my personal interest in this work, and in your achievement. I admire the scholarly way in which you have contributed so mightily to the field of your recognized specialty. With Christian regards, I remain Your brother in the service LEF/n JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERIL QinistmalA of Seventh-day |A Broom /fesnriatiim Adventists J. L. McELHANY, chairman I. H. EVANS, SECRETARY L, E. FROOM, associate MEADE MacGUIRE, associate TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, D.C. May 13, 1937 CABLE ADDRESS "ADVENTIST" WASHINGTON Prof. George McCready Price Walla Malla College College Place, Washington Dear Brother Price! I was deeply interested in your letter of May 6, making inquiry first concerning a little trant _bv Edward J£ing, written in 1J&8 and published in...l7-99_ pertaining to the complete fulfillment of the 1260-year period, which he recognized, and which he set forth as be i ng ?ulfjjjein^c c or djnp e_y^ ith. the specif1 c. prnphRti o per4 o d. This man haci tried several years before to awaken men generally with reference to prophetic study, but without much success. After tne French Revolution there were many expositors or Daniel and the Revelation. I cannot give vqu further _detg,i|s as my. materials are in a suitcase, packed and ready ToMTiXve with me for New York this afternoon. Thanks for the additional word concerning the statement of R.h. Charles. Now for your interesting paragraph chiding my youthfulness, and reminding me pointedly that you were adept in prophetic lore before I nad seen the light of day, or my little feet had pattered upon the schoolroom floor. I take the cnide with good nature, and love you in the same old way. Now, I wish, in seriousness, that you would not take this personally. Your issue is not with me. I told you when in the Northwest, and later by letter, that there is no crossing of our pathways. I am not seeking to keep you back. I only say this: that one cannot truly and soundly interpret pronhecy today, at least to the best advantage, without a clear understanding of the history of prophetic interpretation through the years. The unfolding of prophetic interpretation and fulfillment shows why difficulties, divergencies and misunderstandings came in. had we known these things we could nave avoided many things. For example: the Eastern and Western empires of Rome were believed to nave been tne two legs of iron. This gave rise to the idea that there were two antichrists, Monammed in tne East and the Papacy in the West. It was this that tnrew Luther off the track. Coming into the Apocalypse we find that it was precisely on this point that William Miller lost nis bearings. In Reformation times tne first beast of Revelation 13 was Pagan Rome, and tne second beast, which was its image, was the Papacy, and Papal Rome’s period of domination was 42 months. Miller stated: ’’Let j-rice—2. him that hath understanding count the number of the first beast. His number is 666.” This he believed to be tne years of his domination, which ne says was over the Jews, and began when the Jews entered into league with the Romans, which he thought was 158 B.C. He said, subtract 158 B.C. from 666 years of domination, and you will nave tne year A.D. 508. When that domination would cease, Paganism would end. Tnat was tiller’s foundation for tne old view of the daily. If we had known that fact, and if we had known, furthermore, that when Sister White wrote upon the matter of the daily in 1850 that she was alluding specifically to the positions taken by the First Day Adventists, who specifically state that tnat which they nad expected in October, 1844, had not been fulfilled, therefore the 2300 years nad not ended; they set time forward, but in doing so took a new basis of calculation, and on their charts show the Jewish altar of sacrifice, and make their calculations on the basis of injecting the word sacrifice into the text. And the closing two lines of that paragraph by bister unite state: ”1 saw that time was not to be made a test. I saw that time will never again be a test." This is the clue to the entire point and purpose of her statement. Again I say, if we had these things as a background it would have saved much misunderstanding and thee logical warfare. But, the suggestions that have been made nave ccme from other men. I was simply unwise enough to pass them on to you. I think a great deal of you, price. I think you have made a great contribution. I recognize tnat your work in uhe field of your specialty is very worthy, and as far as I am concerned, I bid you godspeed in anything you can do. I feel that you work, as you state, will nave to be judged upon its merits. I do not believe for a moment that it takes a cleric to ■write upon prophecy. It does take a tremendous amount of study. You allude to Sir Isaac Newton. His was a wonderful contribution, as all scholars recognize and gladly acclaim. His study surely puts nim in the class of experts. Baybe you will be a second Sir Isaac Newton. Looking forward to greeting you shortly, I am Faithfully yours in the service, LEF/n Mokiang, Yunna n July 10, 1937 Professor George McCready Price, Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington, Dear Prof. Price:- You may recall that about five years ago you were kind enough to read, a manuscript of mine dealing with the geological aspect of a book I was expecting to publish. You will be glad to know that I finally succeeded in the publication of this book, called “The Three worldsh• In the midst of incessant missionary itineraries there have been many delays in the work on this book. After it was finally ready for publication about two years ago, and the manuscript was sent to the printer, there came up so many unexpected and inexplainable complications that it seemed to me the only way one could account for it was the persistent opposition of the devil. I finally came to Shanghai and have succeeded in getting the book printed. I would like to say that in the midst of the many discouragements your encouraging remarks after reading the manuscript have been no small factor in giving me courage to persist in this matter until the present completion. Of course your review was confined to the geological part of this book. I have indicated this in the book itself. I presume there will be sections of this book to which you will take some exceptions • Although I have read the contradictory views of this subject I have dealt with in this book, I have expressed what seems to me to be the truth. However, on the vital things I b&lieve we are in agreement —-namely, the original creation by God, the present fallen condition of that creation, the final goal - Redemption through Christ. On these fundamental and vital things I feel we should present a united and solid front. In this final battle with the powers of darkness there should be no fighting within the camp* over matters that are not absolutely vital. I will be very glad if you have time to read this book and as you feel led, send me any comments or criticisms. I feel that the Lord has given you a great ministry in enabling you to stand out as a sort of Prophet to jcehxxji the present unbelieving generation, a~nd to stem the current of the so-called Scientific orcter. May the Lord abundantly bless your further ministry. With best wishes, Yours in Christ JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM -m . x Stony Plain, Alberta n July 18 / 37 My Dear Brother George: Many thanks fot your letter of 11th Inst. Please, Brother, try not to feel sad. about me. I am a Christian, you are a Christian. Let us love one another and. try to trust each other. Please remember that there are many good. Christian people in the world, who have had the truth of the Sabbath presented to them as clearly as Adventists (including myself, and doubtless yourself) could present it; and who yet keep Sunday. Many honest Christians believe in "natural immortality", and in the "post-millennium" doctrine, in spite of so much evidence on the other side. So why can not I be a sincere Christian while not being able to see the truth of the Adventist teachings about the sanctuary, when, to say the least, that subject is far less plain than is the Sabbath? From my last letter I thot to quite refrain from all further writing to you on these religious topics, thinking that you would prefer that I hould do so; but you continue this writing so I shall try to do the same, ut kindly, I trust, as to a beloved brother. Yes, I am getting old, George, but I don’t think that this condition is a reason for my "inability to face clear and obvious facts", tho it is kind of you to somewhat excuse this on that account. As to my recent letter, of June 22, wherein I refer to your "attack on B •" in your letter of Oct. 15 / 36, I still think it was exactly as I stated it. I did not suggest that we had not previously discussed the "Brown" letters. Of course I remember that some "years before" we had discussed them, as they first appeared in the "North Pacific Union Gleaner" and the "Central Union Reaper", (not in "some Canadian periodicals", as you suggest - and I am glad to say) copies of which I still have. But we had quite dropped those controversial topics in our writing to each other, and were confining ^ur letters to common-place topics. That is the point. Then in that Better of Oct 15th you again brought up the old subject of Ballenger and ^he Brown letters, which we had, for some little time, dropped. The whole matter of that letter shows that it was a re-introduction of that old controversial subject: just general topics spoken in the body of the letter -the school work, Aberhart, etc., and then, in a "P. S.", and introduced with, "By the way, I have recently received, and read, ..." the Brown Pamphlet. Surely, this was no "defence" against my "aggression”, no reply to anything which I had said about Ballenger - unless you take it as a reply to what I had written on that subject months before, at least previously to May 4/ 36 as I have it, for I see no controversial matters in your letters which I have by me between May 4 and Oct. 15. On May 4 you had requested that we drop the controversial matter. Well, that is how it appears to me, and I don’t think it is from any inability on my part to face obvious facts. But indeed, George, don’t you realize that I have seldom, if ever, mentioned that man’s name to you except in reply to something which you have said about him. With the question of the sanctuary I admit that it is different, and I have introduced that question to you, and urged it upon you, doubtless more than I should have done. But why should I introduce the subject of ’’Ballenger" to you ? Why should I speak of him? I am not especially proud of him or his methods - tho I believe him to be an honest Christian man, who is seeking to do the Lord’s work, and who is doing it;_ tho in some ways rather crudely - as I know that I myself so often do. But I am no "follower of Ballenger", in spite of your frequent statements to that effect. I hold no "brief" for him. Again and again I have told him, both privately and publicly, that he was wrong there and there, that he should not have said so-and-so. And he has admitted the force of my presentations , even publicly in the "Call", and said he "should be more careful". In my very latest letter to him I pointed out another instance of a rash and unfounded statement made in the June Call and said to him, "if ’Brown1 does not rein you up for that he will miss his opportunity". (He has not yet replied to this my latest letter to him.) I can see the crudity of some of B’s writings and the unfairness of some of his statements perhaps as well as most Adventists can, but I try to tell him of these in a kind and Christian way, And I think I have done more to get him to drop, or avoid, some of his unwise and unfair statements than "Brown" and other like Adventists have done with all their super-crude railing at him, of "liar", "absolute lies", "intentionally dishonest", "looks like the devil", etc., etc. Ho, I am no follower of B., any more than you are a follower of Spicer of Watson; and if I could bring, and prove, a dozen charges of gross misconduct against those (good) men it would no more affect the truth of the Sabbath question or the sanctuary question, one way or the other, than j all your charges against B. affect the truth of those same questions. * Why can’t you and "Brown" and the Southern Pub. Ass’n let B. alone, and confine yourselves to the doctrines and the principles which he advocates, and which you have a perfect right, and may I say, duty, to refute? That would have some weight with me. What good would it do for me to set before you the lapses from moral virtue of Elder ..., and Elder ... and Elder ..., whom I might name, and give this as any evidence whatever against the Adventist teachings on the sanctuary,- because these men advocated them ? Thanks from my heart, Brother, for an apology for "any harsh or unkind things" written against myself. But really these items troubled me but little, as I know only too well my own many failings. "As far as the east is from the west", is a sweet promise to each of us. I am glad indeed to know that your Ms. on the book of Daniel is completed, and I trust it will soon be in print, for I long to peruse a copy. i And I think I can assure you that I shall read it with an open mind and, I hope, a favorable mind. You see, this question of the sanctuary is, with me, still open for "free investigation",- just as is the Sabbath, the nature of man, or any other such question. I see no reason why any doctrine believed and held as truth should not ever be open to free investigation. Truth never fears, or never should fear, such. It never "hateth the light", but it "cometh to the light". If you can present the present ike-present • Adventist theory of the sanctuary in a reasonable and truly Biblical light, by all means let me have it * and see it, and I pray God He may help me to love it. You will thus do what no other Adventist has ever done, or approached doing. Of course, I thot you gave me the best you had to give (not "all I could say") "in defence of the Adventist doctrine about the sanctuary and Dan. 8: 14 as an answer to the question asked in the preceding verse"j just as I gave you the best I had to give. If you had something better "up your sleeve" why, I was the loser. I hope this may be remedied when I can read your book. Yes, I know there are serious differences of opinion among Adventists regarding some vital points of the sanct. question, just as there are among Sunday advocates on the Sabbath question, or among evolutionists regarding the manner of these differences self "making capital Ballenger for doing, ments (verbally re of evolution, and various phases of it. Yet in spite you quote from private letters of scientists to your-out of this difference and uncertainty", as you blame - and me particularly for quoting some of your state-the sanctuary question, to others. I scarcely see the difference, as both questions are "in the air". Certainly, the Golden Rule should apply in this case, as in all others. I knew that I had confi- dence in my statements to you, re. the sanct. question, and would be pleased for you to quote them to others, as widely as possibly. I supposed you had similar confidence in your presentations to me, and would not object to my quoting them, at least verbally, (and I ask again, when did I ever "publish" any of them?) to others. However, as I now know your f$a## feelings in the matter I shall try to avoid any serious offence in this matter in future. more caution as I suppose it is quite natural for a public man to feel to his words on a controverted matter being "broadcast" than a private man to feel. And yet, George, you must realize that this very plea of "difference and uncertainty" among Adventists on some points of the sanct. question, and that "some are not in harmony with Uriah Smith's publications on this subject", must greatly lessen any feeling of certainty I may have had as to the truth of the Adventist holdings on the subject. F And yet you continue to feel sad over my "lost"condition, and over the "darkness and perversity" in which I am, because I do not believe it and accept it, when there is so much "uncertainty" that I do not know what "it" is, except in its final conclusion, viz. that our Saviour did not enter the Most Holy Place to minister for us until 1844; the how, and the why, and the evidence for this being so "in the air". You would seemingly have me accept and believe the final conclusion, and let the evidence wait, just as Dr. Scott would have you all to believe in Evolution "even if we hold it only as an act of faith". 7e cannot see how it can be possible, it seems most contrary to the evidence, - yet we should accept it for "there is no alternative". Well, let us hope that your coming book will make plain some things which now are dark. If you can harmonize the present Adventist teachings on the S. question with the Bible and common sense, I feel that you will be doing that people, my people, the greatest service they have had done them for years. But please, George, try to look upon me as a Christian, even as I look upon you. I cannot reply to your paragraph re. Sister White. I have done this too often already. It simply makes trouble; and I think you do not wish me to. I must # stick to the Bible. You certainly must have put a wealth of time and research on your coming book on Daniel. I fear I am not equal to such heavy mental work now - if ever I was. A two day's rain last week, which saved much of the crops; more than six inches fell. Some of the grain was too far gone to be helped, but the late grains will be saved; we are thankful for this.- Josie has started a Sunday-school in our local school house here; may our Father bless the effort. She has not yet secured a school to teach for this coming year - but we still hope that she will. Marshall is helping with the hay, etc.; hay crop very light. Affestionately Charlie “The liberal soul shall be made fat.’’ Prov. 11:25, and “to him that soweth righteousness shall be a sure reward.” Prov. 11:18 Spokane, Wash. Aug.30,1937. Mr. G.M.Price, Walla Walla College, College Place, Wash. Dear Mr. Price: Your letter addressed to Wilmore, Ky., has been forwarded to Spokane where I just arrived a day or two ago. My summer vacation this year has been spent traveling up the west coast meeting friends of the work in China, and speaking in some of the churches concerning the conditions of the foreign field. My stay here at Spokane will be a brief one, after which I must hurry back to Wilmore. In answer to your question, I am the son of H.A. Baker, of China, and was not only born there but have also spent most of my life in that country. For the past three years I have been in America, taking college work at Asbury College, Wilmore, Ky., where I graduate next spring. Practically all the supernatural workings of the Spirit mentioned in ’’The Three Worlds” as taking place in Yunnan, I have witnessed. As you say, the book is indeed remarkable, and to some readers it is quite a shock. Thank you for your interest. As I shall be helping witd this end of the book circulation, I shall be glad to receive the names of those who might be interested in this publication. It is too bad the books are so heavy, but now we must make the best of it. I hope also to make use of your pricelist, as I have enjoyed reading several of your books. "The New Geology" is now in the college library. Sincerely yours acific Union College^ Angwin, California DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Harold Ig. Clark Sept. 12, 1937 Secretary- Biology and Geology Section Educational Department General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Prof. George McCready Price College Place Hashington Dear Prof. Price: I have just returned from a whole summer spent in the East in which I have visited several very interesting Geological locations and many museums and done some work in the Library of Congress. I have come to some very definite conclusions on a number of difficult points in Geology and Biology and I think you will enjoy the results of this study when I finally get it in shape. The pajaer which you sent me for the convention was a very good one, but? we seemed to have very little opportunity to have much of a discussion on this matter, I-d|d succeed, however, in emphasizing different phases of our problem with our Biology group, and ishile no direct action was taken by the convention as a whole, there was quite a unanimous agreement among our Biology teachers that more attention whould be given to the cultural phases of science, and that we should especially work to establish the creation viewpoint and do what we can to overthrow evolution. We did pass a resolution through the convention calling for the establishment of field nature studies in colleges, academies, and elementary schools. I hope something may come of this. Allen is pressing me very hard to do something further regarding The work of an association. I brought up the matter at the convention and it was very agreeable to our science teachers, especially the Biology folks, but they did not permit anything of this sort to go onto the floor of the convention. They told us that we werenerfectly free to organize among ourselves any kind of an organization we pleased. I am wondering now just what we ou&ht to do. While in Chicage I had a short visit with Higley. I do not think we are going to get anywhere in Sealing with that group. His pre-Adamic theories are the most absurd which I have ever run across. I do not know whether you know it or not, but he told me that Lucifer was the first being created on this world and that he was put here several million years ago and that JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Price—page two his fall was the cause of several million years of chaos in which the earth was without form and void. That was the time when the stratified rocks were laid down and all the-^velo-eaaeea-predueed; and then in six 24-hour days, God recreated the earth and the habitation upon it. Lucifer deceived Adam and Eve and the rebellion went on. As long as the Religion and Science association is managed by men who hold those views, we are never going to make any headway with the true creation doctrine. Higley is the head of a large and enthusiastic group of non-sectarian creation religionists throughout the middle west and teachers whom he is training are going out to teach these doctrines. If we ever expect to do anything for the sake of creationism we must organize for ourselves and hold to our own particular beliefs and work it out in our own way. I will be glad to hear from you as to any suggestions you may have. Very sincerely yours, HWC4C acific Union College^ Angwin, California xz DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Harold Clark Secretary Biology and Geology Section Educational Department General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists October 5, 1937 Prof. George McCready Price College Place Washington Dear Prof. Price: There are two or three matters which I should like to pass on to you today for your consideration. First, in regard to the form of my book manuscript. I hardly know whether it would be better to make six or eight long chapters of about twenty to thirty pages apiece divided into four to six sections each or to make chaptei^of only six to eight pages apiece. In the latter case, the chapters would be approximately the equivalent of the sections under the firjrt plan and possibly would hardly need sub-divisions although the sub-divisions could be made. I should appreciate your comment on this question. In regard to the question of the fonnation of an association among ourselves for the study of problems of evolution vs creationism, I am wondering if we shall find ehough men who are qualified to take an active part to really make it mean anything. Personally, I cannot think of more than four or five who are doing anything along this line. Then, in the third place, I am passing on to you a letter which Brother Allen writes to you and to me. I have read it carefully and would appreciate it if you would return it to me. I do not know what you will think it, but I shall be glad to get your reaction. Personally, I__can see no light in a move under the terms which he lays down in this letter. It seems to me that we would not be justified under any circumstances in trying to create an organization for the sake of finding a job, as he puts it, for any man. If the association were to grow large enough to take a full time secretary, then one should be appointed for the sake of the organization and work and should be a man who from every angle is qualified to carry on the work required. As far as Brother Allen is concerned, while he may have some good ideas on Geology, he is not a Biologist and does not understand the present day problems in that j^ield. His suggestion that the organization should be large at the very beginning seems to me impossible. It is better to start out small and grow large than to start out with a big flare of trumpet”and drum and fizzle out the way the other association did. At the present time, I think I shall let the matter rest until there is demand enough to justify some organization. Sincerely yours, HWC:c . LLlj)' JAMES WHITE LIBRARY N ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM JAMES WHITE LIBRAR^' Christinas Night. ’'"'•> ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN Dear Price, HuRITAGE ROOM You may be overwhelmed by the series of letters with which I bombard you, but this deals with something else than the subjects which have been brought up recently. The Brewster debate has not started, but B, is more than eager to get going and the only question is just how we will go about it. That is about decided now and would have been decided long ^go if we were not separated by the iEngtkxsf width of a continent. B. does not go much on the challenge idea and I am inclined to agree with him. He does approve, however, of my suggestion that we get some men of standing to comment upon the discussion. This ought to be good advertising and give the thing standing. This is what I want to write to you about. What I want is this: for this Brewster discussion to be operated as an activity, so to speak, of our Association, not just a# discussion between two individuals. I want the two men of highest possible standing to agree to comment upon the discussion: one the most respected Fundamentalist educator which we can get; the other the best nevolutionist” scholar we can get. I’m writing you to see--granting that you approve--who would be the best nominee we could find. My guess is Eggleston. Second guess is the prexy of Wheaton. Maybe you can get suggest some one better than the ones named. When I get your opinion on this I’ll put the thing up to Higley and feel sure that he will agree. It will be a matter of form to ask the others. Once I get the agreement of the gang to this and the Fundamentalist accepts I can go after the evolutionist, and I want a man whom the evolutionists will respect. I suppose Eggleston would agree and his name would carry weight with the other side. I have a good expectation that Clark, biologist emeritus of Harvard and a personal friend of Lane would agree. As a matter of fact I’d dig up a little to have him do this. properly I’d askei these questions: Has the subject been covered from both sides, or has any serious omission occurred or any false position of great importance been taken? What conclusions snould seemingly be reached on the problem discussed? One reason I want this is that if I can get a big man of the enemy to make an official statement on a thing like this the mat er will have been brought to an issue and I have no fear but what it will be a debacle for the enemy. Any you bet Brewster can make a fine case for evolution too. Things are stacking up so that I can again get down to this kind of work. Have completed a nice piece of (tentative) MS on Lane discussion. If some real work can be done against evolution we had better care little about our differences of opinion and the ruinites may wake up and found that the battle against evolution has been fought and won with pre-Adamic ruin being out in the cold. Higley said that he would approve my getting out as travelling secty, etc., but as long as I have plenty work to do writing to get the thing to an issue I’ll not bother with the other. However, I might make a try at it in Berkelev Wali i «+• ___________ _ J ’ let me know what yOu think of a Fundamentalist candidate to consider a B debate; then Irll write Higley on it and try to get the thing organized. And by the way, if I got this going well it would help a lot in active speaking. Good letter from Clark. Of course he thinks that changes have been greater than Nelson will approve. How could ferocious dinosaurs, wolverines and rattlesnakes descend from creatures made for Eden unless change had been great. The turkey growers got an awful beating this year. However, I. sold all my toms which were a marketing size at retail at a fair price and quite a few hens and am winding up the year in better shape financially than I have been since I came to Tulare county--which is no 2vin- meh Still have a few toms to sell, after they grow out some Juite a lot of hens.' All in all things^have been very pleasant, and trust that this is the case with you. Mey you have a H ppy and prosperous New Year. Yours Pacific Union C ollegeJ Angwin, California DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Harold W. Clark January 19, 19S8 George FcCready Price College Place Washington Dear Professor Price: Our Registrar, Liss Anna J. Olson, while on a trip to the east, came into contact with a traveler and lecturer by the name of^Ge^orge Dewey JloMgrcn. He seemed to have some very interesting and remarkable points regarding the international situation andssuggested coming up to lecture to us, He said that he was acquainted with you, and so we thought we ought to inquire concerning your knowledge of his work and his qualifications as a speaker. I should be glad if you would give me your opinion regarding him and whether you think it would be profitable to have him lecture to us. I received your card a few days ago regarding .Yhitney’s work on the creed for the Creationist. I had already received a copy of the recent number in which he stated his position, '.nd I wrote to him, telling him that I approved of Ju,s::osition 100 pej cent and encouraged him to go ahead. I thinFhe is doing a good work which some of us should have done years ago. You may be interested to .wwift pi uvt t,wt f down to liounjain ueiand am afting now fpr their reactIoh to^'ft in" tTeir "reading committee. I llo^e I shall be able to oet it in print before long. I am now starting on another line of research in the field, of oil Geology. I am trying to decipher the records from the deep wells which, of course, give us underground conditions rather than surface out-crops. I think this will prove to be very interesting and will throw light on a number of difficult problems. I trust that you folks are well and enjoying your work this year. E^rnes_t .Bopffi told me that he had a long talk with you while home Christmas time. He is doing excellent work with us this year and I hope that he can be worked in at Walla Walla and in other places in the North Pacific, for I am sure that he will nake a good ran for the nature work in that part of the field. Sincerely, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN * HERITAGE ROOM. HA C: c 5 \ V . /JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ^NDREWS UNIVERSITY • ^BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN & .heritage room March 25th, 1958 Oconomowoc, Wis. Dear Price, Glad to get your letter. Shoot away whenever you get the inspiration. The more light the better and the more criticism the more light. I am convinced, like you are, that the Bible is very scientific, and when its main and very clear propositions are accepted one can not go wrong. But one thing I do not think the Bible teaches and that is any Ugherian dates. I think those early geneolgies hit only.thehigh spots. The ten geneentions of patriarchs on each side of Noah arbirary, li$e the three groups of 14 in Math.l. The ages given show (1) the character of human life at that time (2) how carefully the Lord followed the X// line frnm which the Saviour was to come. This is off the track. , . ' Yes there are problems, even though I am quite convinced of the glacial period in general. Beside the geological evidence, moraines etc. there is very impressive archheolgical evidence. (By the way, the loess deposits of south Russia and Germany are perhpas glicial phenomena. The ice would keep advacing and rdfreating more or less, and leavii^ the ground pulverized and bare, and the*winds would pick up the dust and blow it away. Doubtless be hard winds and plenty of crushed stuff to carry.) Anyway, here is the story aroKheologically - first part just a wee but doubtful yet, but alm sot certain (l*m looking for more certainty still) but the last part positive in my mind* Man lived in Prance, England? Germany with hippOtami, elephants, rhincoeroses, sabre tooth tiger. Hippos indicate warm climate. Men lived outddors in tents etc. Then it began to get_colder, plus also rain more. Men begin to seek the caves and rock shelters for protection as cold gradually increases. Hippos disappear and different kinds of animals come in, reindeer especially, plus wodly rhinoceros and hairy mammoth. (The rhinos and elephants with the hippos seem to be a different breed. One rhino has a different kind of a nose from the Other, same principle but greater bone in one) Cold continues, or ice from piling up of snow, so even the musk-ox can’t live in the north and he comes south as far as southern France and around Stwizerland esepcially. Proof5!' his bones in caves and rockshelters with human tools, also carvings of him on bone tools, thousands of reindeers eaten and horns used for tools. Reindeer down even in northern Spain. Moose in southern Spain. J^^mo^j^and woolly rhinos in southern France and Italy, Germany, England, Austtia, PolandT^he ’Mammoth Hunters of killed thousands of mammoth. 25 feet deep in Loess in Predmost, Moravia a paleolithic deposit. Beautiful flint tools, ^emains of estimate 9Q0 mammoth ail ages in deposit. ^40skeletons htiiried in deposit also in common grave with circle of stones. Mammoths were killed and eaten, not die by catastrophe at ^radsiost. Cold time passes. Men lived though it in caves and shelters and out in the plain*,open. Great open deposits with reindeer, horse remains by thousands at Solutre, rance. Also remains of woolverine, looming, artic fox, artic„hafx in souther France deposits. Plainly shows cold. Things warm up and cold fauna gradually goes north. You know those old men drew the pictures of those animals profusely on cave walls, and on theirivory tools. They must have seen them alive to draw them so realistically, and their bones being found with human tools makes perfect proof. As for glyptodons, megatheriums etc. I, d^n’t know. If they are buried like the dinosaurs of Colorado, in genuine stratafied rocks, I say the Flood did them yp. I wonder if there could be any significance in ’Then was the earth divided’ in Peleg’s day, a la your friend’s view. Suppose the flood was over and animals multiplied rapidly and covered the earth in a few thou and years or lees. Then Grod split the continents, and conditions were brought on which caused even the glacial epoch, and incidenally made it difficult for post-diluvian glyptedons to continue where they were. May not a divinging of the earth have put glacial conditions where they forrmerly were not and vice versa? All this takes time, but what is there against time in our scheme of things. If the Bible does not say about 6000 years of human life it leaves the matter open, and we can take theyears we think we need. Coming back to genealogy and chronology. We can make an imaginary supposition. Suppose man was created 50,000 /.yars ago. Let’s just supose that. If the Lord were going to record every generation from that time to Christ the O.T. would have to look like the Chicago telephone directory. This is no proof, but it indicates what the Lord might have done in tXftt those genealogies -abridged them. I have a lot of information about surpising abridging in the O.T, - in oneplace four, in another place 7, in another place 11 generations to coner the same length of time. etc. . . As for my limiting species, until the-thing is actually done in a reliablesceintific experiment -back-sterile progeny from fertile parents I am from Misso/uri, and will continue to argue the fixity of species. They have tired so long and so hard to make a new species that if they haven’t done it yet beCaU8°’ can’t be ddne and never was, MHWUiU I notice your question about the gradualness of the beginning and end of the ice time. I think I have answered that - gradual come and gradual goj^ with some variations in between to cause some backings up and goings forward again to - butno times (such as Giekie and a few others argue for) when four and six times the filing came and went completely. Today great elands of dust blow off the New Zealand mountains f in summer, when the sun makes theice receed and the ground lies bare. The same thing can account for the immense loe,ss in Europe. The loess avoids the places 1 where the ice lay, and is ~just where the winds would be liable to put it. I J England and France must have been connected - else how did the mammoth, reindeer and large animals whose remains are found with man’s tools get across. Man did not ferry them. I may do myself the favour of sending you my manse ript before i send it in, and my illustrations for your criticism. But that will be some time, and there are going to be an awaful1 lot of illustrations in this. As the Chinese say, one picture is worth a thousand words. Best regards Nel son i JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY . - BERRIEN SPRING^, 'MICHIGAN- ' HERITAGE ROOM Maroh 1959 • Dear Friend Price, ; . I should have answered your letter en the matter -of-those tracks, but it must have coihb wheh I was pretty busy, and I let it slide till I forgot about it. My reaction was, on the basis of the description, that the thing was rather absurd. If the strata were formed by the. Flood, a great catastrophe, and wwelaid down successively in a btief period, I wan hot see how ahy,faan’s footprints could be made in that strata. If they were reptile prints (reptiles swimming around in the waters-if the Flood) I could understand it, but I, can conceive of no possible way In which a man cogid be out walking then. How do you dope that out. If the things are.not a hoax, I’d say the tracks may be a reptiles tracks or some ofhere animal. Let ma heas you you think they:could possibly be formed by a man. It would indicate all right that manw as in existence much earlier than is dreamed by the evolutionists* but it would knock the Flood theory all to pieces. I’ll look the natter up soon. $ut just now I am trying to get type to s end to the publishers my new book, to be called ’The Antiquity of Created Man’, in which I show (1) that man is very old, (2) but always been man. I show that man lived in Europe through the Glacial Epoch and how the varves give clear proof that the ice began tpmelt about 20,000 plus years ago. Then I take up all the major human remains found in the glacial andpre-glacial times and show how they match up with human remains now (l(ll have about 100 illustrations). The I show how the Bible can not be said to fix any date for the Flood or Creation, leaving us to figure those things out for ourselves, and finally I discuss the creation doctrine in the Bible. It isZlall the same kind of t hing I have stood for right along, except that I let man appear to be older than most Believers are inclined to think. I believe you will agree with it. I simply can not get away from the glacial phenomena, I have lived all my life within the glaciated areas of this continent, £hd/ Spokane, Alberta, Minnesota, ^auison, Oconomowoc, Chicago, Perth Amboy and have had these phenomena staring me in the face. It would be like denying my nose to deny them. Also the varves are very conclusive* I enclose some photos of varves, just to give you an Idea what they look like indeposit.That thing I am cutting out I have had home and studied under the magnifying.glass* Enquestionally teach layer required a sa&mer's melting and dumping of sediment into a body1 of water and a great quietness fbr a period after, such as would • come when the body f water was frozen ovefcv 8,640 of these lie super-imposed in one place in north central Sweeden. But they are seen elsewhere in long valleys, like the gonneoticut, which was once an lake, • ■'over lap! ng nne another like shingles of a roof, and all these overlapping - fellow can be counted to the number rf about 20,000. Please return these photos. .1 Heturn to JAMES WHITE LIBRARY „ „ _ ' ANDREWS UNIVERSITY George McCready Price berrien springs, Michigan W TX^eecmfornia; HER,TAGE ROOM March !4, 1959 Dear Price, Thanks for your letter, especially the information about the racial types in the China caves. 1*11 look that pp, and perhaps refer to it, as my neww book will have two skull of the Pekin folks initX As for the foot prints, thetes is a lot of difference between reptile tracks and human tracks recorded in the rapidly depositing sands. • • t . , .. • The reptiles were strong swimmers. I take it most of than were amphibians, and could be in the water a long time. But man would soon XzWn/^Z^h drown. As I visualize the situation you describe, there are maybe 500 feet of water-laid strata beneath the foot prints, back and forth surges of the rlood waters. which we believe/ to be due to 1 cuppose the^ surges were going on for at-least a couple of weeks and the waters were heavily laden with sediment, and perhaps immensely deep. Th6s€surges carried the water back and forth for maybe fiire hundred miles each way, and there were probably a hundred surges. The idea th£n any man could be a strong enoy^h swimmer to live in those surging water, perhaps terribly wind-tossed on the surface, and chance to rest his feet on some settling or-settled strata .which chance to get under his feet is something I can’t see. Hence I don’t see anything queer in my objection to those being human feet tracks. Will you give an imaginary sketth of how they were foremd in the flood. What was the man doing who made them./* If they were reptile tracks I could understand it. I also have no wish to argue the matter of varve evidence. I’ll me say that there are no unverified assumptions whatever, It is the most truly scientific method that could be imagined, and in this respect it differ^ althogether from Flood theory. I only wish I cttuld be 1^5 as certain about the Flood exp/lanation of the strata as I am about the glacial epoch and the testimony of its antiquity froqi the varies. To me each varve deposit is as positively annual as a tree ring# In fact it is more s because know much about tree rings, though I have no reason to doubt that a new rings is added each year to the trunk of a tree. Not only have I studied what others have very carefully analyzed in regard to the varves, and at many of their photographs at close range, but as the photos I looked sent you showed, I cut them out and brought sections of thelayers home to s#udywwith the microscope or magnifying glass to see tfor myself if are in accordance with the geological condition. I find it is analyses absolutely. Each #0.rje/X varve is an annual layer, no question about it. And the te stimo: is so full and from so many sources as to the number of varves that exist > n^ in one Di lace that those places alone knocik sky-high Usher!s dates. Baron o 't ($9$ /■ & fuller has been very kind in sending irie supplimentary information and ... ' .. ■■ * . .. .... ’ ■ Baron 4 I have no more reason to dpubt that what he and about a dozen others have testified .as to the number of varves at Lake nagunda, Sweeden, where there are 8640 on top of one another iwtome than I have for doubting any of the J o actual descriptions I read in your geolofey book or any other book. I haye learned that when it comes to describing, the actual geological situation or any - other situation^evolutionary scientista/^z are very exact and trustworthy. The only argument is on the interpretation* If you want me to give you again some references ta the work of the geochronologists and their methods I will do so, but it would take too long to try to tell you about it in letters. If you care to you might tell me what, the unverified assumptions are you speak of. The first thing that has to be decided is if these clay layers are annual (131086 you saw in the picture average about . 1 l/^inqhee .in thickness), or if they are daily, weekly, monthly or something else. - that is decided all else is simple, ww? Anyone who has actually had a of the glp^iers bunch of thd/ before one and thinks of summer melting and winter freezing .......... ... of the lake, permitting the aery finest particles in the lake to s ettle and form a sharp line of the top of each layer, then do it all over again in eactly the same way, can not doubt that they are annual. #eli, I must now get to. work. . Best regards JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Oconomowoc, Wis* March 1, 19AO < ’ Dear Friend Price, I have read your letter carefully. Thanks for your observations. I owe a very great deal to you. You put me on to the Flood theory of geology and the circular reasoning which goes with the evoluionary ZXM/X proof on that score. I wonder where I would be at to-day in my faith if I had not tun Xd/// cross your book. So I feel a deep sense of gratitude to you, and for that reason I am sending you an actual sarnie of so parts of the annual layers I am-talking about. /When you have examined them, and picked them apart, and above all looked at them under a magnifying glass, maybe we can get somewhere by discussion, altough v I have so much to do that I hate to write long dissertations by letter. I’ll try now however in a hasty, disordered fashion to tell you something about what I send • These are from Waupaca , Wis. in the northern part of the /XZX state. There is a large basin there as large as several counties, and in the basis a chain of lakes, the only remains of a larger lake which once occupied the basin. These layers I send seem to be q^^tenaiye in the whole basin, for I have seen them exposed in several places. These layers seem to lie on one another to a depth of about 170 feet - so the owner of the clay pit said. They have been carried away at the top by river action. A river flows near the pit, and it 2 s easy to see how that river, in very high water, could have washed away the top layers. These layers I send are nothing but slip ery clay in the west state. The are taken up by steam shovel and hauled to a place where they are churned up jto^mix the red and gray layers better and then made into £ine brick. The whole Connecticut River Valley from Hartford Connecticut to St. Johnsbury Vermont is full of /KXXX/ZX^XfX/ exactly similar layers. I saw them myself last summer and have samples from there like what I send to you. The Hudosn River basin, where ever it widens out, shows layers like these in the banks above the water level, and I got samples of layers like these off a barge which was dredging the clay from the bottdtm of Tappan Sea (a widenirgof the Hudson at Haverstraw) at a depth of 50 feet. Thebgrge man says the layers are down 50 feetfc They have never gotten to the bottom of the clay. The Passaic River Valley in northern New Jersey is also full of them, so is the Quinnipiac River Basin at New Haven Connecticut. I have samples from all places to show when I lecture. Now one interesting thing is that the layers in all the different places where I have seen them vary in color according to the kind of solid rook just to the north, where it would have been ground into rock-flour by a glacier before transortation by streams into the basins where it is now found. North of J/aupaca/the rock is a pinkish granite. Hence the color of the sample you have. At Haverstraw the layers are blue and gray, no reddish color at all in them. (At Waupaca the winter layers ar3 £Q d and the summer layers are gray - At Haverstraw the winter layers are very dark gray and the summer layers very light.) At Haverstraw or north of it the solid hills are a dark, gray granite or igneous rock. I saw that myself. At New Haven I went into the clay pit and £ot my samples, which were very reddish, a riclj chocolate color, the winter layers being more red than those in your ‘‘aupaoa sample and the summer layers being also red but lighter in color. And north of New ^ven, as I drove up to ^artford, I saw that all the solid rock foundation was a red sandstone or quartzite. Ag^^so it is every where I have examined these layers. They are vervplainly made from materials of the rock to the north. I should tell you to hold the end of the tin which is /jd not exactly square up and the nice square end .down. That is imprtant for the correct analysis. I have wrapped up the sample already and so can not look at it as I write, but 1*11 you a few things about what I can remember about it. The three bottom winter layers (the red) are somewhat broken up, I believe by the violence of the winter < ' steam shovel in the clay pit. The top/layer is most typical. In all undisturbed sample which I have in my possession, and the one I send you sems to be the only one disturbed, the upper margin of the winter layers is a very straight, fine or sharp line. You ca i see that pretty well in the top winter layer in jraur sample. *The explanation of this is that the very fine particles in that winter layer settled to the bottom beneath the ice in winter, in undisturbed water. It got all se/ttled and nicely packed on the surface before new sediments began, coming in t/./ to the lake the next spring. On the other hand, notice how the /X/ summer layers alway£u$rad.e gradually into the winder layers below. This is because in the fall melting of theice gradually ceased, and the very fine particles h Id in suspension had more and more a chance to settle. Notice how solid are the winter layers, because deposited in still water under ice, while the winter layers are full of streaks from the currents coming into thelake in summer. Naturally the cold water from the melting glareiers would go to the bottom of thelake and flow along it, making streaks. There are other things I could tell you, but you can philosophize over these first. ' ■ I may say, apropo-your letter, that these varves are never found in sea water, only in fresh. Where (as in Sweden) these sediments were emptied into river basiBs^old long lakes in the glacial epoch’s closing) which connected with the sea, nice, distinct winter and sumer layers were formed where the water was still fresh^i but as the water got saltier and saltier toward the sea, the winter and summer layers became less and less distinct, so that when the clay was found, deposited in the sea homogenous clays were produced, and no distinctinn between sum er and winter layers can be found. It is in lake basins only in the glaciated areas where such layers are found. I think wheh you have studied these, and I advise the use of a good magnifying glass, I think you’ll be helped to a better understanding of the matter. If I had not seen these things myself now on such a largh/ scale and studied than in many, many ways, following a very lengthy and oarefUll analysis to show they are annual layers in a University of Wisconsin scientific journal, I know I would not be very bright about the matter. I hope the sample comes through to you in some sort of shape. I tried it once before to send some through the mail, and it was all broken to pieces. If yovxs is busted, just let it lie the way it comes. You can construct it in your mind from what is left. I wuuld suggest that you gradually wet the lower layer until it is entirely soaked and then cut it apart carefully with your knife: Let a little stream of water run on it. That shows up the character well. Just another word in closing. Highley has written a book on his crazy Pre-Adamic Ruin business, called Science and Truth. My church publishing house sent me a copy to review, and did I give it a scorching one. I wonder if Higley is mentally sound. I know he is not at Wheaton any more. At least he writes his book from Belmar, N.J., and my wife said, “isn’t that where there is a sanitorium?” It was really unfortunate that we ever got him into our association. I feel in a way that he ruined it. But he could we do much together when we don’t agree among ourselv s about glacial epochs, fixity of species etc. Clark writes a nice our churfh paper anme time. little booklet. I hope to get a review, if that into Best regards JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS- UNIVERSITY BERRIEN. SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM March 11, 1940 Illi Dear Price, I had hoped that my sending you that varve sample would do you more good, but I guess discussion is hopeless when you can not come and see some of the things you are talking about. It is absurd to think that the materials in those Waupaca varM^s came from two direction. They can come onlyces> oA We/J- 'JAMES WHITE LIBRARY /Andrews university BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room E. D. dick, secretary DIVISIONAL SABBATH SCHOOL SECRETARIES: J. L. MCELHANY, president DIVISIONAL SABBATH SCHOOL SECRETARIES: MISS HELENA LEWIN, AUSTRALIA MISS BESSIE MOUNT, CHINA J. H. MCEACHERN, FAR EAST M. BUSCH. CENTRAL EUROPE NO. I H. L. RUDY. CENTRAL EUROPE No. II R. R. BRE1TIGAM, INTER* AMERICA W. E. NELSON, TREASURER THE GENERAL DEPARTMENT: J. A. Stevens, secretary s. A. Wellman, associate secretary W. K. ISING, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY Rosamond d. ginthfr, assistant secretary W. T. Bartlett, northern Europe L. L. MOFFITT, SOUTHERN AFRICA E. D. Thomas, southern asia H. Struve, southern Europe J. L. BROWN, SOUTH AMERICA SABBATH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS GENERAL CONFERENCE** WASHINGTON, D. C. TAKOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, D. C. November 29, 1938 CABLE ADDRESS “ADVENTIST’’ WASHINGTON Dear Brother Price: I want to acknowledge this morning your letter of October 18. Thank you, Brother Price, for the suggestive notes for the WORKER. These will be a great help in preparing the WORKER notes for the lessons that we study during the third quarter of 1939. Personally I appreciate greatly these notes, as I am responsible for the notes in the WORKER. No one knows how much time and research it takes to get out these notes from month to month; so I appreciate especially the help that you have given us. I shall begin on the WORKER notes for the third quarter of 1939 next week. You see we have to work quite a way ahead, as our WORKER notes go to South America, to China, and other foreign fields. They need the copy early in order to get the translating done. I trust your health is improving. You are out in sunny California— a part where you escape the cold winter blasts that come in other parts of the States. The weather man gave us quite a surprise Thanksgiving day. We have had such wonderful fall weather, and then all of a sudden we had a blast of cold weather, sleet, and snow. Driving was pretty risky, and there were a number of accidents, but really not as many as I thought there would be. Washington isn’t very well prepared to take care of a snowstorm, especially when it comes suddenly, as we do not have a great deal of snow. When it does come it doesn’t stay very long. But we had between seven and eight inches Thanksgiving day. It is bright and sunny now, and while there is still some snow on the ground, the weather man prophesies that the cold snap is broken; so I suppose the snow will soon be gone, and we shall have milder weather for a time anyway. I like snappy weather when we do not have to put up with cold wind and ice. I draw the line there. But what good does it do to fuss? We have to take what is sent us. This morning at our chapel exercises, Elder Elliott, associate secretary of the General Conference, read a radiogram from Brother A. V. Olson of Southern Europe, stating that our people in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, are in a rather precarious situation, and the government has set the time of December 8 to take over our hospital. We are hoping and praying that the Lord will intervene and come to the rescue of His people. What a tangled up mess the whole world is in, and every day things seem to be getting more and more complicated. Well, we know what these things mean, and they should stir us to greater faithfulness to the one thing left in this world that will triumph, and that is God’s truth. With kind regards and best wishes for the holiday season. Professor George McCready Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California RDG/lm Sincerely yours, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HFRITACr n-. ____ Pacific Unioiv College^? Angwin, California February 7, 1939 DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE Harold IV. Clark Professor George McCready Price Pomona California Dear Professor Prices There has just fallen into my hands a circular regarding a large number of books by Harry Rimmer. Among the most interesting titles are "Modern Science and the Genesis Record", "Harmony of Science and Scripture" and "Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science". In addition to this there are a large number of paper bound books dealing with various phases of creation. I wonder if you are familiar with these books and if so, what do you think of them? Are the authentic from a scienfitic viewpoint, or are they merely so much rhetoric. I saw one article by Rimmer in Christian Faith and Life and it seemed to me to be rather out of harmony with the known facts of science. I would appreciate your opinion of these. If they are good I would like to have some in our library, but if they are merely rhetorical arguments that do not agree wit h scientific evidences, then I think they are useless. Sincerely yours, HWC:c Oames white library /ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Simpson,Kansas. May,17,1939. Prof.George McCready Price College Place, '.Valla Walla, Washington. Dear Sir:- I have a series of stereopticon-illustrated lectures on ’’Science & The Bible*. One on the subject: *What Is Written In the Rocks”. In this lecture I quote yowrbook "Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism" frequently. I Will you please give me your opinion on these questions which coroe up frequently 1: Are there any examples of petrifaction taking place in modern times ? I have been told that timbers "turn to rock’1 NOW, under certain conditions. I doubt it. 2. Is it probable that the petrified trees in Arizona and elsewhere were instantaneously petrified on that fateful day, ("that SAME day’’), mentioned in Genesis 7:11,21,& 23 ? 3. I have a specimen of pe trified bivalve mollusk tightly closed,and show photograps of one on the screen in my lecture on "What Is Written In the Rocks",and tell my hearers that such specimens are nroofddnstantaneous transformation into stone,the mollusk'not having time to relax its muscles. Am I right in this statement ? 4. Do you know of any paleontological evidence in support of the idea that there was a "Pre-Adamic Race" of human beings'; To my mind, that idea is as conflicting with the Bible as the theory of evolution, For about fifteen years I have devoted all my energies toward promotion of faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God by demonstrating that,tested by the FACTS of science,the Bible is truly scientific and scientifically TRUE. I have won some pretty "hard-boiled" evolutionist school men to see the fallacy of the theory of evolution. I shall be very me on these points ray lectures. grateful to you for any information you can give or others which you may think will help strengthen Yours truly, J. W. Simmons Simpson, Ka JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM Simpson,Kansas. May 29,1939. Dr.George McCready Price 507 Texas Street, Pornona,California. Dear Doctor:- I am very thankful for your good letter which I received this morning. Your answers to ray questions will improve my lecture.I strive to eliminate from ray lectures all statements which cannot he well authenticated. I do not remember whether I sent you a copy of "What Others Say” of my lecture on Evolution.or not. But here is what Dr.Wm.F.McConn, President of Marion College,Marion,Indianna said of the lecture when I gave it in Miltonvale Wesleyan College,Mil tonvale,Kansas,while he was president of that college ”0n Dec.16.1927,we had with us Dr.J.W.Simmons of Simpson,Kansas,for an illustrated lecture on Evolution. Dr.Simmons gave us the most sane,intelligent,clear-cut presentation of this subject it has ever been my privilege to hear. He does not rant but gives a discussion which appeals to the thinking powers of anyone acquainted with scientific investigation. To hear him is to have your faith in Divinity strengthened and to receive greater confidence in the authenticity of the Bible. I am glad to recommend his lecture”. "Very truly yours, Wm.F.McConn." And here is his endorsement written to me under date of March 16,1939, after giving me the names of a number of fundamentalist college that I might write in interest of my lectures,he said:- "If you desire to contact these institutions you may feel free to use ray name,for I am somewhat acquainted with all of them". "Yours very truly, Wra.F.McQonn.” In February 1936 I met Dr.Judson Rudd,Ac ting President of William Jennings Bryan University,Dayton,Tennessee,and he spent three hours with me looking over my slides on Evolution and "What Is Written In the Rocks". Here is his endorsement "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN In a recent interview with Dr.J.W.Simmons,of Simpson,Kansas,he showed me many of the slides that he uses in lecturing before science students in high schools and colleges on the question of Evolution. He has a very fine collection of slides. Probably many supporters of the Evolutionary Theory are surprised by his display of slides commonly used by them and I am sure that they are surprised by the absence of invective in his schollarly approach to the subject. I hope that many educators who consider it desirable to present the arguments in favor of evolution will be as careful to present the arguments against the theory. Certainly none should object to such a presentation as Dr.Simmons gives. Sincerely, Judson A.Rudd,Acting President." William Jennings Bryan University,Daton,Tenn.,Feb.24,1936. (2) a letter from On another sheet you will find excerpts froiq/an assistant Zoologist at Kansas State College ,llanha t tan,Kansas. I am furnishing you these credentials with the hope that,on the basis of them,you might be able to help me find entrance to some schools IN KANSAS and ADJOINING STATES. I find that evolutionists are getting dominating positions in many of our church schools that have been listed as ’orthodox”,loyal to the Bible; so that I find it increasingly difficult to eta hearing in them. Two years ago I gave my lecture No .1,( "Evolution"),in York College, York Nebraska. I secured the date through outside pressure and against the wishes of the Dean. r?hough Prof.Noll,biologist was for me ,and vex*y friendly,! could get no endorsement from the college because,(l feel sure),of Dean Backman’s hostility. I have sensed a similar spirit of "under-cover" modernism in other church schools which are supposed to be fundamentilist in policy. So if you know of any way to help me carry on my work more effectually please do so. Again I thank you for your encouraging letter and the information which will be of great help to me. Since rely you rs, J. W. S i mmo ns . D . Simpson,Kansas. Copy of A Letter from Miss .Ethel L.Oberholser, Professor of Biology,at Cent raX C , Me Pile r s on .Kansas, ’ Da£e3Teb<8,1939. ” "Dr, J .’.f. Simmons Simpson,Kansas• Dear Sir:-Your letter reached me recently, asking for a frank and constructive criticism of the lecture that you gave here recently. ’ v* ’-*-3? ,£/ First,I want po say that I do not agree with those who have said that your lecture was too “sexy”. To me, it was scientific and accurate,and your slides showing the mitosis of the somatic cells,and the maturation of the germ cells,were the very things that,to a scientist,made a good appeal. To the unscientific person,it naturally had no intelligent appeal. I feel that the strength of your lecture lies in the scientific approach that you presented. It was not too long,yet I believe that it was long enough and covered the most important points,and was strong enough to be convincing to those who needed it. ~.~».,.^Most of all your kindly Christian approach and the absence dr ridicule gave a dignity and balance to your lecture • I remember that you covered such points as maturation,mutations,hybrids,somatic cells,the Heidelberg man,and thoroughly explained each. These are the points that confuse youhg students; and these you cleared well. I feel that you have covered the fundamental points and your lecture left a fine balance and clear proofs of the Divine and not the evolutionary phase of life. Had your lecture been longer.it might have become tiresome to some,yet if it were too short,some of your good points would have had to be omitted,so,I for one,do not feel like suggesting any omissions or additions. Your proofs,such as Burbank’s own statements ,we re conclusive and strong,and all of your statements were backed by strong references. (1928) ->-I heard your lecture some years ago,and at that time,I felt that it vzas the best that I had ever heard; but your last lecture was still better and more scientif ic ,and I feel that there needs to be no more additions,and certainly no deletions. Thanking you for your confidence,! am Sincere ly, Ethel L.Oberholser.” This letter has reference to lecture No.l of my “Science & Bible” series of lectures. It was,for several years,given under the title: “EVOLUTION”. It covers that subject quite thoroughly as to the main points involved in the controversy. I had heard many and widely differing criticisms,including that complaint that it was “too sexy”; I wanted a biologist fs opinion,so I wrote Miss.Oberholser asking for a frank and constructive criticism and this was her answer. I am always glad to have constructive criticism,especially from those whos scientific training has qualified them to do it most intelligently. J.W.Simmons,M.D.,Simpson,Kan A Science Graduate Student Speaks JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICH^AN HERITAGE ROOM- ■ Excerpts from two letters' received from Miss.Nelle Ruth MacQueen,B.S,, Graduate Assistant Zoologist,Kansas State College, Manhat tan, Kansas,under date of Nov>18,1936,and Feb.22,1937. "Dear Doctor Siwnons:- ' .....My course of study in Zoology,especially Genetics,my major subject,has naturally given me a very thorough drill in the ’fundamentals• of evolution.....1 am eager to learn all I can about the theory,(theories),for I sincerely believe that every one can be honestly refuted if one knows facts and his Bible well enough. So far as I know,I am completely alone in holding such an opinion,in my department at the college,which doesn’t alter the truth in the matter at all....The results of your work are surely fine...,.I only wish that many others could,and v?ould,look into the question as you have.... .Meanwhile I continue to be most interested in your work and pray for its success. It surely is filling a great need.,...I am so glad to find someone who has looked at the question squarely and arrived at such a fine conclusion. From my heart I feel sure it is right”. ’’Sincerely yours, Ne lie Ruth ife c Qu eon5’. (915 N. 11 th. St •,Manhat tan,Kansas •) ’’Dear Doctor Simmons ....This semester I am taking a course called ’’Evolution and Heredity”. So far,I have not gleaned a single new idea worth mentioning. It is just a re-hashing of the history of the theory of evolu-from Diogenes to now...,To date,the chief gem of philosophy noted from the professor’s lecture is this: •Out of the mental conflict between scientific and religious concepts,which are inherently irreconcilable,comes stability and strength of character’. Very nice in deed,but I have never seen any evidence of said stability resulting from the mental conflict.” ’’Sincerely, Nelle Ruth MacQueen”. (Dated Feb.22.1937.Manhattan,Ks.) Many good people sincerely believe that the "Evolution” issue is dead. But read these quotations from "SCIENCE DIGEST”. 1938 issues February issue,page 30,"Why We Believe in Evolution”,Quoting a book by Prof. H.H.Newman,Chicago University. March issue:-Page 83,’’The Ancestors of Man”,by Prof .Hoot on, Harvard U. He says:-”It has required sixty million years to develop man from a small,long-snouted,four-footed tree dweller".. April issue,page 52, ”Our‘Mysterious Brains”5by Foster Kenedy,M.D.,Professor of Neurology ,Corne 11 University. He says:- "Yes,we are descended from fish.By opening our mouths wide and looking in the mirror we can still see the gills" May issue,page 88,"The Earliest Mammals",by Erich M.Schlaikjer,Brooklyn College. He says:-"It was a momentous step in evolution when the mammals adopted a means of reproduction more satisfactory than the laying of eggs". (So "mammals" used to lay eggs I) J.W.Simmons,M.D.,Simpson,Kansas JL J. Ban fiaitsma, Jlj. 0. DEP T OF ORGANIC SCIENCE ($aluin (Eullrgr (firattfi Kapihs, Iflichtiiau Professor Geo. McCready Price, 507 Texas St., Pomona, Calif. June 15, 1939. My dear Professor Price, Your kind letter of June 5 arrived while I w$s off on a short vacation trip to northern Michigan. I beg to thank you for it. It corrected a wrong notion which I obtained I know not where. I supposed that flood-geologists taught that there were no mountains before the time of the deluge. I realize now that this is not true. Although it was somewhat difficult at first to accept your explanation of the olive leaf of Gen.8;ll, it is gradually becoming more reasonable. As you write, Scripture does not give us any indication of a new fiat creation after the deluge. Still, it is not easy for me to form a mental picture of the preservation of the plant world during the flood which formed the geological strata. To be sure, God’s providence rules over all events, and the continuance of the plant kingdom during the deluge was not excluded from His care. In mynopinion the pre-Edenic ruin theory does not desrve any consideration because I firmly believe that it is based upcfn an erroneous interpretation of the Bible. At present it also seems to me that flood-geology is more reasonable than any form of ’ages’ geology based upon the interpretation that hte creation days were periods. I have not made a careful^/ study of conventional geology, but for me its evolutionary implications are unquestionably wrong. I am firmly convinced that the God of Scripture is the God of nature. Besides, as I understand it, flood-geology fits very well into the general Scriptural view of the history of the earth and of mankind. Recently I read a book in the Netherlands language describing the traditions of many peoples about the deluge. The more I read and think about it, the more reasonable flood-geology becomes. In my estimation your article on ’’Some New Aspects of Apologetics” is very valuable. Although I do not believe that we can convert persons by argumentation, it is possible to correct much confused thinking in this way. There is every reason to believe that your article will help to do this, and I am confident that many readers of Christianity Today need it. I agree with the contents of the article entirely. Therefore I have nothing but praise for your presentation of ’’Some New Aspects of Apologetics”. I thank you for sending me a copy of it. Moreover, I believe, that Christian Apologetics should pay more heed to what modem natural science has to offer. It is very clear to me that the studies of our Nature and Scripture Study Club have helped to clarify and to strengthen the faith of its members, just because we are trying to interpret Nature and Scripture in the light of each other. Sincerely yours, .'JAMES WHITE LIBRARY fl C /Andrews university < ■ • BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN ( HERITAGE ROOM i DAVID VOTH, CAPITOL F. H. RALEY, CAPITOL PRESIDENT 7344 SEC'Y-TREAS 7345 //^ 'HERO C A LI PO R111 fl ConPEREACE or v ejif-enJ-Ji.- (Loju J4xLa^olLjlsJa. 3131 PASADEHA A V E D U E LOS ARCELES « CALIFORniA July 6, 1939 MARYD. HOPKINS, SABBATH SCHOOL CAPITOL 6137 Prof, George McCready Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California Dear Brother: Your letter of July 2 was received yesterday, I appreciate very much hearing from you in regard to the Sabbath school lessons. We are anxious that just the best plans for the presentation of this material to our people be worked out, and wish to give special attention to this phase of the Sabbath school work at the camp meeting in Lynwood. For some weeks pa,st, in counsel with Elder Voth, I have endeavored to plan for a time when we might have you with us to tell the people who will be on the camp ground something more about these good lessons, not only to go into the ■plan of their preparation, but also to give a little of the background of opportune time for their appearance. So far we have nothing definite worked out as to the time for this, or for the remainder of the program at which time we hoped to have this subject presented. Our Sabbath school time at camp meeting is limited, so not more than twenty minutes can be given for the lesson, and only seven minutes for the review. These programs must of necessity be made up a long time in advance, as those taking part feel the need of special preparation that they may briefly, but carefully cover the subject matter. Our Union Sabbath School Secretary, Elder Brietigam, was in the office today, and we discussed the Sabbath school urogram for camp meeting. Just as soon as we have the plans for this worked out I shall be glad to vzrite you about them. Thanking you sincerely for your interest in the Sabbath school work, I remain h Games white Very sincerely, RY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN ____MFPiTAnc snriM Belem-Para, Brazil Caixa Postal, 658 Setember 9, 1939 Professor George McCready Price Walla Walla College Walla Walla, Washington Bear Professor Price: I am sure that you a re wondering who could be writing you from this forgotten corner of the world. Well,- we were .just recalling with pleasure the good times we had spent in your classes at E. M. C. Maybe you are saying like one good fellow minister said to me, ’’Why do you want to go down there to bury your talents?” Well it was this wa^: The year after you left Berrien Springs Virginia and I were married. During the spring of 1935 we were back at Berrien for a semester so that Virginia, could comply with the residence requirements for graduation. Again we went back to Wisconsin from where we were asked to go to Brazil. We have spent these almost four years in evangelistic work in the city of Para. This is a new field with but few workers as yet, but we are of good courage and see the work moving along. Undoubtedly you have read of the Mission Launch ’’Luzeiro” and its yearly trips up the Amazon to treat the sick and do evangelistic work among the people Of the interior. We have had occasion to make short trips with Elder and Mrs. Halliwell to get a close-up of the work that is awakening the people of the Amazon. A year ago I made the trip to Maues, some nine hundred miles up the Amazon where yearly meetings are held. This year, in the month of June, Virginia and little Philip, now almost two years old, also made the trip. Elder Neilsen, South American Bivision President, also made the trip. We hope that his careful diary of the trip will come out in the Instructor. We are enjoying more than we can say the several lessons on the Plood during this quarter. You know how it is when one begins to study--one finds out that he doesn’t know very much’. We decided to spend the the 7th of Setember (our 4th of July) on the beach about two hours from here by boat. Along with our lunch we packed The Nev; Geology, so that we might read the lesson helps--”The Hypothesis of a World Catastrophe.” It was a big meal, and we haven’t been able to digest all of it yet. The Sabbath School Lesson as well as the chapter in your book lay considerable stress upon great tidal waves that invaded the land areas of the globe. It is suggested that this tidal action would reach its maximum every 150 days. Undoubtedly you have given the matter some further thought since the book was published in 1923. 'Would it seem to you that the waters reached their maximum at the end of 75 days or at the end of 150 days? (This seems to be a rather foolish question, ■JAMES WHITE LIBRARY Andrews university BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room < 2 but if the tidal action reaches its height every 150 days, then the time from its lowest to its highest point wouli seem to be 75 days.) The King James Version would seem to indicate that the maximum came aber 75 days, when it states, ’’and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.” Cen. 8:3. However, the American Revised Version reads, ’’and after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased." This seemingly suggests that the waters had reached their peak at the end of the 150 days. It is probable that these are all vain speculations, and if so, please do not give any time to them. But if you can give us any further light on this matter of tidal action at the time of the Flood, we would appreciate it much. The two volumes of Chandler’s The Trial of Jesus, which you gave me upon leaving Berrien, I have found very profitable reading, especially the Hebrew Trial. Also your series of some sixteen articles in the Signs last year on "How did the World Begin?" did not pass without study. We just finished our Harvest Ingathering. With some work that Virginia was able to do on two American turist ships we were able to go well over our goal here in the city which had been increased fifty percent over the previous year. Now we are getting ready to hold a series of public meetings in a theatre that we have been able to rent. All being well, we hope to begin on Sunday evening, the 24th. This is the ninth day of the war in Europe. We are certainly living in uncertain and troublous times that indicate that the Prince of Peace cannot long delay his coming. We read the newspapers eagerly to watch the inarch of events. There, never was a time like this in which to tell the people of the coming of Christ. I am sure that Virginia joins me in sending greetings to you and Mrs. ^rice. Very sincerely yours, Cable Address Suntime, Philadelphia W ^nniag Bines HEID BUILDING 325 NORTH THIRTEENTH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILIP E. HOWARD, President CHARLES G. TRUMBULL, Editor October 16, 1959. Professor George McCready Price, 507 Texas Street, Pomona, California. My dear Professor Price: Did you notice the article that appeared in the handsomely illustrated magazine, "Life" for April 3, 1959, a copy of which I enclose? ^t is called the ’’Century’s most amazing scientific find,” being called also a ’’live fish of fifty million years ago.” One of our readers has expressed the wish that you might write an article about this for The Sunday School Times, showing the unscientific absurdities of statements of this sort by scientists. What do you think? Could you make a convincing popular article on it, for us, say of not more than 1,500 words? If you believe it has not just the possibility, or does not offer the opportunity, for such an article, please let me know and I shall take your word for it unquestioningly. With best wishes, Yours cordially, JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY springs. ^tKSITY HERITAGE room Cable Address Suntime, Philadelphia W Siuiiiau School ©in® HEID BUILDING 325 NORTH THIRTEENTH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA. PHILIP E. HOWARD, President CHARLES G. TRUMBULL, Editor October 21, 1959 Professor George McCready Price, 507 Texas Street, Pomona, California. My dear Professor Prices Thank you for the admirable article you have written so promptly in response to my request. It gives us just what I had hoped for, and I am sure the reader who asked for such an article will be more than pleased. If you have kept that page or pages from "Life" magazine that I sent you with my letter of October 16, will you be so kind as to let me have them in the enclosed stamped return envelope, for reference as we use your article? Then if you would like them back again I shall gladly return them to you. Thanking you, and with every good wish,believe me, Yours cordially, T-H Mr. Trumbull’s dictation, signed for him in his absence. P. S. By the way, is your new address in California your permanent address now? If so, are you "resting on your oars" for a while, or doing any teaching work there? JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BeRRIEN SPR.NGS, Michigan* HERITAGE ROOM JAMES WHITE LIBRARY * ,ANDREWS UNIVERSITY ' BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE ROOM 507 Texas Street* Fomona, California October 24, I939 Hlder David Vo th* 3I3I rasadena xve. , l>oe Angeles, Calif. Dear Brother Voth: It is with much hesitation that I venture to write you about the case of Brother Ben. j . Allen. For I fear I may be mtsunwerstood. I <0 not wish to appear as a critic or a complainer of the handling of this Case; but I sure I know more about Brother Allen than some others; and I wish only to present the matter as I see it. You and t. e Committee ^wUl then know what to do. The man is in re 1 destitution, but is holding on at what he considers is his religious duty, whether he has enough to live on or not. de has gone so long without a sufficient uaount of nourishing food that I fear his health will suffer, fie believes that the Lord has called him to the li^e.of research and writing in which he is engaged; yet he cannot •.take a living 'QA t. e side and do this work too. Hence the present situation. I cnnnotxd.0 much more for him financially, and his relatives ( non Adventists ) cannot do much more, lie was on h. P. A. relief for a while; but is off now, I think. Hany people call him a "crank." But it often takes a crank to things turning, h&ny used to call me a crank thirty or forty years a^o; and I have often walked the streets of Bew York and Los Ange- les wit&^othing to eat. So I know how to understand Brother alien’s X h ®ituation. TU.len is now trying to pick up and carry on the kind of work that, on account of age nd ill he 1th* I have had to lay down. But it is surely a line of work that our denomination and the world sadly needs; \ nd it seems to me that something ought to be done to allow Allen to do & \ \ J the kind of work that he believes the Lord has called him to do. Allen is a genuine Adventist, and oould do a valuable work, even if it does not seem to fit into the regular program. I sometimes think th .t adventists, like ancient Israel, do not always recognize a messenger of the Lord among them, — because he does not appear in the accustomed manner. Hannah More was not recognized in old Battle Creek, as Bister itVhite has so forcefully told the case in the First Volume of the Testimonies. Brother Allen is too valuable a man to have to resort to digging ditches or to j? A relief. He can live on about half as much as any one else; but he should not be allov/ed to suffer, just because he feels called to do a kind of work that nobody else will do. A 507 street, ?omonti, California October 24, 1959 Alder David Vo th, 3I5I ras 4en. Allen. For I fear I may be mlsun.erstood. I do not wish to appear as a critic or a Gomplainer of tl e handling of this case; but I am sure I know more about Brother Allen than some others; and I wish only to present the matter as I see it. Yen and t e Committee will then know what to do. The man is in re 1 destitution, but is holding on at what he Considers is his religious duty, whether he has enough to live on or not. He %_is gone so long without a sufficient mount of nourishing food that lyfe-frhis health will suffer. He believes that the Lord has called him to the sdne of research and writing in which he is engaged; yet he cannot make a litJng on t .e side nd do this work too. Hence the present situ* atlon. I dhnnot do meh more for him fin ncl.lly, and .is relatives ( net Adventists ) cannot do much more. He was on J. P. A. relief for a walls; but is off now. I think* %. IMny people Call him a ’’crank.” But it often takes a crank to keep things turning, iMany used to call me a crank thirty or forty years ago; and I have often walked the streets of New York and Los Aage-lee with nothing to eat. So I know how to understand Brother alien’s situation. Allen is now trying to pick up and carry on the kind of work that, on account of age nd ill he lthf I have h d to lay down. But it is surely a line of work that our denomination and the world sadly needs; ■ nd it aeems to me that something ought to be done to allow Allen to do the kind of work that he believes the Lord has called him to do. Allen is a genuine Advent 1st» find could do a valuable work, even if it does not seem to fit into the regular program. I seme times think tii t adventists, like ancient Israel, do not rd ways recognise a messenger of the Lord among them, — because he does not appear In the accustomed Manner. Hannah Mtore was not recognised in old Battle dreek, as Bister Akito has so forcefully told the case in the First Volume of the Testimonies. Brother Allen is too valuable a man to have to resort to digging ditches or to A P A relief. He can live on about half as much as any one else; but he should not he aWowecl to sufTer, jub% because he feels called to do a kind of work that nobody else will do 3 13 1 President 7344 Secy-Treas 7345 t HERO C A LI FO R DIA CoRFEREnCE Ur V txntlv-olLllLl. DAVID VOTH, CAPITOL F. H. RALEY, CApitol P A S A 0 E n ft A V E n U E LOS A n 6 E L E S C A L I F 0 R l» I A October 29, 1939 Professor Geo. McCready Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California Dear Brother Price: I have your letter relative to the financial condition of Brother Ben F. Allen. I hardly know what to say about his case. He is a good, loyal Seventh-day Adventist and he is a good Christian -there is no doubt about that. Just what can be done to give him financial assistance I am not prepared to say. He is not a preacher, and he is not a Bible worker. If the work he is doing is of value to the denomination - and no doubt it is -then it seems to me this is a matter for the Union and General Conferences to study. Brother Allen is, I understand, a member of the Central church. I am writing Elder Holt, the pastor, to see if there is anything the church can do for him. I presented his name to the Conference Committee last week. They feel that if he is in need of the necessities of life the church should study the matter. I believe something will be done for Brother Allen, for surely it would be a pity if the poor man should go without getting enough to eat. I am glad, Brother Price, that you called my attention to this case. Sincerely your brother, DV-.FC JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room {/fit EDITOR - _ lleftoy Laurin atwn ASSOCIATE' EDITORS AlcClkany yturin H £uant> November 20, 1939 TAKOMA PARK WASHINGTON, D.G If Professor George McCready Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California Dear Brother Price: I am always glad to see letters from you, Brother Price, though not infrequently they contain problems that are not easy to discuss, for you have worked so long in the intimate atmosphere of the writings of scholars, and in the very nature of your work, you have not had those close contacts with the leaders of our work in administrative, editorial, and publishing lines, to really sense the problems that confront, and which sire to you distressing in the extreme. You, naturally, long for academic freedom,for an ability to write what you will, and to let it go fortlTlFo stand or fall upon its merit. That is the customary attitude amongst scholars of the world. Brother Price, our position is somewhat different. We stand or fall as a people in proportion to our unity. There are factors involved in this matter of publication of which you do not have all the information, it may be. Many years ago there arose a division amongst us over such matters as the daily, the king of the North, etc. There were very strong feelings. The wounds were so deep that the scars have remained in rather conspicuous fashion. I know there are some who feel that there is even greater liberty in the Catholic church for expression than in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and yet, that is not a valid parallel. We could have a split in this movement almost over night if some things rare to be published. Some of us have worked for years seeking to heal the breach, and have made some headway. There is greater liberality of attitude toward such matters today, as I have been studying and presenting the last few years? z/or example^ there was great fearfulness when I began that I was following the steps of Conradi. Instead, it now turned out that this research work has strengthened the faith through bringing a solidity and a historical background and perspective that gives force and appeal to our specific position and relationship today that would otherwise be impossible. Now, we cannot ignore some of these conditions. We have to live with them and change them without causing a split in the movement. JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN HERITAGE- ROOM Professor Price - 2 Because of this there has not been possible that freedom of discussion concerning the daily or the king of the North that you long for. Brother Price, men respect you, “fhey realize the valiant work you have done for this cause. I think most men do feel that your field is, however, science, and not history and theology. Do not be too hard on the brethren and do not think they have it in for you because they find it impossible to give right of way for unlimited discussion upon debatable points. I do not conceive any boycotting by Adventists if your manuscript on Daniel were published by some firm like Revell, but to expect this to be accepted for a Reading Course volume is another question entirely, and one that enters the whole controversial field in such a way as to make such a procedure unwise. I have always been a friend of yours Brother Price. You speak of the recent contact with the New York Publisher for your manuscript,'if you were the writer. ** You allude to a fifty fifty division among the brethren. Brother Nichol and I were among those who very definitely battled for its publication. I recognize that there were many fine things in the book, and while it is such as to appeal to those not of our faith, it is so constructed that it brings an adverse reaction on the part of our own men. Well, Brother Price, do not look on the dark side of things so much. I wish that you would keep working in the field of your acknowledged specialty and your great contribution. Faithfully your brother in the service, LEF-m AMERICAN AGENTS: MARSHALL.MORGAN i SCOTT, LTD THYNNE & CO..LTD. OF LONDON ZOTIDERVAD PUBLISHING HOUSE BOOK PUBLISHERS WJOBBERS 815 FRANKLIN ST.S. E. Cjran c) Resids'. ~Mich cy an DECEMBER 28 1939 Professor George McCreary Price 507 Texas Street Pomona, California Dear Dr. Price: Thanks for your AIR MAIL letter just received, V.e certainly aopT>eciate your interest in our recent publication entitled FUNDAMENTALS OF ZOOLOGY by Dr. William J. Tinkle. This book retails at 83.00. Discount is 20% on quantity orders for schools. Enclosed is a descriptive circular of this publication which we trust will give you some information. Then, too, we a^e having Dr, Tinkle send you a note as to his contacts at Taylor University and any information about this particular institution which he may have at his disposal. Your consideration of this new publication of this new publication will be appreciated and we trust that you will find this to be just what you have in mind. With best wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year, we a^e, 3DZ:AVL JAMES WHITE LIBRARY ANDREWS UNIVERSITY BERRIEN SPRINGS, MICHIGAN heritage room