The following was sent by Brother Fisher recently to a secular journal:—MR. EDITOR, DEAR SIR:—
Infidels and unbelievers in the accuracy of the Bible love to prove that the grand old Book is wrong. Don't you think they would be benefited more by an equal amount of time and thought to prove it right?
For example, one of the favorite objections to the Bible is the longevity of the people before the Flood, under the favorable climatic conditions of those days and their nearness to the perfection of the first couple, created, as they were, "in the image and likeness of God."
It is solemnly affirmed by infidel scientists, both orally and in writing, that the only rational understanding of those long lives is that at that ancient day they reckoned time differently, calling a lunar month a year. Recently my attention was called to internal evidence in the account itself, which shows that our wise friends have got to find another reason.
If the antediluvians called a lunar month a year, then, of course, Adam, for example, lived 930 months, or about 80 years—an age that agrees with modern experience.
This seems rational, but the Sacred Record furnishes other data that involve a most irrational and absurd conclusion, if we are to act upon the lunar month theory.
It is that the antediluvians had children at an unbelievably tender age. Of Adam the record runs: "Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat a son." (Gen. 5:3.) According to the lunar month hypothesis he had his first baby at the tender age of eleven. Some of the other patriarchs were even more precocious; for example:—Seth, 9 years old; Enos, 7; Cainan, 6; Mahalaleel, 5; Jared, 13; Enoch, 5; [R4562 : page 61] Lamech, 15; Methuselah, 15; Noah, 41; Shem, 8; Arphaxad, 4; Salah, 2-1/2; Eber, 3-1/2; Peleg, 2-1/2; Terah, 6; Abraham, 7; Isaac, 5.
After this the modern era of ages is admittedly in force.
Now, then, where are the infidels and infidel higher critics going to begin to throw the account out? They cannot believe in the lunar month theory. The only thing left is to throw the whole thing out of court, which many have done. I think the account is true, and trustworthy as it stands. What do you think about it, Mr. Editor? Yours truly,