Others suppose the first verse, or the first two, to refer to an original formation of all things, the time, manner, and circumstances of which are left wholly undetermined. Then, after an indefinitely long interval, this original universe was totally overwhelmed and destroyed ; and then, in six natural days, the whole existing world called into being in its place, in accordance with the literal terms of the remainder of the narrative.
A different class of interpreters contend that the whole account is to be taken together, as in the first of the instances just stated, but the days understood literally ; the whole, however, is to be interpreted as referring to a more remote period than is commonly imagined, and as not in tended to describe the existing species of plants and animals, but various other species, now extinct, which have been, by subsequent convulsions of nature, destroyed, while others have been successively, by fresh acts of creation, introduced in their place.
We will allude only to one other interpretation, the most recent which has been proposed, and which possesses every claim to attention which can be commanded by piety, learning, and devotedness to the sole cause of truth on the part of its author, Dr. J. Pye Smith, whose volume on the Relations of Scripture to Geology, etc., we earnestly re commend to the attentive perusal of all who wish to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the whole subject, as well as to be enlightened by the philosophical views and scriptural eloquence of the venerable and excellent writer. His interpretation is briefly of this kind : the separation of the first verse he adopts as above this refers to the original universal creation : and in the vast undefined interval, an almost unlimited series of changes in the structure and pro ducts of the earth may have taken place. After this, at a comparatively recent epoch, a small Portion of the earth's surface was brought into a state of disorder, ruin, and obscuration ; out of which the creation of the existing species of things, with the recall of light and the restored presence of the heavenly bodies, took place literally, accord ing to the Mosaic narrative, in six natural days. AU this is supported by profound critical distinctions as to the sense of the original words. The brevity of this sketch we trust will be productive of na misconception, as we hope all our readers will satisfy themselves out of the original work. In this cursory review of different interpretations we have made a passing allusion to geology, and the changes which it indicates as having taken place at remote periods on the earth's surface. We shall presently recur particularly to
this subject. But it will be evident to most of our readers that some consideration of these scientific conclusions has been the main motive which suggested the various inter pretations, some few of which we have mentioned. Our present concern with them is, however, on purely critical and philological grounds. And in this point of view, with the utmost respect for the several authors, without going into any details of controversy, we would wish simply to put all such interpretations, on their own intrinsic merits, to the judgment of any perfectly unbiassed inquirer. Yet for our selves (without wishing to press any decision), we must con fess they all appear to suggest senses which are of a very different nature from any which the plain tenor of the narra tive would seem almost unavoidably to convey. We cannot here go into details of verbal criticism ; but we are fully dis posed to grant all that may be urged as to the precise signification of some of the terms ; which may doubtless, by long-established custom and association, have been com monly received in senses which a more exact knowledge of the original language may not warrant. At the same time we do not think anything of this kind can materially affect the broad view of the subject. We are disposed to look at the narrative as a whole:—and even allowing the greatest latitude as to the precise shades of meaning in its particular features, to ask whether the general impression of its design can be rationally conceived to fall in with these views of it ? Whether, rather, any such signification imposed upon it does not seem to do palpable violence to its integrity, its distinctness, its majestic sublimity, its special purport, beat lug, and manifest object ? We will, however, add one general remark applicably to all such interpretations in a philological point of view. In attempting to ascertain the true sense of a passage ia any ancient book, we ought surely to decide in our own minds distinctly what it is at which we aim, whether to find some sense, to our apprehensions consistent, and such as the terms of the passage in question may be made to bear,—or to seek, as well as we can, what meaning it was the probable intention of the writer to convey. These two considera tions, it should be observed, though really very distinct, are too often confounded together ; or rather, the latter is almost wholly lost sight of.