The first blog from guidebook author and professional walking guide, Ed Glinert, introducing the background to a fascinating London walk, described below
There has been much discussion recently about the supposed conflict between those who advocate Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in explaining the creation of the universe and those who take a Biblical approach. Apparently no scientifically minded individual can take seriously the six-day story in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, and no religious believer (I’m talking about Bible-based religions here: Judaism, Christianity, Islam) can be happy with a scientific approach which negates their faith.
Battle lines have been drawn for over a century, since Darwin introduced his theory of evolution. They are at their most acute not at the pulpit but in schools where more and more pupils are bringing to class traditional “religious” views supporting the idea of a six-day creation and the notion that the Earth can be dated by adding up the generations outlined in the rest of the Bible (allowing for the 2,000 or so years since Christ) until one arrives at a figure of just over 6,000 years, despite irrefutable scientific evidence that the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old.
When Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, Britain’s foremost scientific body (and an ordained minister), suggested recently that there was room for discussion of Biblical creation in school science lessons there was an outcry, and he was pressed into resigning. Yet there need be no conflict between the two views. The creationist version of the universe being made in six days and the Earth being 6,000 years old, while deeply felt by many, is based on a fallacy, on a mistranslation of the Bible. Genesis 1 does not state, as its many translations advocate, that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. Nor does it insist that any creating that ensued took place in six of our 24-hour days. Genesis was originally written in Hebrew not English. It was first translated into English by John Wycliffe in Oxford in the 1370s, and he based his work on the earliest Latin translation, itself a corruption. The first published translation in English, produced by William Tyndale in the 1530s, and the better known King James version of 1611 which gave us the infamous opening phrase “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” were more faithful to the original Hebrew but still managed to miss the correct translation.
A little basic Hebrew grammar sorts out the problem. A better translation is not “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth…”, but “In the beginning of God’s creating…” The reader now understands that God was active (doing we know not what) for an unspecified time before turning to creation. So if the scientists say the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, then there should be no problem for anyone with religious views based on Genesis.
But there is a remarkable rider to this. The Hebrew scholars who spend most of their waking moments analysing Jewish lore know of a deeper, more revealing meaning. It is not something they will readily acknowledge, for knowledge is power, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as all good cliché-mongers know. Here the scholars turn to the Kabbalists’ ancient belief that the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is comprised of one long word – the Word of God – without breaks or pauses, a word millions and millions of characters long. The reader looking for a translation into their native tongue can break up the text as he or she sees fit. It is now easy to insert meaningful breaks at the opening section and arrive at a translation that is neither “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”, nor “In the beginning of God’s creating”, but “In the beginning God created Himself”.
This, the scholar insists, is the more authentic, more literal translation. It is one that comes close to the 21st century Stephen Hawking era notion of Creation as Big Bang (and probably anything else that CERN will throw up when it reopens). Wren and co knew all this. For them there was no conflict. Nor need there be for us.
And for those unhappy with the notion of God creating the Earth in “six days”, well Isaac Newton debunked that myth for the Royal Society three hundred years ago. If the Earth was created on the third day, as Genesis states, then how could the first two days be days as we know them, days that last 24 hours? The length of a day differs from planet to planet. On Jupiter a day lasts just over nine of our hours. If the Earth didn’t exist then the day was not necessarily 24 hours in length. It could have taken billions of years.
But back to the Royal Society. This is the foremost science pressure group in the country. Its origins were in the Invisible College of scholars of the 1650s. They kept themselves “invisible” – hidden away – for fear of reprisals from the ruling Puritans. Their number included Christopher Wren (not just an architect but the foremost astronomer of his day), Robert Hooke (inventor of the microscope) and John Wilkins, the first person to realistically devise a decimal (i.e. metric) system of measurement. When the monarchy was restored in 1660 they felt safer and sought support from Charles II which he granted, making them the Royal Society.
The London flâneur can roam from site to site in search of the spirit of the Royal Society. Start at the lofty Tower 42 (formerly the NatWest Tower) at 25 Old Broad Street. The tower stands on the site of the society’s first home from 1660-1710 which was in the mansion belonging to the merchant Thomas Gresham. (It moved out after the Fire for a few years; see below). Head a few hundred yards south to the Monument, designed by Robert Hooke in 1677. (Why it resides there and is that high I will explain in a forthcoming blog).
Now journey west towards St Paul’s, Wren’s masterpiece, via St Lawrence Jewry, a Wren church where John Wilkins was vicar in the mid 17th century. The Royal Society has also had homes on Crane Court, off Fleet Street (1710-80) and at Arundel House, the Bishop of Bath’s long demolished London mansion which lay between Surrey Street and Arundel House, by the Aldwych, from 1666-73.
Immediately west is Somerset House, the only surviving riverside palace off the Strand. This was home to the Royal Society from 1780-1857. Burlington House, now home to the Royal Academy, was the society’s home from 1857-1967. To the south stands the society’s address since 1967 at 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, just north of the Mall.
Next blog: how the Royal Society introduced sacred measurement to London
~
Born in Dalston, London, Ed Glinert has written for Private Eye, Radio Times and London's Time Out, and is the author of various London and Manchester guide books and compendiums. He leads a variety of walks for a major London walking tours company.
See all books by Ed Glinert
Author: Ed Glinert
Date: 25 September 2008
Add a comment