Q. 8.-" Were the fowl as well as fish in Gen. 1:20 out of the waters ?"

Ans.-The generality of modern commentators prefer the marginal rendering, "Let fowl fly." But Tayler Lewis, in a note to Lange's " Genesis," says that the words " cannot, we think, be rendered in any other way than as we find it in our English version, ' and fowl that fly ;' and in all the ancient versions, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. The Syriac is exactly like the Hebrew in its construction, and can have but one possible sense, birds that fly. . . . The idiom of the Hebrew seems fixed, requiring us in such a case 'to regard the future as descriptive-like a participle or an adjective. In the Arabic, the corresponding usage is so established as to put any other translation out of the question. It occurs frequently in the Koran with the same subject, and in just such a connection as we have it here. The other rendering, 'and let birds fly,' would require a different order of the words. The more modern rendering has come from the fear -of what would seem gross naturalism, namely, the education of the birds from the water; but we know-nothing here except as we are taught."

Q. 9.-" How is ' eating the herb ' part of man's punishment (Gen. 3:18), when it had already been named as his food (1:29)?"

Ans.-It is ' the herb of the field' instead of the garden- paradise.

Q. 10.-"The 'sanctifying' of the Sabbath, was it not for man? And, while not mentioned in Genesis again, was it not owned as already given in Ex. 16:23 ?"

Ans.-The first question can only be answered in the affirmative. God could not 'sanctify ' a Sabbath for Himself, and we have no reason or authority for saying it was for the angels. But we must remember that this was while every thing was good. The fall came, and after that we have no history of the Sabbath till Ex. 16:, except it may be a hint of the weekly division of time in connection with the flood. (Gen. 7:4; 8:10, 12.) People may have kept it-or the godly ones, but "from Adam to Moses" there was no law.

Ex. 16:.23 is not conclusive; for the same or a similar formula is found elsewhere in connection with what is newly instituted (10:16,32). And in the law, " Remember the Sabbath-day" may only point back to chap. 16:This is a doubtful basis for any clear faith, but it seems all that in the wisdom of God, we are permitted.

Q. 11.-" What is ' perfect in his generations ' (Gen. 6:9.) ?" Ans.-Blameless among the people of his day.

Q. 12.-"Why in Num. 3:39 are the Levites 22,000? The total is 22,300,-more, not less, than the first-born ?"

Ans.-The total of 22,000 is right, evidently, and it would seem there must be a copyist's error in the text as to one of the tribes. Keil suggests that in ver. 28 the 600 should be 300. It would easily result from the dropping out of one letter (1).

Q. 13.-"Explain Acts 7:.16, ' sons of Emmor,' etc."
Ans.-There is again some mistake, apparently the word "Abraham" should be omitted ; but the MSS. give but little help. It is an old and well-known difficulty.