How do we know if the Bible is true?

There are evidences, on every hand, many and varied and of the very best; evidences both direct and indirect. The world is full of them, and they may be seen every day; museums of antiquity contain them; evidences of the Bible's veracity are writ large on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments and temples; the ruins of buried cities and the tombs of forgotten kings abound with them, even mummies bearing mute testimony to what the "scripture of truth" declares; and the spade of the excavator brings to light fresh witnesses every year. The natural sciences, astronomy, geology, physiology, anatomy, including even that most exact of all sciences, mathematics, all bear united and harmonious witness to the truth of Scripture, written with "the finger of God."

We rise from our task. This brief survey of Scripture has only served to deepen in the writer’s mind the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures, and how they should be treated with the utmost reverence, realising that God Himself is speaking to us in them. We have brought forward very little, but that little overwhelmingly proves that the Scriptures are all that they themselves claim to be. The claim has been amply substantiated by the contents of the Book, the character of its writers; the fulfilment of prophecy; the correspondence between the shadows of the ceremonial law and their fulfilment in Christ and His atoning death on the cross; the supreme Person of our Lord, as delineated in the four gospels, the presentation of a life unique in every way, and in character and degree infinitely beyond every other life, however exalted, and finally its living power in moulding human lives for God. By its fruits we know the Book to be supremely good.

The marvellous and detailed fulfilment of its prophecies; the perfect harmony between its various parts, indited as they were under varying circumstances and at different epochs; the utter failure of its critics to substantiate their charges of imperfection; the impossibility of the human mind, trained and cultured though it be, to fathom and exhaust its teachings—all these, and many other facts, testify to the divine authorship of the Bible.

H. Surely that is the way as to enquiry; for it really proves itself its divine power in the conscience. And this last is the only true knowledge of inspiration. I know rationalists try and put off with an air of superiority, as rejected by enlightened people (that is, themselves), what they have not got, and therefore cannot feel the force of; but I am not afraid of avowing, in the fullest extent, the doctrine of the Reformation, which is necessarily the doctrine of every believer, that scripture proves itself by its own power. I go further — it never proves itself, never can prove itself, if it be true, in any other way. And so, moreover, it declares: "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. 10:17, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." 1 John 5:10, "The law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul. The entrance of thy word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple." Ps. 19:7. If what is called light requires something to shew it, it is a proof that it is not really light. In the nature of things light shews itself and all else. It is not what we mean by light, what a man who has eyes knows it to be by having eyes, if it has to be shewn. It does require eyes to see it. If a man has not eyes, he cannot of course see it or know what it is at all. Nor can any one tell him what it is, or make himself understood in speaking of it. He wants the faculty of what is to be proved. If a man does not see the word of God to be such, it is a proof that he has no moral eyes, no faith. A man asks me how I can prove honey to be sweet. I say, if you cannot taste it, you must remain ignorant. And note, if there be a word of God, it must be moral light and perfect light, divine light — cannot be otherwise. If what is presented to me be not such, I say at once, then it is not God's word. It may be dawn, or shine through clouds, or be noon-day, but it is in its nature light, or it is not God's word. Hence, in the nature of things it must reveal itself. If it do not, it is not God's word. Whether a man has eyes to see is another question: but one who has knows he sees the light.

260 Hence I am not afraid of the language of another of our Essays. "Calvin did not shrink from saying that scripture shone sufficiently by its own light. As long as this could be kept to, the Protestant theory of belief was whole and sound — at least it was as sound as the Catholic. In both, reason, aided by spiritual illumination, performs the subordinate function of recognizing the supreme authority of the Church and of the Bible respectively. But learned controversy and abatement of zeal drove the Protestants generally from the hardy but irrational assertion of Calvin." I dare say they did. That is, as men lost faith, they lost conviction of the divine authority of the word. How could they do otherwise? It is stating the same thing in other terms. But Calvin, as every believer, could not say otherwise, because it had shone thus in his own soul and in no other way. The Church was against it, nature was against it, interest was against it. God's word was too mighty. But I say more: if the scriptures be not thus received, they are never received at all. It professes to be the word and testimony of God. If a witness has to be accredited, and proved to be true, the witness is not believed at all on his own testimony. Hence, as long as scripture has to be proved by reason, or accredited by the Church, God is not believed because He has spoken, that is, there is no real faith. Such reasoning or accrediting may lead me to believe it afterwards, so far as leading me to examine the testimony, which thus may acquire force over my soul as true. But, as long as reasoning or accrediting is the reason why I believe it, I do not receive it as the word of God. I do not believe God in it. I do not receive it as His word. If I believe Thomas because James has said that what he has said is true, I do not believe Thomas at all.

Its own internal evidence is at once the plainest, readiest, and most convincing to all those that love the truth. There is just published "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures" (if I may be allowed to speak about a book of mine), in which the most stringent demand of a divine authority, differing essentially from every other writing, is laid down; and this principle of divine design, shown to be palpable in all its parts, is applied to the various books of the O. and N. Testaments. May I ask you to do me the favour of reading what ought to be, unless I deceive myself, more satisfactory than many letters? It is to be had at T. Weston's, 53, Paternoster Row; or to be read at the British Museum, if it be as yet producible at the round Reading-room.

The external evidence of the divine authenticity of scripture is very weighty, especially when we consider that to the Jews were "committed the oracles of God," and from time immemorial to the present, it is well known that they have retained the different books of the Old Testament pretty much as we have them, and regard them as given to them by Jehovah. Our object now, however, is not to look so much at the external evidence, as to the internal testimony the scriptures give of their being the word of God. It is interesting, however to know, that in the early centuries of what is called the Christian Era, there is abundance of proof from the writers of that time, that they quoted largely from the books of the New Testament. It is said also, that Lord Halles, a Scotchman, having searched the writings of the so-called Christian Fathers who lived during three hundred years after Christ, found, with all their blunders, nearly all the writings of the New Testament as we have them in different parts of their books.

Why do the attackers of the Christian faith endeavour to explain away these prophecies? It cannot be denied, that the Bible is the ONLY Book in all the literature in the world, that has prophesied future events of a world magnitude, and that these prophecies have been fulfilled. No person can deny this. Is this not a staggering fact, proving without a doubt that the Bible is inspired of God, for such prophecies are clearly beyond the power of mortal man? When prophet after prophet foretells future events, unknown to each other, living in different centuries, and sometimes in different countries, and yet not contradicting each other, but prophesying in one harmonious whole, the one and only conclusion that can be arrived at, is that one Master Mind inspired them to write what they did. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). It is beyond contradiction that there are prophecies in the Bible which have been most strikingly fulfilled. Take two or three outstanding examples. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, dreamed a dream, interpreted by the Prophet Daniel as being revealed to him by God. He tells us, “There is a God in heaven that reveals secrets, and makes known … what shall be in the latter days” (Dan. 2:28). Four great empires were to arise, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, Roman. Three world empires rose and passed into history, whilst the last, the Roman empire, was at the height of its power when our Lord was born into this world. Rome was founded in B.C. 753, and its empire continued till its break-up through the invasion of the Huns and Goths in A.D. 410, a matter of over eleven hundred years. There is nothing in all the literature of the world remotely like this remarkable prophecy, outside of the Word of God. Should this not afford the Unitarian food for thought? If he really understood what this means, and its implications, it would shatter once and for ever his Unitarian beliefs.

I cannot here, of course, write a book on the positive evidences of Christianity. But no one is ignorant that there are such, and that the positive proofs of it — proofs such as no event, no system, no person on earth has for itself — have been detailed in the language of every civilized people. Now particular objections leave this all out of sight; yet, where anything has been largely, positively proved, the dwelling on the objections that may be raised, without estimating the positive proofs of the whole system, is a totally unsound mental process. It is a way of judging of the truth of anything which would be admitted in no other case whatever. I do not object to the examination of every difficulty in detail.

In the case of scripture, the positive proof is that of the divinity of the system as a whole. If the system at large is positively proved, a difficulty attached to it which I cannot solve is a demonstration, not of the falseness of the system, but of my incompetence to deal with the difficulty. In such a case, a sound minded man is content to say, "I do not know." The historical facts and documents of Christianity are proved, with an evidence such as no other universally believed event or acknowledged book has any evidence to be compared with, and if proved shew that it is divine. It has met with an opposition which made every document and fact to be scrutinized with a closeness which left only what was incontestable uncontested. This was to be expected, because it presented the claims of a holy God, to which the antagonist will of man never would submit. Hostile heathens, philosophical adversaries, heretical corrupters, foolish advocates, elaborate historians, voluminous commentators, every kind of author and character has been occupied with it from the time of its promulgation, and authenticated its history and its doctrines even when opposing them; and this in the presence of the hostility of religions divinely established or nationally and deeply enracinated on the one side, and sceptical scorn on the other. The books on which the smallest doubt could be cast, doubts were cast upon; and their authenticity made a subject of question as they are by objectors now.

The histories as given in these books are likewise confirmed by both Egyptian and Assyrian monumental records; Rehoboam being represented on the former, and Omri, Jehu, Menahem, Hoshea and Hezekiah on the inscriptions of the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. But Scripture, like its great subject, Christ, neither receives nor requires "testimony from men." The monuments do not prove Scripture to be true; it is only proved, when they agree with the Bible, that they are true, and not lies. As we read God's word, "we believe and are sure," because "holy men of God," who wrote these records, "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). True, it is called "prophecy" in the quotation given, but it has been aptly said that "history as written by the prophets is retroverted prophecy." "Moses and the Prophets" means (like "the Law and the Prophets"), the Pentateuch, the Old Testament historical books, and the writings generally designated as "the Prophets." And "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man." So we unhesitatingly declare ourselves, like Paul of old, as "believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14). "And he that believeth shall not be ashamed" — no, "neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Amen and Amen!

The Bible puts man into the light of God. This is why the natural man hates this book - and has tried to find contradictions everywhere. However, 90% of these are due to either ignorance or bad intentions, or both. Then there are real difficulties, such as differences between Gospel reports. Here it is a matter of asking God to help us understand the Divine design of the scriptures. If we do, the difficulties disappear and the beauty of inspiration is seen. In some extremely rare cases an error may have occurred: in 2 Ki. 8:26 an age of 22 years is given, while in 2 Chr. 22:2 the age given is 42 years - possibly the result of a copying error. But our faith does not depend on this detail.