Is the Bible accurate?

There are ten patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5, which Modernists have treated as legendary and mythical and unworthy of serious attention. But the archaeologist's spade, as we have said, has turned up more than soil. A recently discovered clay prism, now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, gives long lists of kings and the dates when they reigned. It commences with a list of eight kings, who were prior to the flood. These correspond with the names of the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5. The Modernist will disbelieve the Bible, until some clay prism turns up, written by heathen hands, and this is believed, even if the Word of God is not. It is awkward for the critics when the "assured results" are discovered to be false. They are then quietly dropped and fresh charges against the Bible are brought forth. If the Bible were reduced to such straits, it would soon be laughed out of court.

We can assuredly make the statement that whenever science and the Bible have been at variance, and fresh light on the subject has enabled a right judgment to be arrived at, the Bible has ALWAYS been right. Similarly when it has been a matter of ancient history, stated in the Bible and refused by the Higher Critics, and the spade of the archaeologist has brought up something that throws light on the subject, it has always been the Higher Critics who are wrong, and the Bible has ALWAYS been right. No book in the world can stand such a test as the Bible. With perfect calmness the Christian can await the labours of the explorers in Bible lands, confident that their discoveries will only confirm what they have believed in the Word of God.

The spade of the archaeologist in Bible lands discovers long-hidden treasures, which, when they throw light on Bible subjects, always, and in every case, prove the Bible to be right in every detail.

As for scientific evidence, archaeologists have proved again and again the accuracy of Scripture accounts, the names of peoples, places and dates. Nelson Glueck, eminent Jewish archaeologist, has categorically stated that "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."' William F. Albright, recognized as one of the greatest of archaeologists, testified that there is no doubt that archaeology "has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.

But we must not go too fast. The word of God is not a mere narrative of ordinarily truthful men. If inspiration means anything, it means more than this. It means that in God's use of the instruments whom He has chosen to record for us His narrative, no question of inaccuracy or human infirmity such as would be perfectly proper as to human productions, could be allowed as to Him who is holy and true, whose omniscience precludes the thought of imperfection and the essence of whose character is light. We know our Lord; we know the revelation which the Spirit of God has given, how it is "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," how it speaks not as men, but with authority, and how we have been compelled to bow to that divine authority in our inmost soul. This precludes the thought of inaccuracy in the Gospel narratives.

A learned dignitary (in loco) speaks of "God-inspired" not excluding verbal errors or possibly historical inaccuracies, and those of human transmission and transcription. But is not this doubly a mistake of grave import? It would first make the written word a divine guarantee of untruth, both originally as well as in its dissemination. Next, how he could mix up the two points is hard to say; for clerical blunders have nothing to do with the question of God's inspiration, solely with man's responsible use of its fruit. The former is a virtual denial of "God-inspired," unless the God of truth can lie: if He sanction errata in trifling matters, why not in greater things? But "scripture cannot be broken," said the Lord. Compromise is unworthy of faith. "It is written" was His answer to Satan's temptations, and is the guide and standard of all saints since grace gave scripture. It is not a question of man's spirit, but of God's, Who is beyond doubt able to secure the truth absolutely, as the Lord and the apostles and the prophets everywhere assume and assert. To imply such weakness in man as is beyond the power of God is a feeble, not the full, inspiration, taught in the Bible. But when philosophy is sought as the ally of divine truth, the issue cannot but be vacillating, inconsistent, and misleading. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God." It is a singularly loose comment on "every scripture is also inspired of God," etc. One can scarce doubt that a rendering so halting and strange tempts to a hesitating interpretation, even though not a whisper be given that they hold any scripture to be uninspired. Yet it is a plain and peremptory utterance of the apostle, calling for a version and a comment of no uncertain sound.

In ordinary thoughts and discussion on inspiration it is not always remembered that the apostle claims it authoritatively for "every scripture." This goes far beyond what men uttered from God, moved or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). For we are taught, not only what the Holy Spirit gave by His living instruments, but that what is written by Him abides now of at least equal divine authority. It is painful to see the readiness of any Christian to allow the compatibility of this divine power with historical or any other inaccuracies, natural enough to man's spirit. But the apostle Paul in the text before us leaves no room for evasion or uncertainty. "Every scripture" is either assumed, as some argue, or asserted as others believe, to be God-inspired. Does He fail to exclude verbal errors? Is He capable of historical or any other inaccuracies?

While upon the subject of the infallible inspiration of Scripture, I will say a few words upon the texts, versions, etc. To be very simple, you know that until a late date all copies were made by pen. The accuracy of these copies depended, of course, upon the care of the copyist. But, even with the greatest care, it was impossible, humanly speaking, to keep out all errors. We find, therefore, that among the hundreds of manuscripts there are a large number of small variations. Most of these scarcely affect the meaning at all, being slight omissions or insertions of letters, small words, etc. Other cases occur where the meaning of a certain verse may be altered; but I think I am safe in saying that in no one manuscript is there embodied a false doctrine, or a true one eliminated. It is certainly a great mercy of God that He has preserved His truth uncontaminated through all these centuries.

Seeing that copyists of the original Scriptures were not inspired, as the Scriptures themselves are, it follows that with all the possible care taken to make a perfectly correct copy, mistakes and errors might creep in. These copyists however were so very careful in their work, that these errors and variations between the many copies are only very slight, and do not in the least degree diminish or weaken the testimony to the great fundamentals of the Christian faith. The proportion of important variations to the whole of the Scriptures is likened to a handful of corn compared with a field of wheat. Or again, if you look into a mirror in which a speck or two of quicksilver has got scratched, you would have no doubt as to what you see in the glass. So it is with the Holy Scriptures, over which God has so manifestly put His powerful and preserving hand.

A very small number of difficulties now remain to form the third class, which is composed of little discrepancies, the source of which cannot be discovered with certainty. An example of this class is the question of the age of Ahaziah when he came to the throne of Judah. 2 Kings 8:26 states it as 22, while 2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42. The error evidently crept in through a very early mistake In copying, but when and how we have no means of knowing.

A. The superficial looseness and irreverent unbelief of the rationalists is too plain; but there is really a choice of explanations in meeting objections of this kind. 1. Numbers are apt to be mistaken in transcription; but this is the inaccuracy of copyists, not of scripture. In this case the Sept. (far the most ancient of versions) gives three years in 2 Samuel as in 2 Chronicles. 2. Difference of design explains away many an apparent discrepancy, the one statement being as true as the other, but not the same. Thus in the earlier book Jehovah is said to have moved David, whereas in the later Satan is the mover: very different aspects, but equally certain, and neither open to just exception. So we see difference in the sum given by Joab to David; in the first 800,000 of Israel and 500,000 of Judah; in the second 1,100,000 and 470,000 respectively. But the lesser number of Israel we find qualified as "valiant men," as those of Judah were given in a round number. Again, in 2 Samuel David bought "the threshing-floor and the oxen" for 50 shekels of silver; yet in 1 Chronicles he gave to Ornan for "the place " 600 shekels of gold. It was not the mere floor for the altar site, but the whole of mount Moriah for the house of Jehovah Elohim as well as for that altar. — It may be noticed too that details of interest are added in each of the accounts, but omitted in the other; and the language, not more notable for similar shades than for dissimilar, is equally striking. Nevertheless who doubts the later writer was familiar with the earlier writing? The one was no less inspired than the other. Had it been a human arrangement, the irresistible impulse would have been to make the two identical. But knowing them both to be inspired of God, neither priest, nor people, nor prophets, nor scribes, dared to lay a sacrilegious hand on either. Assured that Jehovah was the author through the instruments He chose, they left it to faith to receive if they could not explain all the difficulties, and to rationalists to call them "inaccuracies."

The Bible must be perfect. Being God's words they could not be otherwise, for all His works, whether in creation or redemption, bear the stamp of being perfect. "The law [or doctrine] of Jehovah is perfect converting the soul;" and "His way is perfect.” (Ps. 18:30; Ps. 19:7.) Again we read, "The words of Jehovah are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times," and that "Every word of God is pure." (Ps. 12:6; Prov. 30:5.) The Bible must be perfect, because, as we hope we have fully proved, it emanates from God.