Is the Bible reliable?

No, depend upon this, God loves us a great deal too well to put into our hands a book that cannot be trusted. I say this soberly, and seriously, and I have no hesitation in saying — spite of the infidelity of the day — that I believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, from cover to cover. And, in spite of all that is said against it, the more I study the Bible, the more do I find out its unity, its completeness, its reliability, its absolute impregnability against all the attacks of the enemy; and that it is the revelation of God to my soul. I have found light, and always increasing light, through the Scriptures. And to you I commend them most earnestly and fervently.

But every word of Scripture is just as reliable as the words that fell from the lips of the Saviour Himself, for the simple reason that “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.” It all comes from His heart of love.

We have now reached the main object of the foregoing recital of what are now historical facts, related by the angel long before they occurred, demonstrating, it may once more be affirmed, both the presence of God and the character of inspiration. It is the habit of the present day to seek among ancient ruins and antique inscriptions and tablets for confirmation of the Bible records. It seems to be forgotten that God is not dependent on man for the authentication of the revelation He has made, and that if the word of God is not its own witness (see John 3:33) no amount of human evidence will establish it as such in the soul. Besides, the facts adduced, and the translations made from ancient cylinders and monuments assume a very different aspect and importance according to the views of the various interpreters. But accepting the Bible as the veritable word of God, and maintaining therefore its absolute "inerrancy" (to borrow a new theological term) where there is no dispute as to readings or translation, we have an infallible guide, a trustworthy standard of appeal, and thus the certainty that the events predicted must have a real and actual fulfilment, and that the historical facts recorded are given with the most truthful accuracy. It is of all moment, if we would understand the divine records, that we should begin with an undoubting faith in the infallibility of Scripture.

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.

The next objection (Phases, p. 108) is Acts 7:16: "And were carried over, and placed in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Hamor, the father of Sychem." That there is a difficulty in this passage is beyond a doubt; and some mistake difficult for us now to solve. There is a name which is inexactly connected with an historical fact in the Old Testament. It is also one of those difficulties long since discussed. But to call in question inspiration because of it, is to put what an error in copying would produce, in competition with all the moral and spiritual evidence of divine power, manifest in the whole contents of the book itself, and in its effects in the world for ages. It is so falsely measuring the intrinsic importance of evidence, and the character of proof, that the person rejecting the scriptures because of it would prove nothing but his own incompetence to measure evidence. A book two thousand years old has a mistake in a sentence, which the omission of a word entirely rectifies, without changing anything — a word very likely to creep in. And this is used to discredit what bears the largest, fullest, strongest, positive proofs of every kind, of being the testimony of God, and has produced, and does produce, effects which nothing but the testimony of God could do.

The above named editors of the New Testament have also made diligent use of these means in order to ascertain the text as exactly and perfectly as possible, and it is remarkable that, except a few passages which remain uncertain, in spite of the different systems and theories existing with regard to the manuscripts, they are agreed in almost all material alterations. The providence of God has, notwithstanding the weakness of man, watched over His word, so that while few manuscripts even of the most celebrated and widely read classics could be found (as for example only about six of Virgil), of the New Testament (little read by and unknown to the world) we have already become possessed of about six hundred codices. And even the fact that these manuscripts, preserved in convents and public libraries, have remained unused, has been the means of their coming the more safely and unaltered into our hands. Thanks be to God! The worst and most carelessly written manuscript contains the whole truth, and all that is necessary unalloyed, and the errors that have crept in through copying are almost all set aside by the comparison of so great a number. Besides these evident and apparent mistakes, others have arisen from words, introduced as marginal notes (in order to make certain passages of the text more easily understood by a clearer expression), becoming by degrees incorporated in the text. Some of the manuscripts are from 1,200 to 1,300 years old.

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.

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.

There is no book in the world that can boast of – or that even claims to have – anything comparable by way of fulfilled prophecy. The precision and number of fulfilled Biblical prophecies can leave no doubt in any honest mind. Biblical prophecy has been – and the future part will be – fulfilled.

Yes, He did. Many times. He used the Old Testament as absolutely authoritative (see question 7). He put the words of the Old Testament on the same level as His own words (compare Mt. 5:18 with Mt. 24:35). He referred to Adam and Eve, Cain, Noah, Moses, David, etc., each time presenting the Old Testament narratives as absolutely authoritative. This writings were the basis for an authoritative and final answer to all the questions of life (marriage / divorce, and many other subjects).