Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1916-08-14
MODERN VIEW OF
BIBLES TOPIC
OF R. c. BROOKS

Taking as his topic The Modern
View Of the Bible DIR. Raymond c,
IrCoks. the popular berkeley, Cal,
pastor, spoke to large audience il
the Opera House on Sunday evening.
The minister pointed out the differ.
ence between the r'1odern view Of the
Bible and the scriptuFal view which
our forefathers maintained. H.:
| Aside from the address an excellent
musical program was rendered Miss
Alice Hopper and Stanley Livingston
sang HE Lifted Ne" while, as an of,
fcrtory solo, Mrs. David L. Stone sang
20 Fear the Lord" Dr. Brooks said,
In part:
Il shall take II for granted that all
of you are aware that for more than n
generation past one OF the most i'm.
portant discussions in me history of
human thought has been waged about
the Bible. We are far enough along
In this discussion to have reached Ger
tain conclusions upon which all care.
full Bible scholars, conservative and
radical alike, are agreed. But these
conclusions furnish a point of view
in striking contrast with that which
our fathers held Because of it many
earnest souls. not understanding what
las brought II about, have been con-
fused and sometimes deeply dis
tressed. ..
Il would not venture to enter upon
this discussion tonight did not be-
lieve with all my soul that the newer
point of view is inevitable and did
l not believe that IT is essential for
our continued faith in the, vitality Of
the religion Of Jesus. speak of that
which know and testify of that
which ! have seen when / tell you
that the moral and spiritual gains
from the modern view of the Bible
are almost beyond the power of words
to estimate.
In the face of such difficulties
many of the most earnest and
floughtful leaders in Professionalism
Logan to question the soundness of
the theory. An appeal to the Bible
itself found no justification for it..
There is not line nor a syllable in
the Bible that gives any remote justi-
fication for supposing that any writer
in the Bible counted his writing in.
fallible. Not only so. but the facts
accessible to anyone who will read
his English Bible utterly disprove the
theory.
For example. two writer's in the
Old Testament report the fact that
David on certain occasion took a
census Of his people. @0ne> of the
writer's declares that he was prompt.
ed to do this by God Himself. The
other writer is sure that the Devil
was responsible. 1t is scarcely PROB
able that both are right Two evan
gelists report the Sermon on the
Mount. Either one lets us into the
mind of Jesus, but neither one is yer
bally accurate. as any comparison OF
the two reports win instantly make
clear
"Eut when Christianity passed over
into the second and third century and
found itself in conflict with the phil
osophies of Greece and Rome, the
theory Of an infallible book was once
more revived and in part at least il
was responsible for what we know as
the neral and spiritual darkness OF
the middle ages. Once more with
the beginning of the Reformation
there was protest against a theory SC
hurtful and so unfnanded. but before
a generation had passed our Protest
ant fathers in the intense conflict
with Rome thought it once moro
necessary to make their appeal to an
Infallible book and so fastened upon
Protestanism theory or the Bible
which has wrought more damage
than any or all other blunders made
-, rtrr. Drnkooforf ht.f0rt,