Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-12-07

@. What use was there In the old
idea that the Bible is q perfect and in
Grant book? I was brought up on it
and 1t was a bugbear for me till
learned the truth.
A. This belief has fostered many mis-
conceptions. But it is not extinct. The
old idea you repudiate now Is as new as
tomorrow'S sun for millions of Chris
tians. And why? Because 1t made
generation after generation absorb the
Book as a revelation of Divine truth
expressed in terms which were regarded
as infallible.
Apply pious practice to your own de-
velopment. Granting that Biblical lit
erature is not inerrant, and also that
modern learning has relieved that lit
erature Of superfluous opinions and mis-
interpretations, yet would you have
known its invaluable contents as you
do had not reverent belief in the Book
as literally inspired prevailed in your
youth?
Again, is the Bible as deeply revered
and faithfully studied or its precepts as
widely observed today as they were half
a century ago? I do not think so. Yet
its spiritual values are undiminished.
We need not accept the suggestion that
they must be mystically understood.
They show that Gods continuous pur-
pose pursued It's CnduSeleSS couLSS
through the folklore, the patriarchal
legends and the stories of Esther and
Daniel as we'll as in the prophetic min
istries of prophets and apostles.
This Book overcame hindranceS and
relapSes of every kind. It fashioned the
ideas and transformed the hearts of
nations. 1t is the greatest literary
agency extant for the upraising of mans
social, political, intellectual and reli-
tdsNN 1ry1vN nj he
teachings of Jesus and tells of His re-
demptive mission. These facts entitle
| it to your intellectual devotion. even II
| you are no longer a bibliolator.
After all, revelation is Gods work.
We can know Him only as He makes
Himself known. The measure of our
knowledge of Him is determined by the
capacity Of our souls to receive that
knowledge. The light OF His truth
shines Clearly in both testaments, It
needs no spurious theories Of perfec-
tionism. Those who follow it will surely
learn more and more of its satisfying
realities Accept the Bible in this spirit
and criticism Of past mistakes will not
displace your profound appreciation of
its true inspiration and true divinity.
@. Is there any portion of the Old OIL
New Testament which a devout Chris
tan ought to accept as spiritually in
spired and the actual word of God, anc
| therefore to be accepted without any
| human criticism? If So will you kindly
point out the particular passage il
| question?
A. Your question indicates a wrong
| finest known record of LIES spiritua
| experiences. Our task is to rightly ap'
| praise these experiences and make then
| our own, for they are not of equal value
| On the contrary, the eminence of thu
| prophets and apostles and the pre-
eminence of the Christ are apparent
| throughout the book. Dwell with then
and with Him and you will not doubt
| the inspiration of their teachings. Blu
| YOU may distrust your ability to ODE!
| them.
/ Further, the Bible is literature anc
| as such subject to literary hazards. The
| copy you have is a translation of pre-
vious translations, and its original man
! uScriptS do not go behind the fourth
4, century of the Christian era. AS con
| sequence. the canonS of Interpretation
| have to be applied to this book. The!
demonstrate its high places of religious
significance, its moral splendors, its in
tellectual strength.
would rate the sayings of Jesu
above those of His followers and tn,
| Twenty-third Psalm above the recital
of slaughterings and wars contained il
the books of the Judges and the Kings
There is no portion OF holy scriptures
| however lovely, searching, majestic, OBJ
viously inspired, on which we must no
| concentrate all the knowledge we pos
seSs in order to elucidate its meaning
and feed upon its nutrition.
@. Is an omnipotent God a modern
conception? Apparently the God @
Israel in the Old Testament was no
thought to be omnipotent. We read ii
Judges, lie: And the Lord was witt
Judah. and he drove out the inhabit
ants Of the mountain, but could no
drive out the inhabitants of the vale
because they had chariots of IRON"
A. Your citation is not quite in poin
because 1t has no bearing on the ques
ton. The anteccdent of the pronoul
he" is not Jehovah. but Judah. It wa
the Israelites, not the Lord, who coult
not drive out the warriors of the valley
who had the "chariots Of iron" Beside
II this Hebrew annalist believed tn
Lord was with his people when the
overcame the mountaineers, how coul'
' he explain the fact that He was no
with them when they attacked the in
habitants Of the valley? 1t is a fire.