IS MY BIBLE SCARRED BY DISCREPANCIES

by W.B. Riley

When Paul, at Jerusalem, was before Felix the governor,
he answered the charges of Tertullus that he was "a
pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the
Jews throughout the world, and a ring-leader of the
sect of the Nazarenes" by denying every charge, and
adding---

"but this I confess unto thee, that after the way which
they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers,
believing all things which are written in the law and
in the prophets." (Acts 24:14).

In discussing the inspiration, authenticity and
authority of the Bible, we face the charge of
"discrepancies," of which the critics of the Christian
Scriptures have made much; and we stand with Paul in
Bible defense, declaring our convictions that the
charge is unfounded and false. With him we believe "all
things which are written in the law and in the
prophets," and we are ready not only to give frank
consideration to the indictment of "discrepancies" but
to show that the charge itself is begotten by
superficial thinking and born of a skeptical spirit.
Following the lines of the apostle's statement, we
propose to discuss this question under three heads: A
Confession of Faith, A call to Worship, and An Unshaken
Confidence.


A CONFESSION OF FAITH

THE APOSTLE'S WORDS INVOLVED SUCH A CONFESSION. Paul
believed "all things" that were "written in the law and
in the prophets." In other words, Paul had what he
regarded as "an inspired Bible." On many occasions he
made perfectly clear his confidence in inspiration. His
statement in Acts is confirmed as often as the apostle
touches upon the subject.

Writing to the Corinthians he says-- "Now we have
received * * * the spirit which is of God; that we
might know the things that are freely given to us of
God; which things also we speak, not in the words which
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; * * *" (I Cor. 2:12-13).

In his Second Epistle to the Corinthians he defends his
claim of "Christ speaking in him," (II Cor. 13:3),
while to Timothy he declares-- "All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God." (II Tim. 3:16).

In other chapters we call attention to the fact that
this practically the uniform claim of all Biblical
authors; and since that is readily conceded, we need
not here and now burden you with proof texts. John
placed such emphasis upon the Spirit's authorship of
the Apocalypse that he wrote these warning words
against it sacrilegious touch: "For I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God
shall add unto him the plagues that were written in
this book. And if any man shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy
city, and from the things which are written in this
book." (Rev. 22:18-19).

In other words, no Old Testament prophet or New
Testament apostle will consent to the charge of
falsity, misrepresentation or discrepancy, if lodged
against the Holy Word. As the tables of the Law were
protected by the four sides of the Ark, and defended by
the Diving Person whose presence was seen in the
Shekinah Glory, so the entire Old and New Testaments
were within the sacred enclosure of Diving Inspiration,
and only the sacrilegious dare to lay upon them
critical and destructive heads; and, whether they
believe it or not, all such despoilers approach this
evil work at the expense of their own souls.

THIS CONFESSION HAS BEEN THE WARP AND WOOF OF ORGANIZED
CHRISTIANITY.

The believers of all ages have exercised a kindred
faith in the integrity of the Scriptures. That such was
the view of the apostles we will make clear in this
treatise; that such was the opinion of the early church
fathers, no man would have the temerity to dispute.
Rudelbach says "Hardly is there a single point with
regard to which there reigned in the first eight ages
of the church a greater or more cordial unity." And as
to the more recent declarations, church history is
replete.

THE FRENCH CONFESSION SAID,: "We believe that the word
contained in these books has proceeded from God. It is
not lawful for men nor even for angels to add to it, to
take away from it, nor even to change it."

THE BELGIC CONFESSION DECLARED: "We believe that the
Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God and that
whatsoever men ought to believe unto salvation is
sufficiently contained therein."

THE WESTMINISTER CONFESSION ASSERTED: "The whole
counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His
own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture or by good and
necessary consequences may be deducted therefrom, unto
which nothing at any time is to be added."

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SAID: "The Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved
thereby, is not to be required of any man."

THE CONGREGATIONALISTS SAID: "Like our Pilgrim Fathers,
we acknowledge no rule of faith but the Word of God,
and declare our adherence to the faith and order of the
apostolic and primitive churches."

THE BAPTISTS have never, unless it be now, stood
elsewhere than on this ground__ "We believe that the
Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is
a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has
God for its Author; salvation for its end and truth
without any admixture of error for its matter."

If you please the METHODISTS, (certain present
unbelieving Bishops to the contrary notwithstanding),
lack the temerity to attempt even to change their
declaration that "The Holy Scriptures contain all the
things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to
be required of any man."

The perils of departure from this opinion have been
written in the blood-ink of both believers and
unbelievers. More than a century and a half ago France,
temporarily captured by Rationalists, rejected the
doctrine of Revelation, and the history of that
movement was written in rivers of human blood. For the
last twenty years Russia has also sought to substitute
for Revelation atheistic Evolution, and the death of
thirty millions of innocents by reason of imprisonment,
starvation, freezing and shooting, is only a slight
reflection of the terror and afflictions that have
befallen the nation.

When Germany developed, as her teachers, the opponents
of Revelation, she introduced an educational program
that wrecked her government by 1918 and threatened a
world with ruin. It is no light matter, therefore, to
charge the sacred Scriptures with sin of any sort; and
the indictment of "multiplied discrepancies" is a
monstrous charge!

DISCREPANCIES, COULD THEY BE PROVED, WOULD END THE
BIBLE'S SACRED INFLUENCE.

It is very doubtful if Biblical critics would be
willing to face the results of their own unbelief.
Joseph Fort Newton, made famous, over night, by his
call to the City Temple, London, England, was never
charged with conservatism. In fact, the world stood
amazed to have so confessed a liberal step into the
shoes of the great Conservative Joseph Parker. That
could not have occurred without the mediation of
Reginald Campbell in "breaking in" of those shoes to
modernist foot-form; and yet Dr. Newton was recently
quoted as having recited afresh the famous parable of
how England awoke one day to find the Bible and all
trace of its influence absolutely erased from the
public mind, and is reputed to have said--

"Something like this has happened in America. We are
faced by an amazing spectacle--a generous, charming,
candid generation without the Bible. Life has become
cheap, literature is  filthy and law is no longer
respected. Our most brilliant writers seem to find life
a kind of disease. Its activities--religion, culture,
ambition, sex, song--are so many forms of dope that men
take to deaden the pain, or the folly, of living."

And so this critic of the Scriptures, seeing that the
attacks of his fellow-despoilers have succeeded beyond
expectation, cries out for the recovery of that which
he himself sought to discredit, admitting--

"There is a spirit in the Bible which, if it gets into
men, makes them tall of soul, tender of heart, just,
gentle, patient, strong faithful in life and fearless
in death." And then he dares to cry: "We must recover
the Bible!"

But to some of us "recover" is not the word! We have
never lost it! We have stood, and shall stand, with the
apostle's confession of Faith "Believing all things
which are written in the law and in the prophets." With
the apostle we find in this fact--


A CALL TO WORSHIP

WE ESTEEM THE SACRED WORD AS OUR FATHERS DID.

The "fathers" referred to by the apostle Paul were not
the early church fathers. They were rather the Old
Testament prophets instead. If one would know what
their faith in the Bible was, let him consult them. The
task of inquiring of all the Old Testament writers is
too extensive for the limits of a single address; but
certainly if one select the most outstanding from among
the lawyers, poets and prophets who contributed to the
Old Testament creation, it should prove satisfactory
even to the critical. We propose, therefore, to consult
Moses, David and Isaiah--Moses, the chief of its law
givers, David the sweetest singer in Israel, and
Isaiah, the tallest among the prophets.

In Exodus 4:15 we have the Moses' view. He held that
his own words were from the Lord Who, addressing him
directly, said-- "*

* * And I will be with thy mouth, and with his
(Aaron's) mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do."

There are literally hundreds of statements in the five
books of Moses to the same effect. How significant that
in the last words of David there is found this remark--

"The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was
in my tongue." (II Samuel 23:2).

In that circumstance you have a reason for the
immortality of David's utterances and an explanation of
their immeasurable effect.

But we turn to the tallest prophet. Among the major
prophets even, Isaiah, like Saul, is from his shoulders
and upward above the heads of his contemporaries. At
the very center of his great prophecy he puts this
statement--

"Then came the word of the Lord to Isaiah, saying."
(Isa. 38:4).

Forty times in this volume the prophet lays claim to
being the mouthpiece of the Most High, voicing what God
had given him.

These three incomparable authors are both fine and fit
representatives of the inspired company who
collaborated in creating the Old Testament Scriptures.
For 2100 years, and more, that sacred Canon has
remained unchanged. The Septuagint Version for that
entire length of time has been the unchanged basis of
the best translations, and also the very Book from
which Christ quoted again and again, always to approve
the utterance and affirm its reliability. To Him these
Scriptures "could not be broken."

In his hand they were "the Sword of the Spirit" with
which He resisted all attacks upon their content. "It
is written" was the statement with which He put to
flight Pharisees, Sadducees and Satan himself. Never
once did He even intimate the untrustworthiness of the
sacred Word.

THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS ENTERTAINED A KINDRED
CONFIDENCE.

To them neither the Jewish Scriptures nor other
inspired confederates were guilty of introducing actual
discrepancies. On the contrary, they counted all such
charges a contortion of the Divine intent. Peter in his
sec ond epistle 3:16 voices his mind in the matter. He
pays tribute to Paul as a "beloved brother" to whom
"wisdom" had been given in "the things written." While
he admits that some things in the Pauline Epistles may
be hard to understand, he does not concede mistake or
discrepancy; but charges, instead, that they are
"wrested" by the unlearned and unstable, "as they do
also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."

PAUL'S CONFESSION, THEREFORE, IS CONSONANT WITH THAT OF
HIS CO-APOSTLES.

     In fact, his declaration constitutes a part of the
apostolic faith, "the faith once delivered," the faith
in which the heaven-taught stood and to which they bore
glad testimony. In fact, that faith took the form of--

AN UNSHAKEN CONFIDENCE

Discrepancies they never discovered, and true believers
do not now admit them. However, our faith is not the
product of mere prejudice. Our confidence is not born
of personal preference; it rests in fact, and is wholly
capable of adequate defense. In three statement, with
their development, let me conclude this discourse--

(1) There are apparent discrepancies in Scripture;

(2) Each and every one of them is capable of
comparatively easy explanation;

(3) In the light of reason the Bible is an infallible
revelation.

THERE ARE APPARENT DISCREPANCIES IN SCRIPTURE.

Superficial critics have searched out what seemed to
them a veritable multitude of such; but the contention
of the intelligent believer is that these discrepancies
exist in the critics' mind, not in the sacred Book.

No less a scholar than Dean Farrar, speaking of the
writers of the Bible, and especially of the authors of
the New Testament says:

"That they did err, I am not so irreverent as to
assert; nor has the widest learning and acutest
ingenuity of Scepticism ever pointed to one complete
and demonstrable error of fact or doctrine in the Old
or New Testament."

In this view, Prof. A. B. Davidson is known to have
heartily concurred; so James Orr! Simpson, and other
equally great and notable scholars, who have taken the
same position, are a multitude which it would be
difficult to enumerate.

However, to be perfectly fair to the attorneys for the
prosecution, we propose to accept for the consideration
of the Court of Public Opinion seven of their best
exhibits. We elect this number, first because it is
God's numeral for perfection, and second because it
will certainly suffice to include their strongest cases
against Bible infallibility. Three of these we take
from the Old Testament, and four of them from the New.
Some years since there came a call on my phone from the
keeper of a rooming and boarding house, situated under
the eaves of the State University of Minnesota.

The speaker said:

"Dr. Riley, I make my living by the care of students.
Boys and girls who elect to live with me through their
college days become extremely dear. I feel toward them
almost as one might feel toward her own flesh and
blood, and I confess a genuine interest in both their
mental and spiritual reactions. It is not at all an
unusual thing for certain skeptical professors at the
University, to disturb the faith of these children and,
oftentimes I am sorry to say, destroy it."

"The questions raised by such teachers are often
thrashed out at my table, and today they have one for
which I feel myself insufficient; hence my appeal to
you. A professor this morning called attention to the
statement in I Kings 15:28--

"Even in the third year of Asa king of Judah did Baasha
slay him, and reigned in his stead."

"And then in chapter 16 he called attention to v 8__ "
'In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah
began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in
Tirzah, two years.'

"And in the 15th verse of the same chapter-- " 'In the
twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri
reign seven days in Tirzah * * *.'

"And he laughed at such a record, showing a king dead
twenty-three and twenty-four year respectively, and yet
sitting on the throne. How do you reconcile the
discrepancy?"

I was able to answer, "There is none! If the professor
had taken pains in Bible study he would have discovered
that Asa reigned as king of Judah forty-one years, and
the context shows that it was not Asa king of Judah at
all who was slain by Baasha, but it was Nadab instead.
Read v. 27.

That discrepancy was not in 1st Kings but in the mind
of an inattentive teacher.

However, to be perfectly fair, we take up now the
stronger cases of the prosecution--

In II Samuel 24:24 we have this statement: "And the
king said unto Arauanah, Nay; but I will surely buy it
(the threshing floor) of thee.* * * So David bought the
threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of
silver."

In I Chron. 21:25 we have-- "So David gave to Ornan for
the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight." The
context goes to prove that this is the same threshing
floor. That looks bad for the Bible! Surely here there
seems to be a plain contradiction. Our answer is, "Yes,
but only a seeming one!"

Sir Robert Anderson, one of the world's greatest
detectives--a long time Head of Scotland Yards--and at
the same time one of the world's most consistent
Christians and astute students of Scripture, says of
this discrepancy:

"It is extraordinary that any honest and intelligent
mind could find a difficult here. Fifty shekels of
silver were presumably a fair price, thought to us it
seems very little, for the oxen and for the temporary
use of the threshing floor, for the purpose of the
sacrifice. And this was all that the king had in view
at the moment.

"But does anyone imagine that the fee-simple of 'the
place'--the entire site of the Temple--was worth only
fifty silver shekels? David went on to purchase the
entire homestead out and out; and the price he paid for
it , was 600 shekels of gold. And this is what the
'Chronicler' records." 1 Chron. 21:25.

Turn with me now, if you will, to Gen. 1:--The storm
center of modern criticism, and you will find in that
first chapter, the 31st verse, the statement that the
Lord completed His creative acts on the sixth day.
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all
the host of them. "And on the seventh day God ended his
work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh
day from all his work which he had made." (Gen 2:1-2).

One moves only to the 4th verse of chap. 2 when he
reads-- "These are the generations of the heavens and
of the earth when they were created, in the day that
the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Critics say: "There it is again! Moses gets into a
shindy with himself. In one chapter the tells you it
took six days, and in the next he states that it was
done in a day." That would make of Moses a man, non
compos mentis. In view of his matchless mind, there
must be a sane explanation; and Moses himself makes it.

Turn to Psalm 90:--A Prayer of Moses the man of
God--and read: "* * * A thousand years, in thy sight,
are but as yesterday when it is past," (vs. 4) and
concede, as the greater scientists, who were also the
greatest of Bible believers--have uniformly agreed,
that God's creative day is not man's solar day at all;
and there is no trouble to enclose six shorter periods
in one longer one. And since "day" is always an elastic
word in Biblical uses, there is no inharmony whatever
between verses 1 and 4 in Gen. 2. But, we turn, from
the Old Testament Scriptures to the New Testament, to
take up four apparent discrepancies.

The first relates to the birth of our Lord. Matthew and
Luke record His ancestry, and they are not in
agreement. Many have stumbled over this, supposing it
to be a discrepancy, in fact a contradiction. But here
the explanation is extremely simple, for one traces His
lineage through his mother back to Abraham, or for
fourteen generations, while the other traces it through
His legal father, Joseph, forty-two generations back to
Adam. Who would expect identity save the most
superficial student?

But, we proceed, and take a second point. The Healing
of the Blind man outside Jericho. This incident is
recorded by Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke
18:35-43. Matthew mentions two men as healed; Mark and
Luke speak of only one: but that is not a contradiction
nor a discrepancy. Mark and Luke fix attention upon the
well-known man Bartimeaus and make no report of the
other instance. Christ might have healed scores of
blind men, but not all are reported.

But there is a greater difficulty involved. Luke says
the healing occurred as the Lord as approaching
Jericho, while the other Gospels report it as having
occurred when He was leaving the town. That looks
serious, doesn't it? Either of two explanations would
suffice. If the translation "come nigh" means "in the
vicinity," there is no inharmony; or if a practical
duplicate of healing of the blind took place one as He
entered the city and one as he left, as was likely, you
have no discrepancy.

Still further--Take the instance of the superscription
placed on the Cross, and the report of the separate
evangelists. Matthew says: "This is Jesus, King of the
Jews"' Mark says: "The King of the Jews"; Luke says:
"This is the King of the Jews"; John says: "Jesus of
Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

The wonder is not the discrepancy; the marvel is in the
harmony, when four men recorded the impression made by
that inscription. Naturally a man will set down the
thing that impresses him; and in defense of plenary
inspiration let it be remembered that there is not a
particle of inharmony in these four reports. John seems
to have given the whole of it, while each of the others
records what he regarded as the essential part.

Finally--take the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus
as recorded in the four Gospels. Matthew says "they saw
an angel"; Mary said "They saw a young man"; Luke
reports that, entering the sepulchre, they saw two
men." Is this "a contradiction" or "a discrepancy"?
Hardly!

Angels take the appearance of men and are commonly so
reported. The presence of one man does not exclude that
of another. The full reading of the four rather
indicates what one writer has called a simple
solution--that there was an angel outside of the tomb
when the women approached it and another sitting in the
tomb as they entered it. If the former followed them
in, you would have a full explanation of John's
statement that there were two angels--one at the head,
and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Let it be remarked again that the so-called mistakes
and discrepancies of Scriptures are creations of
uniformed minds or prejudiced attitudes. As the mists
of the morning vanish when the sun looks full upon
them, so the mistakes of Scripture flee the sacred
pages upon careful and intelligent study.

IN THE LIGHT OF REASON REVELATION SHINES RESPLENDANT.

There are men who imagine that the use of Reason
undermines Revelation, that the study of Science cuts
the foundations from Scriptures, that keen and careful
study discredits the Holy Book. But the exact opposite
is true. The greatest Bible students have ever been,
and will ever remain, the most ardent believers. The
Bible itself teaches us to "prove all things' and to
"hold fast only to that which is good." Therein is set
forth a principle and a practice to which only knaves
and fools would ever object. We accept the Bible, then,
as God's Revelation is men first--because, as the
Master said of it--"The Word is truth:; and
second--because, when applied to life, it proves the
"power of God unto salvation."

To believe what it says concerning Jesus is to discover
a Saviour from sin. To believe what it says concerning
the efficacy of His sacrifice on Calvary's Cross is to
discover, in His shed blood, the element of "cleansing
from all sin." To believe what it says concerning His
Resurrection from the grace is to be filled with the
hope of the saints' resurrection from the same Charnel
House; and to believe what it says concerning His soon
and glorious return is to anticipate that Blessed hour
when the sin-cursed world shall be snatched from the
hands of the Adversary, and sin-cursed rulers shall
abdicate in His behalf, and sin-cursed society shall
not only come into a Utopia of uniform blessing, but
also into a millennial reign which shall never end;
but, after a thousand years, will be translated into
the heavenlies "where there shall be no curse,: where
"God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and
there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
former things are passed away." (Rev. 21:4).