Criticising the Bible.
In the world to-day there is a growing tendency to criticise the Holy Scriptures. Higher criticism has declared that the Bible is not authentic, that it contains so many discrepancies and errors that it is not to be relied upon, and, of course, with the Bible must go our faith in God. These would-be savants would thus ruthlessly take the very bread of life from the hands of hungering humanity and in its place they give – what? Just nothing; they have no substitute to offer; they take away the word of God, which has proved to be an unfailing source of comfort to so many generations and give us nothing in its place.
Let us consider a few facts. Excavations recently made in Mesopotamia have thrown light on many of the Bible customs. Excavations in the Sinaitic Peninsula and in Palestine have proved that kings mentioned in the Bible really lived and moved and had their being as stated in the scriptural records. In 1872 George Smith discovered the Babylonian account of the deluge contained in a poem.
The Moabite stone found by the Rev. F. Klein at Dhiban, in the land of Moab, in 1868, gives the Moabite account of the war of Mesha, king of Moab, in the days of Elisha, the Hebrew version of which is found in II Kings third chapter. The Rosetta stone, found near Rosetta, in the Nile delta, from its threefold writings, one of which was the known Greek, enabled students to understand the Egyptian language. Possessed of this knowledge they began a series of researches in Egypt, with the result that the Biblical references to manners, customs, occupation, etc., are proved to be correct.
The story of Joseph in Egypt finds corroboration, as also the story of the children of Israel dwelling in Goshen. Bricks have been found made of stubble and straw which lends support to the Bible account of their bondage in Egypt.
In 1830 the Book of Mormon was published in America. Because it was brought forth by the “Mormon” prophet, Joseph Smith, the world discredits it, but the fact remains that that same book does more to prove the authenticity of the Bible than anything else yet brought to the light of day. This book, together with the papyrus discovered in the mummy cases sold to Joseph Smith by relatives of the discoverer, and translated by the prophet under the title of the Book of Abraham, and contained in the Pearl of Great Price, are of untold value to the seeker after truth. The story of Abraham, written by himself in Egypt, affords evidence that the Bible version is absolutely correct.
Bible critics should pause and think before they attempt to destroy man’s faith in the Bible and in the existence of the God of the Bible. Truth is stranger than fiction and additional evidence in support of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures is being found from time to time. Lest undue weight be given to alleged historical discrepancies in the Bible, two facts need to be kept in mind:
1. It was man, not the Lord, who placed the dates there.
2. In Bible history the facts mentioned are often made to appear continuous when in reality thousands of years elapsed before the events recorded seemingly in direct sequence occur in reality. For example, in Isaiah 40:3 we read:”The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,” etc. Verse 4 follows with “Every valley shall be exalted,”etc. To the uninitiated it would appear that these two events occur in the same era of time. Yet John the Baptist, the “voice in the wilderness,” was born in the meridian of time, while the time for the valleys to be exalted has not yet arrived, and will not come till Christ comes to reign as King. Already nearly 2,000 years separate the events.
Some other seeming Bible discrepancies, if fairly considered, will be found to admit of similar explanations.
Curious as to where this appeared. My first reaction is that it really misrepresents “higher criticism” as a discipline, and instead seems to lean towards a protestant view of Biblical inerrancy. I find more and more acceptance of the documentary hypothesis amongst both LDS scholars and even more lay members these days. But rather than talking about “hibher criticism” these days, we are more likely to refer to a “close reading” of the text. I suspect that such things as the JSPP and Grant Hardy’s work with the text of the Book of Mormon are changing attitudes towards a more critical view of our scriptural texts these days, and that for most of us, is not a threat to our faith. I for one have found that I have deepened my testimony of the Book of Mormon through the work of Hardy and others.
I agree, kevinf, the more I learn about the scriptures — how they came to be, how they evolved, what they meant to past dispensations, how that translates to this generation — the nearer I feel to the scriptures, God, and his people.
I don’t know why this post appeared, though, and hadn’t realized it was up! I must have bumped a key when my cursor was in the wrong place. I hadn’t meant to post it. It was published in the Liahona (the American version of Millennial Star), so was an “opinion piece” that was reviewed by the supervising mission president but no higher.
One of these days I really will get around to introducing you all formally to Mollie Higginson, whom I consider the first Mormon blogger. Her pieces appeared in almost every imaginable LDS venue in the first quarter of the 20th century. While this piece — and others she published — are not persuasive to us, it’s typical of the subjects she tackled; you can easily imagine almost any blogger today, an ordinary, not specially trained Latter-day Saint, writing virtually the same post (maybe updating the language a little), in the Bloggernacle, can’t you? That’s what interests me, her work as a whole, rather than the quality of her reasoning or writing. I have no doubt that had she been born a century later, she would be running one of the blogs, tackling the same subjects.
Thanks, I think you have mentioned her name once before in the same context. I will be interested in hearing more bout her.