This is so, and the Modernist writer we have referred to returns to the attack on this line. He comments on the fact that the original Scriptures have disappeared, and that in the hundreds of manuscripts of the Scriptures there is a good deal of variation; that while we can be practically certain of the correctness of most passages, we cannot always be sure which rendering is nearest the exact wording of the original text. He writes: -" In view of these unquestionable facts, it is futile to affirm any longer the verbally inspired character of the Bible, and those who would ‘save their faces’ by suggesting this of the lost original text are doing small honor to the Holy Spirit, for if it was worth while working a miracle to produce such a text, why was not a miracle wrought to preserve it from corruption?"
This statement is as ignorant and foolish as the former one we have been examining. On reflection it is much for the better that the original manuscripts have disappeared. If they existed one of two things would have happened. The incredulous, the infidel, the mind that produces the Modernist and the Higher Critic, would have asked, How can we know these documents to be authentic? What would there have been to have hindered their doing so? So would speak the rationalist. On the other hand the credulous, the mind that produces the ritualist, the superstitious, would acclaim these documents, and surround them with idolatrous worship.
We have an illustration of something like this in the Old Testament. God commanded a serpent of brass to be made so that the bitten Israelites might look and live. Time rolled on, and the children of Israel venerated this relic. They burnt incense to it. But Hezekiah, the godly king, brake it in pieces, destroyed it, called it in derision, Nehushtan, a piece of brass. We believe that God allowed the original Scriptures to disappear for the same reason that Hezekiah destroyed the serpent of brass.
To proceed. The multiplicity of copies of the Scriptures running into many hundreds, laboriously engrossed by hand in many a place and during many centuries, first of all proves the existence of the original. There can be no possible doubt of the existence of the sixty-six books that compose the Bible. Second, it proves the high regard in which they were held, a regard extended to no other writings, this attitude towards the Holy Writings being quite unique. Third, the effect of these writings in the spread of Christianity proves them to be living and powerful.
As to the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jews were the custodians of these for centuries. Though their Scriptures were a condemnation of their idolatry and stiff-neckedness, yet they guarded them with fanatical jealousy.
The whole situation proves that the writings were regarded as sacred, and inspired of God, and to be reverenced.
As to the contention of this Modernist writer that God should have inspired all those who made copies of the Scriptures, in the first place of the original Scriptures, and then copies of the copies, so that each copy should agree in every particular with all other copies, the Professor does not grasp the difference between the inspiration that God accorded to the writers of the sixty-six books comprising the Bible, and what he is contending for. In the former case GOD chose the instruments He would use for this wonderful task of making Himself known to men. In the case of the Professor's suggestion it would mean that God should inspire each copyist, who chose to set himself the task of producing a copy of the Scriptures. Would Modernists and the like be more ready to accept the Scriptures, if this were to happen? No, they would contend that it is within the bounds of merely human effort to make faultless copies. That the copying was mechanical and liable to error falls out to the greater proof of the inspiration of the original Scriptures than if each copyist was inspired.
The number of copies of the Scriptures runs into many hundreds. It is true there are various readings, but the general agreement is so very great that we have every confidence that we have the Word of God in our hands. If you take all the disputed passages, as the result of various renderings of the ancient manuscripts, it is as but a mere handful of grain compared to a whole field of wheat. It is as if you had a looking glass with a mere speck or two of the quicksilver defective. If you looked into such a glass, and saw your reflection, you would have no doubt as to what you saw, though the glass had sustained this trifling defect. So with the Word of God.
The very multiplicity of the copies of the Holy Scriptures found in such large numbers in many countries, and dating from different centuries, only proves overwhelmingly that the original Scriptures existed, and the exceedingly insignificant variations of the text only brings into brilliant relief the marvelous reliability of the Scriptures we hold in our hands.
The very fact that the copyists were uninspired in their work, and that God worked no miracle in their case, only proves more than ever the integrity of the Scriptures. If so much in the Word of God in these circumstances is undisputed, and the little that is does not affect anything fundamental or vital in the very least, it only confirms in overwhelming fashion our confidence that we hold the very Scriptures of God in our hand.
It is interesting and confirmatory of our own attitude in this matter that our Lord Himself used a translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Septuagint. This is known not to be too accurate a translation. Yet He quoted it as the Word of God, and appealed to it as final.
We too have to use translations. Our English translations are admirable and very accurate. Here and there other translations may throw fuller light upon this passage or that, and whilst we avail ourselves of these helps, we regard the Bible we hold in our hands as the Word of God, authoritative and final. For this we cannot suffi-ciently thank God.