The "Myths" of the Bible.

Part I.
NO book in the world has been attacked more incessantly and relentlessly than the Bible. In every age, there have arisen men who have exerted all their powers of genius and learning in order to prove, if possible, the fallacy and unreliability of the Book of Books. Every branch of scientific research has been utilised to shew that the Bible is obsolete, and quite unable to hold its own against these battering-rams of adverse criticism.
GOD'S CARE FOR HIS OWN WORD.
Now, we who hold that the Bible is what it claims to be, the Word of the Living God, need have no fear as to the ultimate result of these insidious attacks on the part of the enemy. God has taken care of His Word in the past, and in His hands, it will be just as safe in the future. The words in Psalm 119. 89, “For ever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven,'' have proved a source of comfort and strength to thousands of His saints throughout the centuries, and they are just as true to-day as when they were written. Yes, God's Word is settled IN HEAVEN, far above the changes of earth, and thank God, altogether beyond the reach of its enemies. Wave upon wave have dashed against this immoveable Rock, only to be hurled back by the force of their own impetus into the seething mass of so-called destructive criticism.
CIRCULATION AND TRANSLATION.
There are certain incontestable facts relating to the Bible which are exceedingly interesting. No book that has ever existed, or that does exist, can compare with it for circulation. It is no exaggeration to say that, in the aggregate, hundreds of millions of copies have been printed and circulated in various parts of the world.
Just as the Bible has out-distanced all its competitors in its circulation, so it has left them all behind in the matter of translation. The nearest approach to it is Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. This has been translated into about 120 languages, but the Bible (entirely or in part) has been translated into about 800 languages and dialects. Nor does the onward march of the Scriptures cease. Every year adds considerably to its remarkable record! Strange that this book, so out of date, so unreliable, so full of myths, legends, and fairy tales, should possess so wonderful a record!
Another important fact to remember is that wherever the Bible has been received and believed, it has transformed wicked lives, beautified wretched homes, and brought life, joy, peace, consolation, assurance, and every other blessing it is possible for God to give, and for man to enjoy.
THE DIVINE RECORD OF CREATION.
Now let us examine a few of the interesting theories which the modernists (including certain present day theologians) have made public, and endeavour to see where these gentlemen would lead us if we were so foolish as to accept their verdicts.
We are told that Genesis contains no account of the real beginnings either of the earth itself, or of man and human civilisation upon it.
So far as the earth itself is concerned, this may be true, as it is generally conceded that there is an indefinite period implied between the two opening verses of the Bible. When God originally created the heaven and the earth, He created them perfectly, but it would appear that away in the remote past, a series of catastrophic convulsions occurred which accounts for the description of the earth in verse 2. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
But when we are invited to believe that mankind existed prior to the creation of Adam and Eve, we very politely refuse the invitation! All the interesting discoveries of ancient bones, skulls, and teeth will not induce us to yield one square inch of ground on this subject. When the Lord Jesus said, "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" (Mark 10. 6), He was confirming the words in Genesis 1. 27, which are as follows: "So God created man in His own image, male and female created He them." Therefore, to say that mankind existed before this, is to charge the Lord Jesus Christ with making a statement which was deliberately untrue. Again, when the great Apostle of the Gentiles wrote, "Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11. 9), he was unquestionably referring to the historical record of Genesis 2. 22. Also, when that same Apostle said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh" (Eph. 5. 31), he was quoting practically the identical words recorded in Genesis 2. 24.
AN ABSURD THEORY.
If we follow the modernistic tendency and cast doubt on the Biblical record of the creation of man, we must necessarily cast the same degree of doubt upon the words of the Lord Jesus, as well as the writings of the Apostle Paul. After weighing the matter carefully, we prefer to trust the testimony of the Word of God rather than the speculative theories of scientific experts. As to the theory that we sprang from the monkey, that is so positively absurd that we need not waste our valuable time discussing it. The very suggestion leaves a nasty taste in one's mouth. When we read so distinctly that "God created man in His own image" it is nothing less than blasphemy to say that we emanated from the jungle.
THE FLOOD.
We now come to the deluge. The verdict of the modernists on this subject is worded thus: "That this story of a universal deluge covering the whole earth so as to submerge the highest mountains cannot be historical, hardly needs demonstration . . . the ultimate origin of the legend is probably to be found in some disastrous flood in Babylon."
Notice that the historical account of the flood is designated a legend—something altogether unreliable and unworthy of credence. But before we speak of this subject more particularly, we might well remind ourselves of the exact words of Scripture:—
" . . . the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows (or "flood-gates") of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered" (Genesis 7. 11, 12, & 19).
In the first place, let us observe that the language employed is not consistent with the theory of a partial deluge. Now, are we to accept this as a true record or not? The modernist says NO! The believer says YES! If we cannot accept this graphic description given in Genesis, then we cannot accept the definite statement of the Saviour in Matt. 24. 39, where He says that "the flood came and took them all away." We must likewise reject the passage in 1 Peter 3. 20 which states, "Wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water,” clearly implying that the rest of humanity, perished. We must also reject the words in Peter's second letter, chapter 3, verse 6, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." Surely, we are not expected to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was referring to a legend! Surely, we are not asked to come to the conclusion that the Apostle Peter was writing under the spell of a fascinating delusion! And yet this is just where these modernistic gentlemen would land us if we were to follow their vain imaginations.
If the flood did not cover the highest hills, how can the fact be explained that shells and skeletons of fish have been found on the summits of high mountains? If the flood was not universal, how comes it to pass that skeletons of animals which belong to certain countries have been discovered in other lands, such as the moose deer of America, found buried in Ireland; Asiatic elephants found in the heart of England; crocodiles, natives of the Nile, found buried in Germany, etc. After all, how much more satisfactory and safer it is to "believe God"!
NOAH'S ARK.
Vitally connected with the deluge is Noah's Ark, which is regarded by the critics as being altogether unworthy of belief. Here are their exact words:—"To collect pairs of animals from all quarters of the globe into one place would be a manifest impossibility, even could an ark have been built capable of containing them."
Why are these Old Testament incidents so ruthlessly attacked by the higher critics and modernists? Simply because in many instances, these men will not accept the miraculous element in them. Let the principle be acknowledged that "with God all things are possible,'' and the acceptance of these happenings in the Scriptures which were humanly impossible becomes quite an easy matter. The task of collecting representative animals from various parts of the world into one place was obviously impossible, if we leave God out of our reckoning. On the other hand, when we bring HIM into account, immediately the impossibility becomes possible.
IMPORTANT FACTS.
Seeing that the flood would prove so disastrous as to destroy all flesh, it was imperative that representative pairs of animals should be preserved for the subsequent multiplication of their various kinds. Moreover, it is well to notice that the Bible only mentions beasts, cattle, creeping things, and fowls—not a word concerning the tenants of the deep or insects, which certain thoughtless and ignorant people vainly imagine were included. Another important fact to remember is that only distinct species were taken into the ark, and not innumerable varieties, in which event the number would not be so large as at first sight one is apt to imagine. As to the size of the ark, it was 547 feet long, 91 feet broad, and 54 feet high; and it is computed to have been 81,062 tons [weight]—sufficient to contain all the persons and animals in it, and food for more than one year. Modern ships carry hundreds of live beasts, with their food, besides scores of human beings. 
Part II.
It is extraordinary how many items in the Old Testament are, either directly or indirectly, attacked by the Modernists of the present day. Consider, for instance, the following statement relative to the Tower of Babel, and the Confusion of Tongues: "We know that differences of language are the result, not the cause, of the diversity of races."
Whatever amount of truth there may be in the above declaration, it tends to cast doubt on the Bible record of what took place at the building of the Tower of Babel. It is quite easy to understand that, as various races of mankind have separated themselves from the rest of their fellows, they have automatically instituted their own peculiar phraseology, but this does not by any means prove that the incident mentioned in Genesis 11 is Inaccurate. The inspired record is not only true, but also full of interest and instruction. When we read in verse 1, "And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech," we accept that statement as final.
When the people of that day decided to build a tower, whose top should reach unto heaven, their object was two-fold: (1) that they might make themselves a name, and (2) that they might be united in the exercise of their self-will. In other words, it was an open defiance of God, and a desire to live independently of Him (see verse 6).
In order to prevent all this, the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of the earth, and confounded their language, thus teaching the important lesson that the creature was, after all, dependent upon his Creator, seeing that in Him he lived, and moved, and had his being.
Why should a divine interposition such as this be regarded as incredible? Surely God is Sovereign and has a right to exercise His own will without asking permission from the creatures of His own creation!
PENTECOST.
The contrast to Genesis 11 is Acts 2, where God's servants at Pentecost "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." This was NOT that the apostles might make themselves a name, BUT THAT THEY MIGHT GLORIFY CHRIST—NOT that they might be united in the exercise of their self-will, BUT THAT THEY MIGHT ATTRACT SINNERS TO THE SAVIOUR.
We might also remind ourselves that there will be only ONE language in heaven—not an indefinite number—and there "with the glorified, safe by the Saviour's side" we shall sing His praises in perfect heavenly harmony.
METHUSELAH.
We now come to a most amazing statement by these learned modernistic theologians. Concerning the age of Methuselah, they say: "Longevity such as is here described is physiologically incompatible with the structure of the human body."
This implies that Methuselah could not have lived 969 years, simply because the human frame (so we are informed) could not have endured for so long a period. Now, if it was impossible for Methuselah to live so long, AWAY GOES THE FIFTH CHAPTER OF GENESIS, for the simple reason that there we have the record of no less than six people who 'lived more than 900 years, and one other who lived just five years short of that number.
Peter tells us that the reason why certain scoffers in these last days say, "Where is the promise of His coming?" is because there are certain things of which they are willingly ignorant. Similarly, the reason why the tremendous age of Methuselah is doubted is because these modernistic gentlemen are willingly ignorant of the fact that SIN has interrupted the longevity of the human race. We, who hold tenaciously to the great statements of Scripture, find no difficulty in believing that before the Flood, and shortly afterwards, men lived well-nigh to the age of a millennium, and the fact that the average life of people living in the British Isles to-day is so appallingly short, is an unmistakable evidence of the devastating effects of sin on the human frame. Thank God, longevity will be restored during the thousand years when the Lord will reign over this poor distracted earth. During that wonderful period, we who belong to Christ will reign with Him, after which we shall have the pleasure of being in His company throughout eternal ages—and that will be longevity indeed!
MELCHIZEDEK.
The Modernists refuse to believe that Melchizedek was the priest of the true God. They say "it cannot be supposed" that he held such an office. Now, in Genesis 14. 18, this mysterious person is definitely mentioned as "the priest of the Most High God," and this title is confirmed in Heb. 7. 1. Therefore, if I reject the clear statement in Genesis, I must also question the reliability of the Epistle to the Hebrews. As a matter of fact, we are asked to believe that Melchizedek was merely a priest of the highest of the Canaanite deities. If this be so, it is exceedingly difficult to imagine how he could have been so perfect a type of the holy, harmless, spotless Son of God. This is only another illustration of how the Bible is mutilated by unenlightened professors of theology.
Part III.
Two of the outstanding miracles in the Old Testament are (1) The crossing of the Jordan by the children of Israel, and (2) The fall of Jericho. Regarding (1), we are informed by the critics that when the waters "failed and were cut off," this may well have been due to natural causes . . . probably by a landslip, and their interpretation of (2) is just as interesting. The actual words they use are as follows:—
''There is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural occurred. 'The wall fell down flat' is merely literary hyperbole."
Here again we see the natural mind at work endeavouring to explain these events by the process of reason, the result being far more satisfactory to the modernists than it is to us.
Now let us see what the Bible says concerning the crossing of the Jordan. Notice the parenthesis in Joshua 3. 15, "For Jordan overflowed! all his banks at the time of harvest," and remember that it was at the time of harvest when the people passed over. Jordan has two banks; the inner bank is that of the river in its natural state; the outer bank is that of the river when it overflows, about a furlong [185 meters] distant. As soon as the feet of the priests who bare the ark, touched the water, the waters which came down from above (i.e., from the Sea of Galilee) "stood and rose up upon a heap," and those that came down towards the Dead Sea "failed and were cut off." There is no suggestion of a landslip here. In fact, the description suggests exactly the opposite, especially when we bear in mind that the river, after passing the Sea of Galilee, becomes a veritable torrent as it plunges through twenty-seven terrible rapids and cascades; and when swollen in time of harvest, its current is greatly accelerated. It must be obvious to us all, that God chose this particular time of the year for the performing of this miracle in order that the Israelites might have an incontrovertible manifestation of His Omnipotence. The suggestion of a landslip is surely a penslip on the part of these critical theologians.
It is interesting to note that the passage through the Red Sea took place in the night, whilst the passage through the Jordan was accomplished in the day-time. Both were stupendous miracles, and both are full of instruction for such as are sufficiently humble to receive it.
THE FALL OF JERICHO.
When we are asked to believe that there is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural occurred in the fall of Jericho, our reply is that there is every reason to suppose that the supernatural element predominated. For what saith the Scripture? "By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days" (Heb. 11. 30). Not by weapons of warfare; not by muscular strength; not by human inventions; But BY FAITH.
The actual taking of Jericho is mentioned in Joshua 6. Let us carefully observe what instruments
were used. Seven trumpets of rams' horns. Could anything be more foolish from the view- point of human wisdom? Then the people were ordered to march round the city thirteen times—once every day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day. These marchings were made by the people in deep silence in conformity with the instructions given by Joshua, “ . . . neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout." If all this be true (and it is true), then the fall of Jericho must have been accomplished by supernatural power. Here we have an outstanding illustration of the Apostle's words in 1 Cor. 1. 27: "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.''
Let us now see what happened to the wall of the city. After Jericho had been compassed the specified number of times, the people on the seventh day SHOUTED WITH A GREAT SHOUT when they heard the sound of the trumpet. Then "the wall fell down flat (or under itself)," and the city was taken. This does not necessarily imply that the walls sunk into the earth, but rather that they fell down from their foundation.
We are told, if you please, that this definite statement "the wall fell down flat" is merely literary hyperbole, by which is meant an "overshooting," or the use of terms which are highly exaggerated. If this be so, then we can neither trust the record in Joshua nor its confirmation in the Hebrews epistle. Surely it is better, safer, and more satisfactory in every way to adhere to the Scriptures.
A three-fold cord is not easily broken, and in the taking of Jericho, we may learn at least three lessons:—
(1) Simple trust in God.
(2) Implicit obedience to His Word.
(3) Complete victory over our enemies.
JONAH AND THE WHALE.
This incident is regarded by the Modernists as being altogether a fairy tale. They say, "Of course, there is no atom of history in all this."
Poor Jonah! He, indeed, had his failings, but he in no wise deserves all the scathing criticism which has been heaped upon him since the publication of his biography in the sacred writings. I doubt whether any part of Scripture has been handled more severely than the book of Jonah.
It is so easy to say that there is "no atom of history in all this," but can these theological scholars PROVE to us that the miracle did NOT take place? If they can, let them bring forward their evidence. If they cannot, then we have as much ground for affirming that the event did actually happen as they have for affirming that it did not.
It was undoubtedly one of the greatest monsters of the deep that swallowed Jonah. The words used in Jonah 1. 17 clearly indicate this: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah." The Lord Jesus in His confirmation of this incident in Matt. 12. 40 says that Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly. The word "whale" is literacy “a huge fish." This does not mean that God created a special fish for the accomplishment of His purpose, but rather that this huge fish was one of His own choosing.
And let us remember that the miracle was NOT so much that Jonah was swallowed by this sea monster, but that he was preserved inside the fish for three days and three nights.
Now, if I cannot accept the account of this miracle as given in the Old Testament, I must necessarily reject the clear and emphatic statement of the Lord Jesus in the gospels. It is also interesting to observe that Jonah was a "sign," and the only sign, given to that evil and unbelieving generation of the Scribes and Pharisees, and what is still more interesting is the fact that the sign was that of the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, it appears evident from our Lord's words that the Jonah incident was UNQUESTIONED by the people in those days. The reason why the miracle is rejected in these days is simply because there exists a greater monster than that with which Jonah had to contend—and that greater monster is UNBELIEF.
RAISING OF JAIRUS' DAUGHTER.
We will refer to one further miracle which is recorded, not in the Old Testament, but in the New. The raising of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue was one of the three occasions when our Lord brought life to those who were dead. But the Modernists refuse to believe that this maiden was dead. Listen to what they have to say concerning the matter:—
"We should naturally conclude that what was taken by those who sent the message to be death, our Lord knew not to be death but coma."
The above affirmation is somewhat startling. It is quite true that the Master said, "She is not dead, but sleepeth," but He used the same simile regarding Lazarus in John 11. 11: "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." The disciples misunderstood His words and thought that Lazarus was merely taking rest in natural sleep, but the Master said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead." The same was true concerning Jairus' daughter. She was "sleeping," but He who was, and is, the Resurrection and the Life, was making His way to the house that He might awaken her out of sleep.
There are two statements recorded by the Evangelists which ought to suffice us on this point; (1) the statement of the messengers who came direct from the house to the ruler of the synagogue when they said, "Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master further?" (Mark 5. 35), and (2) the statement recorded by Luke immediately after the command was given for the maid to arise: "And her spirit came again, and she arose straightway" (Luke 8. 55).
As a final word, let me seriously and lovingly warn my fellow believers young and old, against the danger of tampering with the Word of the living God. One step leads to another, and if the enemy can only get in the "thin edge of the wedge" there is no telling what the result may be. Unbelief in the Scriptures leads to spiritual shipwreck. Better by far be a simple-minded believer in the Bible, knowing little about the various sciences of the world, than be the cleverest scientist living and doubt the reliability and authenticity of the Book of books.
The greatest truths which God has made known in His Word are hid from the naturally wise and prudent and have been revealed unto babes. Let us therefore, take our place as humble and willing scholars in the "school of grace," so that we may be in a suitable condition for the Holy Spirit to unfold to us in an ever increasing measure those things which belong to Christ, and which have been placed at our disposal in THE BOOK. 
“Threshed Wheat” 1929