THE BIBLE UNVEILED IV

Mangasarian lists six arguments in favor of the bible and critically discusses each one:

1. “The bible ought to be judged by its fruits,” is one of the most commended arguments in its favor.

It is claimed that civilization, with all its blessings, is the gift of the bible.

If this were true, it could not prove the bible inspired.

The inventors of steam, the mariner’s compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress, but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek literature, or Alexander’s wars, inspired?

But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.

There was a civilization in Rome and in Greece that were fairer without the bible.

If the bible is the sole civilizing force, how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?

2. The next “best” argument in favor of the bible is that it gives the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation.

But what is the information worth? Is its account of the creation of woman out of a rib, believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable? And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the question than the older or new theosophical books?

3. A third “best” argument is that the bible presents the highest morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man.

What are they? Did the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of one’s neighbor, love of one’s country, or nobody to practice charity, or justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus?

But it is not true that the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the bible.

According to its teaching, belief comes first; and all the morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not believe.

4. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. “I have the witness of the spirit in me,” argues the convert, “that the bible is the ‘Word of God.’” And he proceeds to relate how he was a downcast, or fallen in sin, and the bible made a new man of him.

We rejoice whenever the disconsolate find cheer or the fallen rise. Nor is our happiness diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow and whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the gratitude of man.

But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest of the world, is still to be saved.

If the bible only saves some, so does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the superiority of the “divine” to the human?

Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or, if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that these agencies were divine?

If the bible is not the only power that can help, then it is but one of many agencies; and, why should one of the many agencies which make for improvement be labeled “divine”?

Nor does the plea that: because “I feel it in my heart that the bible is divine,” make it so. If “I feel it in my heart” were enough to prove anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the Chinaman “feel it” in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours. This argument from feeling practically dispenses with knowledge, and leads to intellectual nihilism.

5. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being “a heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel,” allowance should be made for the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages.


God was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and therefore, the defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man.

But why should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel?

Was not Jesus divine as his father? Why could not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint?

But if reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily, and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with his own hand.

Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can spoil is not very heavenly.

If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then it is not any different from any other corruptible thing.

Unfortunately, the infallible book has to be protected against printers’ or revisers’ mistakes. Let us have a better bible—one that no earthen vessel can contaminate.

6. Finally, “Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let alone the errors?” is another of the “strong arguments” of the bible defenders. “There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare,” say they. “Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?”

But it all depends upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors, but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its parts are all right.