THERE are many vital matters touching the general theme of the Christian view of the Bible, which cannot be included in a short article of this kind. The process of inspiration, canonization, and transmission, are of fundamental importance, but cannot be covered here. The great field of the verification of the Bible in points attacked as to their historical or ethical accuracy will be omitted also. We shall assume for the present that the facts justify the assertion of the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. At the time of my ordination as a minister of the Gospel I was required to make affirmative answer to the following question, "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" Not only do I still so believe, but I consider it evident that an intelligent minister or layman conversant with the facts in the case, may continue to maintain this belief.  One of the clearest statements of the doctrine of the infallibility or inerrancy of the Bible is the deliverance of the Presbyterian General assembly of 1910, "It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our standards that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide, and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error." The truth of this statement I would be glad to discuss with any honest inquirer, but for the present we shall take it for granted. We shall confine the discussion to a very limited subject, namely the value of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible.

IS THE DOCTRINE RATIONAL?

IS IT rational to believe, some will subtly ask, "that God originally gave men an inerrant Bible, when errors have surely crept into its transmission, and the common English version, which we put into the hands of the layman, is not inerrant?" I have met several earnest servants of God, who have valiantly faced many other problems, but who have been greatly perplexed by this one.

This critical question develops itself into two stages of attack. First, we are told there are many inaccuracies in our common English translation from the original languages. Second, it is said that there arc numerous variant readings in the texts of the original languages of the Bible as they have been handed down to us, and it is impossible to determine in. some cases what the original text was.

ERRORS IN TRANSLATION

Now, although there are errors in the translation of every English version, yet these errors are greatly exaggerated in the usual statement of this objection. The Bible has usually been translated into any language by godly and scholarly men. The noblest company of the saints and martyrs are those, many of whom have given their lives, that the Word of God might be read by the common people in the language with which they were most familiar. Jerome, Luther, Bede, Tyndale and Wycliffe are among this company. Our common English versions clearly and accurately represent the meaning of the original Scriptures.

Of course, no doctrine of the Christian faith rests upon any mere phrase occurring only once in the English Bible. It is true that Christians sometimes err in this matter, but any Christian may take his' English Bible as the absolute Word of God in all things which are expressly stated and repeatedly verified. Take the truth expressed in John 3:16 for an example. Our understanding of it does not depend upon an oblique meaning of a word or phrase, but upon the direct unavoidable positive statement of the sentence. Moreover this same truth is repeatedly expressed in other words in other parts of the Bible. There is not the slightest possibility that any change in translation could alter the plain meaning of this text. The English versions are remarkably good translations. The ordinary Christian may feel confident that for all purposes of faith and practice, his English Bible is in. every essential the infallible Word of God.

VARIANT READINGS

With regard to the variant readings in the texts of the original languages as we have them, we would say that this difficulty also has been greatly exaggerated. There are, we know, thousands of variant readings which have arisen in the copying and re-copying of the Scriptures, but most of them can easily be corrected by a careful comparison of different manuscripts. Of most ancient pieces of literature we have very few manuscripts indeed, and thoSe generally of late date, but of the New Testament alone we have over three thousand manuscripts of real textual value, and some of these date back to the fourth century, possibly 325 A.D. Dr. Hort, after a lifetime of careful study of the New Testament, said that only one thousandth part of it is uncertain.

There are those who argue that because the vowel paints in the Hebrew text are not a part of the original documents, we cannot be sure of the meaning which the inspired writers intended to convey. To illustrate the point, English words are sometimes spelled without vowels, and the result is of course unintelligible. But *his argument is based upon ignorance. The English language cannot be used to illustrate the case. Semitic languages are built upon a consonantal system, the essential elements of the words being consonants. Where ambiguity was possible "vowel consonants" were used. A good Hebrew scholar can read the unpointed text without difficulty. Such texts are always used in synagogue services. Hebrew works on philosophy and theology have always been circulated and widely read without the use of the vowel points.

Textual study of the Greek New Testament and of the Hebrew Old Testament is a very important matter, but the Bible student who reads the original languages, may feel certain in most passages that he has almost absolutely the very words of the original documents.

THE HOLY SPIRIT'S MEANING IS INERRANT

But with regard to translations, and the text of the original languages, we are compelled to say that it is the original writings which are conceived as being incrrant in the absolute sense. To be very precise, we should say, it is the meaning which the writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, intended to convey, which is without error. - To say as some do that the words which the inspired writers used were inerrant, is to say exactly the same thing in a different way, but I prefer to use the former terms rather than the latter. Words cannot be said to be either true or false except as their meaning is true or false. The word "is" is neither true nor false, because by itself it affirms nothing, but the words "God is," are true, because their meaning is true. It would therefore seem much more accurate to emphasize the inerrancy of the meaning which was intended in every word used by the inspired writers. In either case we are compelled to look back to the original documents of the Bible for that which is absolutely inerrant.

THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER

It is at this point that the subtle question arises which we are now attempting to answer. It is not sufficient to point out, as we have above, that even our English Bible is "within a hair's breadth" of representing the original document, for it is an absolute authority for which we contend. On the basis of the slight errors in the transmission of the Bible from the inspired writers to ourselves in the modern world, many liberal-leaning conservatives would prefer to say that the Bible "contains" the Word of God, rather than that it "is" the Word of God. They would have us abandon the claim of an infallible rule of faith and practice.

In a word, our answer to the question is as follows: If we hold to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, we shall change our present Bible only where we have sufficient evidence that there has been an error in translation or transmission. Our enthusiastic search will be, by intensive and comparative study of the Bible itself, by careful study of the original languages, and by archaeological investigation of the historical setting, to find the true intended meaning of each passage, and in this meaning to find life. We will measure values by the infallible rule of a Bible which is the the Word of God.

If on the other hand we abandon the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, and cease to believe in the infallibility of the meaning of the original words, we begin to permit ourselves to decide according to our own prejudices or temptations of the moment, what parts of it are the Word of God, and what parts are not.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Perhaps the whole argument may best be set forth in an illustration. There is, I understand, in the bureau of weights and measures at Washington, a platinum bar which is the exact standard according to which all commercial measures are to be made. It is kept in a glass case at an even temperature, so that it may not be touched and worn away, and its length may not be permitted to vary because of changes in heat and cold. Accurate copies of this so-called absolute standard are used in ordinary business transactions. No one may use the absolute standard in measuring purchased goods, for it is not available. The copies of it are not absolutely accurate, as measured by a micrometer, but they are accurate enough for all practical purposes. The existence of this absolute standard has very little significance in the commercial world. We might imagine that this standard were lost, and the best copies of it in the country were found to vary from each other by a few millionth parts of an inch, so that there would be some discussion about the matter of restoring the absolute standard; but this would not make the slightest difference in the measuring of purchased goods. What is of crucial importance, however, is the doctrine of an absolute standard of measure. If merchants should deny the doctrine of the original standard to which all are required to conform, and feel that they were at liberty to adjust their measures according to their own ideas of what a measure should be, there would be the greatest confusion in the commercial world. As long as merchants hold to the doctrine of an absolute standard, accurate copies of this standard are all that is necessary. No one will change his measure except to make it conform more closely to the original.

OUR BELIEF AND POSITION SECURE

Similarly in the case of the Bible, when we believe in the inerrancy of the intended meaning of the original words, we will not change our English Bibles in the slightest degree except to make them conform more closely to what we know the original to have been. We are thankful to say that God is giving to us more and more light not only on the text and grammar of the Bible, but also through archaeology, on the meaning of the words in the historical setting in which they were used. We believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and' we refuse to put ourselves in a position where in accordance with our own subjectivity, in times of temptation or wrong prejudice, we may deny any part of it to be the Word of God.