Practical Guidance That Promotes Good Mental Health

A person's physical health is often affected by the state of his mental and emotional health. For instance, scientific studies have established the harmful effects of anger. "Most of the available evidence suggests that hostile people are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease (as well as other illnesses) for a variety of reasons, including reduced social support, increased indulgence in risky health behaviors," say Dr. Redford Williams, Director of Behavioral Research at Duke University Medical Center, and his wife, Virginia Williams, in their book Anger Kills.

Thousands of years before such scientific studies, the Bible, in simple but clear terms, made a connection between our emotional state and our physical health: "A calm heart is the life of the fleshly organism, but jealousy is rottenness to the bones." (Proverbs 14:30; 17:22) Wisely, the Bible counseled: "Let anger alone and leave rage," and "Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended [or "angry," King James Version]." -Psalm 37:8; Ecclesiastes 7:9

The Bible also contains sensible advice for managing anger. For example, Proverbs 19:11 says: "The insight of a man certainly slows down his anger, and it is beauty on his part to pass over transgression." The Hebrew word for "insight" is derived from a verb that draws attention to a "knowledge of the reason" for something. The wise advice is: "Think before you act." Endeavoring to grasp the underlying reasons why others talk or act in a certain way can help a person to be more tolerant-and less prone to anger. -Proverbs 14:29

Another piece of practical advice is found at Colossians 3:13, which says: "Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely." Minor irritations are a part of life. The expression "continue putting up with" suggests tolerating the things we dislike in others. "Forgive" means to let go of resentment. At times it is wise to let go of bitter feelings instead of nursing them; harboring the anger will only add to our burden. -

Today, there are many sources of counsel and guidance. But the Bible is truly unique. Its counsel is not more theory, nor does it advice ever work to our harm. Instead, its wisdom has proved "very trustworthy." (Psalm 93:5) Furthermore, the Bible's counsel is timeless. Although it was completed nearly 2,000 years ago, its words are still applicable. And they apply with equal effect regardless of the color of our skin or the country in which we live. The Bible's words also have power-the power to change the people for the better. (Hebrews 4:12) Reading that book and applying its principles can thus enhance the quality of your life.

Next time: A Book Of Prophecy

A Book For All People, 1997

Overcoming The Barriers That Divide People

People today are divided by racial, national and ethnic barriers. Such artificial walls have contributed to the slaughter of innocent humans in wars the world over. if history is any indication, the prospect of men and women of different races and nations viewing and treating one another as equals is indeed bleak. "The solution," says an Africa statesman, "is in our hearts." But changing human hearts is not easy. Consider, though, how the Bible's message appeals to the heart and fosters attitudes of equality.

The Bible's teaching that God "made out of one man every nation of men" precludes any idea of racial superiority. (Acts 17:26) It show that there is really only one race-the human race. The Bible further encourages us to "become imitators of God," of whom it says: "[He] is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." (Ephesians 5:1; Acts 10:34, 35) To those who take the Bible seriously and who truly seek to live by its teachings, this knowledge had a unifying effect. It works on the deepest level, in the human heart, dissolving the man-made barriers that divide people. Consider an example.

When Hitler waged war throughout Europe, there was one group of Christians-Jehovah's Witnesses-who steadfastly refused to join in the slaughter of innocent humans. they would "not lift up sword" against their fellowman. They took this stand because of their desire to please God. (Isaiah 2:3, 4; Micah 4:3, 5) They truly believed what the Bible teaches-that no nation or race is better than the another. (Galatians 3:28) Because of their peace-loving stand, Jehovah's Witnesses were among the first inmates in the concentration camps. -Romans 12:18.

But not all who claim to follow the Bible took such a stand. Shortly after World War II, Martin Niemoller, a German Protestant clergyman, wrote: "Whoever want blame God for [wars] does not know, or does not want to know, God's Word. . . . Christian churches have, throughout the ages, repeatedly given themselves to blessing wars, troops and weapons and . . .prayed in a very unchristian way for the destruction of their enemies at war. All this is our fault and the fault of our fathers, but by no means is God to blame. And we Christians of today stand ashamed before a so-called sect like the Earnest Bible Students [Jehovah's Witnesses], who by hundreds and thousands went into concentration camps and [even]died because they declined service in war and refused to fire on humans."

To this day, Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known for their brotherhood, which unites Arabs and Jews, Croatians and Serbs, Hutu and Tutsi. However, the Witnesses readily acknowledge that such unity is possible, not because they are better than others, but because they are motivated by the power of the Bible's message. -1 Thessalonians 2:13.

Next time: Practical Guidance That Promotes Good Mental Health

A Book For All People, 1997

Overcoming The Barriers That Divide People

Practical Guidance For Parents

Several decades ago many parents -spurred on by "innovative ideas" on child training-though it was "forbidden to forbid." Setting limits for children, they feared, would cause trauma and frustration. Well-meaning counselors on child rearing were insisting that parents refrain from anything more than the mildest correction of their children. But many such experts are now reconsidering the role of discipline, and concerned parents are searching for some clarity on the subject.

All along, however, the Bible has offered clear, reasonable counsel on child rearing. Nearly 2,000 years ago, it said: "Fathers, do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the disciple and mental-regulating of Jehovah." (Ephesians 6:4) The Greek noun translated "discipline" means upbringing, training, instruction." The Bible says that such discipline, or instruction, is evidence of parental love. (Proverbs 13:24) Children thrive with clear-cut moral guidelines and a developed sense of right and wrong. Discipline tells them that their parents care about them and about the kind of person they are becoming.

But parental authority-"the rod of discipline" -should never be abusive. (Proverbs 22:15; 19:15) The Bible cautions parents: "Don't over-correct your children, or you will take all the heart out of them." (Colossians 3:21, Phillips) It also acknowledges that physical punishment is usually not the most effective teaching method. Proverbs 17:10 says: "A rebuke works deeper in one having understanding than striking a stupid one a hundred times." Besides, the Bible recommends preventive discipline. At Deuteronomy 11:19 parents are urged to take advantage of casual moments to instill moral values in their children. -See also Deuteronomy 6:6, 7..

The Bible's timeless advice to parents is clear. Children need consistent and loving discipline. Practical experience shows that such counsel really works.

Next time: Overcoming The Barriers That Divide People

A Book For All People, 1997

Conclusion of Practical Guidance For Marriage

Is such advice practical in this modern world? It is interesting that those who make a career of studying families today have come to similar conclusions. An administration of a family counseling program noted: "The healthiest families I know are the ones in which the mother and father have a strong relationship between themselves. . . This strong primary relationship seems to breed security in the children.

Over the years, the Bible's counsel on marriage has proved far more reliable than the advice of countless well-intentioned family counselors. After all, it was not too long ago that many experts were advocating divorce as a quick and easy solution to an unpleasant marriage. Today, many of them urge people to make their marriage last if at all possible. But this change has come only after much damage was done.

In contrast, the Bible gives reliable balanced counsel on the subject of marriage. It acknowledges that some extreme circumstances make divorce permissible. (Matthew 19:9) At the same time, it condemns frivolous divorce. (Malachi 2:14-16) It also condemns marital infidelity. (Hebrews 16:4) Marriage, it says, involves commitment: "That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh." -Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5, 6.

The Bible's advice on marriage is as relevant as it was when the Bible was written. When husband and wife treat each other with love and respect, and view marriage as an exclusive relationship, the marriage is more likely to survive-and with it the family.

Next time: Practical Guidance For Parents

A Book For All People, 1997

Practical Guidance For Marriage

The family, says the UN Chronicle, "is the oldest and most basic unit of human organization; the most crucial link between generations." This "crucial link," however, is coming apart at an alarming rate. "In today's world," notes the Chronicle, "many families face daunting challenges that threaten their ability to function and, indeed, to survive." What advice does the Bible offer to help the family unit survive?

To begin with, the Bible has much to say about how husbands and wives should treat each other. Concerning husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it." (Ephesians 5:28, 29) A wife was advised to "have deep respect for her husband." -Ephesians 5:33.

Consider the implications of applying such Bible counsel. A husband who loves his wife 'as his own body' is not hateful or brutal toward her. He does not strike her physically, nor does he abuse her verbally or emotionally. Instead, he accords her the same esteem and consideration he shows himself. (1 Peter 3:7) His wife thus feels loved and secure in her marriage. He thereby provides his children with a good example of how women should be treated. On the other hand, a wife who has "deep respect" for her husband does not strip him of his dignity by constantly criticizing him or belittling him. Because she respects him, he feels trusted, accepted and appreciated.

Next time:Conclusion of the above subject

A Book For All People, 1997

A Practical Book For Modern Living

Some say no. "Nobody would advocate the use of a 1924 edition chemistry text[book] for use in modern chemistry class," wrote Dr. Eli S. Chesen , explaining why he felt that the Bible is outdated. Seemingly, this argument makes sense. After all, man has learned much about mental health and human behavior since the Bible was written. So how could such an ancient book possibly be revelant for modern living?

Timeless Principles

While it is true that times have changed basic human needs have remained the same. People throughout history have had a need for love and affection. They have wanted to be happy and to lead meaningful lives. They have needed advice on how to cope with economic pressures, how to make a success of marriage, and how to instill good moral and ethical values in their children. The Bible contains advice that addresses those basic needs. - Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13; Romans 12:10; Colossians 3:18-21; 1 Timothy 6:6-10.

The Bible's counsel reflects a keen awareness of human nature. consider some examples of its specific, timeless principles that are practical for modern living.

Next time: Practical Guidance For Marriage

A Book For All People, 1997

Accepting The Unprovable

A statement that is unprovable is not necessarily untrue. Scientific proof is limited by man's ability to discover sufficient evidence and to interpret data correctly. But some truths are unprovable because no evidence has been preserved, The evidence is obscure or undiscovered, or scientific capabilities and expertise are insufficient to arrive at an uncontested conclusion. Might this be a case with certain Biblical statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking?

For example, the Bible's references to an invisible realm inhabited by spirit persons cannot be proved-or disproved- scientifically. The same can be said of miraculous events mentioned in the Bible. Not enough clear geologic evidence for the global Flood of Noah's day is available to satisfy some people. (Genesis, chapter 7) Must we conclude that it did not happen? Historical events can be obscured by time and change. So is it not possible that thousands of years of geologic activity has effaced much of the evidence for the Flood?

Granted, the Bible contains statements that cannot be proved or disproved by available physical evidence. But should that surprise us? The Bible is not a science textbook. It is, however, a book of truth. We have already considered strong evidence that its writers were men of integrity and honesty. And when they touch on matters related to science, their words are accurate and completely free from ancient "scientific" theories that turned out to be mere myths. Science is thus no enemy of the Bible. There is every reason to weigh what the Bible says with an open mind.

Next time:A Practical Book For Modern Living

A Book For All People, 1997

Continue With The Bible And Medical Science-Do They Agree?

No. On the contrary, the Mosaic Law included sanitary regulations that were far ahead of their time. For example, a law regarding military encampments required burying excrement away from the camp. (Deuteronomy 23:13) This was a profoundly advanced preventive measure. It help keep water free from contamination and provided protection from fly-borne shigellosis and other diarrheal illnesses that still claim millions of lives each year in lands where sanitary conditions are deplorable.

The Mosaic Law contained other sanitary regulations that safeguarded Israel against the spread of infectious diseases. A person who had or was suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined. (Leviticus 13:1-5) Garments or vessels that came in contact with an animal that had died of itself (perhaps from disease) were to be either washed before reuse or destroyed. ( Leviticus 11:27, 28, 32, 33) Any person who touched a corpse was considered unclean and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included washing his garments and bathing. During the seven day period of uncleanness, he was to avoid physical contact with others. -Numbers 19:1-13.

This sanitary code reveals wisdom not shared by the physicians of surrounding nations at the time. Thousands of years before medical science learned about the ways in which disease spreads, the Bible prescribed reasonable preventive measures as safeguards against disease. Not surprisingly, Moses could speak of Israelites in general in his day as living to 70 or 80 years of age. -Psalm 90:10.

You may acknowledge that the foregoing Biblical statements are scientifically accurate. But there are other statements in the Bible that cannot be proved scientifically. Does that necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?

Next time: Accepting the Unprovable

A Book For All People, 1997

Continue With The Bible And Medical Science-Do They Agree?

The BIble And Medical Science-Do They Agree?

Modern medical science has taught us much about the spread and prevention of disease. Medical advances in the 19th century led to the introduction of medical practice of antisepsis-cleanliness to reduce infections. The result was dramatic. There was a significant reduction in infections and premature deaths.

Ancient physicians, however, did not fully understand how disease spreads, nor did they realize the importance of sanitation in preventing sickness. Little wonder that many of their medical practices would seem barbaric by modern standards.

One of the oldest medical texts available is the Ebers Papyrus, a compilation of Egyptian medical knowledge, dating from about 1550 B.C.E. This scroll contains some 700 remedies for various afflictions "ranging from crocodile bite to toenail pain." States The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "The medical knowledge of these physicians was purely empirical, largely magical and wholly unscientific." Most of the remedies were merely ineffective, but some of them were extremely dangerous. For the treatment of a wound, one of the prescriptions recommended applying a mixture made of human excrement combined with other substances.

The text of Egyptians medical remedies was written at about the same time as the first books of the Bible, which included the Mosaic Law. Moses, who was born in 1593 B.C.E, grew up in Egypt. (Exodus 2:1-10) As a member of Pharaoh's household, he was "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." (Acts 7:22) He was familiar with "the physicians" of Egypt. (Genesis 50:1-3) Did their ineffective or dangerous medical practices influence his writings?

Next time: Continue with the above subject

A Book For All People, 1997

What Holds Up The Earth?

In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon and the stars? They had no knowledge of the law of universal gravitation, formulated by Isaac Newton and published in 1687. The idea that heavenly bodies are, in effect, suspended in empty space upon nothing was unknown to them. Thus, their explanations often suggested that tangible objects or substances held the earth and other heavenly bodies aloft.

For example, one ancient theory, perhaps originated by people who lived on an island, was that the earth was surrounded by water and that it floated in these waters. The Hindus conceived that the earth had several foundations, on on top of the other. It rested on four elephants, the elephants stood on an enormous tortoise, the tortoise stood on an immense serpent, and the coiled serpent floated on universal waters. Empedocles, a Greek philosopher of the fifth century B.C.E., believed that the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies.

Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water,he said: "It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to "rest upon"? So, what does the earth "rest upon"? Aristotle taught that the sun,the moon and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth-immobile-at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them-the sun,the moon and the planets-moved across the sky.

Aristotle's explanation seemed logical. If the heavenly bodies were not firmly attached to something, how else could they stay aloft? The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years. According to The New Encyclopedia Britannica, in the 16th and 17th centuries his teachings "ascended to the status of religious dogma" in the eyes of the church.

With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle's theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force-gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton's colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance.

What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for nothing" (beli-mah') used here literally means "without anything." The Contemporary English Version uses the expression, "on empty space."

A planet hanging "on empty space" was not all how most people in those days pictured the earth. Yet, far ahead of his time, the Bible writer recorded a statement that is scientifically sound.

Next time: The Bible And Medical Science -Do They Agree?

A Book For All People, 1997

Continue with What Is The Shape Of The Earth?

As early as the sixth century B.C.E., Greek Philosopher Pythagoras theorized that since the moon and the sun are spherical,the earth must also be sphere. Aristotle (fourth century B.C.E.) later agreed, explaining that the sphericity of the earth is proved by lunar eclipses. The earth's shadow on the moon is curved. However, the notion of a flat earth (with only its upper side inhabited) did not disappear completely. Some could not accept the logical implication of a round earth-the concept of antipodes. Lactantius, Christian apologist of the fourth century C.E., ridiculed the very idea. He reasoned: "Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? . . .that the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow and hail fall upwards?"

The concept of antipodes posed a dilemma for a few theologians. Certain theories held that if there were antipodeans, they could have no possible connection with known humans either because the sea was too wide to navigate or because an impassable torrid zone surrounded the equator. SO where could any antipodeans have come from? Perplexed, some theologians preferred to believe that there could be no antipodeans, or even, as Lactantius argued, that the earth could not be a sphere in the first place!

Nonetheless, the concept of a spherical earth prevailed, and eventually it was widely accepted. Only with the dawn of the space age in the 20th century, however, has it been possible for humans to travel far enough into space to verify by direct observation that the earth is a globe.

And where did the Bible stand on this issue? In the eighth century B.C.E., when the prevailing view was that the earth was flat, centuries before Greek philosophers theorized that the earth likely was spherical, and thousand of years before humans saw the earth as a globe from space,the Hebrew prophet Isaiah stated with remarkable simplicity: "There is the One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh, here translated "circle," may also be rendered "sphere." Other Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and the "round earth." -Moffatt.

The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.

Next time: What Holds Up The Earth?

A Book For All People, 1997

Does This Book Agree With Science?

If the Bible writers had endorsed the most widely held scientific view of their day, the result would be a book of glazing scientific inaccuracies. Yet, the writers did not promote such unscientific misconceptions. On the contrary, they penned a number of statements that not only are scientifically sound but also directly contradicted the accepted opinions of the day.

What Is The Shape Of The Earth?

That question has intrigued humans for thousands of years. The general view in ancient times was that the earth was flat. The Babylonians, for example, believed that the universe was a box or a chamber with the earth as its floor. Vedic priests of India imagined that the earth was flat and that only one side of it was inhabited. A primitive tribe in Asia pictured the earth as a huge tea tray.

Next time: Continue with the above subject

A Book For All People, 1997

Accurate In Details

At times, detailed explanations are omitted from one account but are provided elsewhere by statements made in passing. For instance, Matthew's account of the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin says that some people present "slapped him in the face saying: 'Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?' " (Matthew 26:67, 68) Why would they ask Jesus to "prophesy" who had struck him, when the striker was standing there in front of him? Matthew does not explain. But two of the other Gospel writers supply the missing detail: "Jesus' persecutors covered his face before he was slapped. (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64) Matthew presents his material without concern as to whether every last detail was supplied.

The Gospel of John tells of an occasion when a large crowd gathered to hear Jesus teach. According to the record, when Jesus observed the crowd, "he said to Philip: 'Where shall we buy loaves for these to eat?' " (John 6:5) Of all the disciples present, why did Jesus ask Philip where they could buy some bread? The writer does not say. In the parallel account, though, Luke reports that the incident took place near Bethsaida, a city on the north shores of the Sea of Galilee, and earlier in John's Gospel it says that "Philip was from Bethsaida." (John 1:44; Luke 9:10) So Jesus logically asked a person whose hometown was nearby. The agreement between the details is remarkable, yet clearly unwitting.

In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel ( for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel in Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?

So can the Bible be trusted? Archaeologists have dug up enough artifacts to confirm that the Bible refers to real people, real places, and real events. Even more compelling, however, is the evidence found within the Bible itself. Candid writers spared no one-not even themselves-in recording the hard facts. The internal consistency of the writings, including the coincidences without design, gives the "testimony" the clear ring of the truth. With such "sure marks of authenticity," the Bible is, indeed a book you can trust.

Next time: Does This Book Agree With Science?

A Book For All People, 1997

Accurate In Details

In court trials the credibility of a witness' testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account-one in which every last detail is neatly arranged -may also betray a false testimony.

How does the "testimony" of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute detail in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally, Consider some examples.

The Bible writer Matthew wrote: "And Jesus, on coming into Peter's house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever." (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: "Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and. . .Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5, , the New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact -Peter's being married-is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew's account but is conveyed incidentally.

All four of the Gospel writers-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-record that on the night of Jesus' arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man's ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: "The name of the slave was Malchus." (John 18:10, 26) Why does John alone give the man's name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: " John "was known to the high priest's household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then that John mention the injured man's name whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.

Next time: Continue with the above subject

A Book For All People, 1997

Presented With Candor

Honest historians would record not just victories (like the inscription regarding Sennacherib's capture of Lachish) but also defeats, not just successes but also failures, not just strengths, but also weaknesses. Few secular histories reflect such honest.

Regarding Assyrian historians, Daniel D. Luckenbill explains: "Often it is clear that royal vanity demanded playing fast and loose with historical accuracy." Illustrating such "royal vanity," the annals of Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal boast: "I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am pre-eminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave and I am herotic!" Would you accept everything you read in such annals as accurate history?


In contrast, the Bible writers displayed refreshing candor. Moses, Israel's leader, frankly reported the shortcomings of his brother Aaron, of his sister Miriam, of his nephews Nadab and Abihu and of his people, as well as his own mistakes. (Exodus 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Leviticus 10:1, 2; Numbers 12:1-3; 20:9-12; 27:12-14) The serious mistakes of King David were not covered over but were committed to writing-and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And hey did not mince words in addressing those problems. -1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.

Such frank, open reporting indicates a sincere concern for truth. Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people and even themselves, is there not good reason to trust their writings?

Next time: Accurate In Details

A Book For All People, 1997

Conclusion Of Digging Up The Evidence

Did Nineveh-the great city of Assyria mentioned in the Bible-really exist? As recently as the early 19th century, some Bible critics refused to believe so. But in 1849, Sir Austen Henry Layard unearthed ruins of King Sennacherib's palace at Kunyunjik, a site that proved to be part of ancient Nineveh. The critics were thus silenced on that score. But these ruins had more to tell.

On the walls of one well-preserved chamber was a display showing hte capture of a well-fortified city, with captives being marched before the invading kin. Above the king is this inscription: "Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nimedu-throne and passed in review the booty (taken) from Lachish (La-ki-su)."

This display and inscription,which can be viewed in the British Museum, agree with the Bible's account of the capture of the Judean city of Lachish by Sennacherib, recorded at 2 Kings 18:13, 14. Commenting on the significance of the find, Layard wrote:"Who would have believed it probable or possible, before these discoveries were made, that beneath the heap of earth and rubbish which marked the site of Nineveh, there would be found the history of the wars between Hezekiah (king of Judah) and Sennacherib, written at the very time when they took place by Sennacherib himself, and confirming even in minute details the Biblical record?"

Archaeologists have dug up many other artifacts-pottery, ruins of buildings, clay tablets, coins, documents, monuments and inscriptions-that confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham lived. (Genesis 11:27-31) The Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the 19th century, describes Babylon's fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E., and event narrated in Daniel chapter 5. An inscription (fragments of which are preserved in the British Museum) found on an archway in ancient Thessalonica contains the names of city rulers described as "politarchs," a word used by the Bible writer Luke. (Acts 17:6, footnote) Luke's accuracy was thus vindicated in this-as it had already been in other details.-Compare Luke 1:3.

Archaeologists, however do not always agree with one another, let alone with the Bible. Even so, the Bible contains within itself strong evidence that it is a book that can be trusted.

Next time: Can This Book Be Trusted?-Presented With Candor

A Book For All People, 1997

Continue With- Digging Up The Evidence

David, the courageous young shepherd who became king of Israel, is well-known to readers of the Bible. His name appears 1,138 times in the Bible, and the expression "House of David"-often referring to his dynasty-occurs 25 times. (1 Samuel 16:30; 20:16) Until recently, though, there was not clear evidence outside the Bible that David existed. Was David merely a fictitious character?

In 1993 a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran, made an astounding discovery, which was reported in Israel Exploration Journal. At the site of an ancient mount called Tel Dan, in the northern part of Israel, they uncovered a basalt stone. Carved into the stone are the words "House of David" and King of Israel," The inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., is said to be part of a victory monument erected by Aramaeans-enemies of Israel who lived to the east. Why is this ancient inscription so significant?

Based on a report by Professor Biran and his colleague, Professor Joseph Naveh, an article in Biblical Archaeology Review stated: "This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible." Something else is noteworthy about the inscription. The expression "House of David" is written as one word. Language expert Professor Anson Rainey explains: "A word divider. . . is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. 'The House of David' was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E." So King David and his dynasty evidently were well-known in the ancient world.

Next time: Continue with the above subject

A Book For All People, 1997