THE diesel and electric trains can never quite replace the old steam engines for fascination. I spent many hours by the railway line as a boy. I would be ticking off numbers and noting the different wheel configurations. Double-headers (two engines pulling one train) were always a bonus to see.

I saw the "Caledonian" on its record-breaking run. I once told the signalman about some trouble I noticed in a carriage wheel of the "Royal Scot". The train had to be stopped further up the line and the carriage taken off. That was a proud day.

People like to claim an association with something out of the ordinary. They like to be able to say they know someone famous. To claim acquaintance with a film star or athlete sounds good. It immediately promotes a person in the eyes of others. To know their village or their family commands respect in certain company. What are they really like? Are they as ordinary as the rest of us? Do they behave the same in private as in public? What intimate details of their lives can be learned?
Of course, there can be times when someone you know is disgraced. No doubt it is wise to be silent about any acquaintance with them then!

Friends of Jesus
The twelve disciples had an intimate knowledge of the ways of Jesus. For almost three and a half years they lived in his company. Often they seemed to fail him. Yet he was grateful for their help. He said they had stayed with. him through all his trials.

It would be nice to be a close friend of Jesus when he was welcomed by people. Jesus healed many sick people who would be excited and grateful. The disciples then would be pleased that they were associated with him.

Soon, however, there came a time when to know Jesus was dangerous. At his arrest they all forsook him and fled. At his trial Peter denied him. After his death they most probably went into hiding out of everyone's way.

Then, suddenly, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, they were in Jerusalem again. They were busy preaching about the Jesus they knew and loved. They were successful, too. Even their enemies said they had turned the world upside down in their work.

The change in these men was unbelievable. Timidity had become courage. Fear had given way to an amazing boldness. Imprisonment could not confine their message. Even threats of persecution made no difference. Their work could not be halted.

Men do not behave like this without reason. They have to be very thoroughly committed to their cause. They need to be fully convinced of what they do before they are prepared to suffer for it. Clearly the disciples, once so afraid, were now totally convinced. They believed enough to hazard their lives for this. Some of them were killed rather than give up speaking about Jesus.

This tells us a lot about their message. It shows that they regarded it as highly important. It also proves that they believed it to be true. They would not have suffered for something they knew to be false.
For us, centuries later, it's easy to imagine that the disciples could have been wrong. Perhaps they were genuinely mistaken about some things? Maybe some reports were exaggerated? Could the disciples even have embroidered the stories to push forward their work?

They Wrote The Gospels
No! Such suggestions do not fit. Men would not willingly die for that. In fact, Jesus promised that they should have his help in recalling the picture accurately. The Holy Spirit would guide them to an exact reconstruction of events. Here are the words:-

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
(John 14:26)

"However, when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak; and he will tell you things to come."
(John 16:13)

These words are not true only for the disciples. They are true of the gospel writers too. Two of the writers were disciples anyway. Matthew Levi and John were two of the twelve men closest to Jesus. They had an intimate knowledge of the story they tell. Two were not. Mark was probably John Mark, a young man mentioned in the gospel story. If so, he must often have been present to hear Jesus' teaching and to see his work.

A Doctor With a Mission
Little is known about Luke. He was a doctor and seems to have written the book of Acts as well. He accompanied Paul on missionary visits. His gospel was written for an important man, perhaps a governor, called Most Excellent Theophilus. He begins by saying that he too was absolutely sure of his facts:-

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
(Luke 1:1-4)

If we accept this testimony we accept the gospels as true. If we accept Jesus' promise that his spirit would guide them, there can be no errors. It is popular to disregard this important evidence. Many like to point out that the gospel accounts were not written immediately. The stories must have been passed on by word of mouth. Each one hearing something would add his own little bit.

Anyone who has ever played the party game of passing on a message will know the truth of this. Whispering from one to another quickly leads to confusion and misunderstanding. The end message often bears no relationship to the one that started the game. The story becomes embellished and distorted in a funny way. It sounds very plausible when applied to the Bible too.

However, it ignores all the evidence. In the first place, there is good reason as shown above for believing that this did not happen. The holy spirit guided these men to record only what was true. It helped them to remember perfectly so that no mistakes were made. Not even inadvertently could any error have crept in.

Four Witnesses - One Story
Secondly, the four gospels do not each tell a different story. They generally agree in the records they present. Indeed, the harmony between them would be very surprising if they had been written from memory only. There are minor differences in the way issues are related. Any apparent discrepancies can normally be resolved fairly easily.
It should be noted that the writers do not all set out to give a diary of Jesus' life. They assemble material and arrange it to suit the aim of their work. They do not always place events in order. Jesus must often have repeated parts of his preaching at various towns. Sometimes he slightly altered his message for different audiences. This could also account for small differences between the gospels.

The gospel writers had nothing to gain in what they wrote. They had a great deal to lose. We may therefore safely depend on their work as true. The gospels are a very reliable account of the ministry of Jesus Christ.
The book of Acts was for a long time criticised by scholars. It was felt to be inaccurate in some of its detail. One example of this was the word used by the author to describe the rulers of Thessalonica.

This city was visited by Paul when Luke was with him. Luke calls the men in charge "Politarchs". The words is translated "rulers" in most English Bibles. This word does not seem to have been in use in other places. Experts felt that Luke had made a mistake or had made this up.
Subsequent discoveries proved the writer right! Pillars at Thessalonica since discovered by archaeologists use this same word. On them are inscribed the names of some of the politarchs. Luke knew his stuff! He was there. He had first hand information as he claimed. Acts too is a reliable history book.

What about the Old Testament, though? Surely there must be room for error in records which date back so far? How can we be certain that these histories have not been coloured by national prejudice or forgetfulness? Wouldn't inaccuracies result from the repeated hand copying of Bible manuscripts?

The Bible Weathers The Storm
Criticisms of this kind were very fashionable a few years ago. The assumption was often made that the Bible couldn't be right. With a superiority unbecoming to men without proof, scholars claimed they knew better.

Many of their attacks have not stood the test of time. The spade of the archaeologist has often proved them wrong. Fresh discoveries have justified the Bible. Yet the damage done by such criticism has never been fully repaired. Such criticism undermined faith in the Scriptures which for many has never been restored. It has left a hangover of suspicion. Today the average man and woman feel that the Bible cannot be true.

This is sad and unfair. There are plenty of things we may not understand. There are some we cannot yet explain. But there is nothing that has proved the Bible to be untrustworthy.

It is always tempting to assume that we are wiser than past generations. Certainly there have been many technical advances in our day which were undreamed of by our great grandfathers. But we should not be too hasty to make assumptions about the ignorance of others.

For example, it used to be thought that writing would be unknown to Abraham who lived around 2000 BC. For a long time, no writing as early as that was known. Scholars claimed that this cast doubts on the first books of our Bible. They were written by Moses much later and must have relied on hearsay. No written records would have existed.

This ignores the fact that the words are God's. He guided Moses. Even when no man was around at creation, God knows exactly what took place. If we accept that the Bible is God's book, we shall believe that it is right.

Written in Clay
In any case, the theories about writing have also now been shown to be in doubt. Important discoveries in 1976 at a city once called Ebla show their weakness. It had been thought that Sumerian was the oldest known language. However, the language on thousands of clay tablets at Ebla is very like Hebrew. The tablets also contain Sumerian writing and many other languages.

The Sumerian is an early semi-pictorial form of language. However, the Hebrew-type language is far more developed. It is known as a syllabic cuneiform script. These clay tablets date to just before the time of Abraham. They prove that writing was possible prior to the days of Abraham. They also prove that it was a more advanced kind of writing than had been imagined.

Criticisms have been levelled against the Book of Daniel similar to those about Luke and Acts. These too have been shown to be unfounded. What is now known of those times tends again to show that the Bible was right all the time.

At one stage it was even doubted that Babylon ever existed. It is a city mentioned many times in the Bible, but it had never been located. Unlike Jerusalem or Egypt, Babylon was totally unknown. Was it pure fabrication, imagination of the writers run riot?

It is no surprise that Babylon's existence should be in doubt. God Himself had decreed that it would be destroyed AND never rebuilt:-
"'It shall be inhabited no more for ever, Nor shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation. As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah And their neighbouring cities,' says the LORD, 'So no-one shall reside there, Nor son of man dwell in it.'"
(Jeremiah 50:39-40)

Now this is most unusual. Most cities are built again on top of their old sites. Babylon was not:
Today its whereabouts are known. Some details of its former glory have been gleaned from the works of historians. We now know a little about its fortifications. We know that a chariot and four horses could turn on the top of them. We know a little about its hanging gardens, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. From what has been dug up we may piece together something of the days when it throbbed with life. But there is no city to visit. There is only a spot in the desert where it once was.
Not only was the Bible correct in its mentions of Babylon. It very accurately predicted its destiny, too!

Carefully Copied
Despite such discoveries there remains a question mark in the minds of many about the Bible's accuracy. Before the invention of printing, scribes copied the manuscripts by hand. It was a laborious task. They took great care. They would count the letters per line and the lines per page. Their reverence for the word of God was such that they were anxious to make no mistakes. How successful they were was shown by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

A Cave at Qumran
Many are now familiar with the way in which they were discovered. An Arab boy idly tossing a stone into a cave near Qumran heard it break something. Investigation revealed stone jars in which were stored scrolls. Some of these scrolls were of books of our Old Testament.

The importance of this find is not so familiar to most people. It is this. Prior to this discovery, the oldest manuscripts from which the Bible could be translated were known as the Masoretic Text. They dated back only as far as 916 AD. That was almost a thousand years after the Lord Jesus Christ and around 1,500 years after many of the prophecies were first given.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are almost a thousand years older. They date back to about 100 BC. That means that they were in existence in the time of Jesus Christ. They were the Scriptures with which he was familiar.

Most important of all is the fact that these scrolls vary little from the Masoretic Text, The differences that do exist are minor. They do not generally alter the sense of the message. One thousand years of copying and handing down was suddenly put to the test. Yet the alterations that had occurred were few and of little consequence.

Recently I was reading through the preface of a modern translation of the Bible. It stated that the few manuscript differences there are should not be allowed to "overshadow the overwhelming agreement" there is between these ancient records.

The evidence is that we have a Bible we can rely on.