Scripture warns us that it is not wise to take for granted the truth of everything we hear. A report may seem plausible when we first hear it; but, later on, we may learn that it was untrue. As Solomon said, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Prov. 18:17 NIV).
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to take Solomon’s excellent advice. We all have a natural inclination to believe statements that we like the sound of, and to dismiss statements that we find unpalatable. Let me illustrate with a few examples of fairly widespread ideas that ought never to have been accepted.
A Modern Jonah?
More than 40 years ago, I read the fascinating story of James Bartley’s remarkable escape from death. It seems that in 1891, he was a seaman who fell overboard from a whaling ship not far from the Falklands. His shipmates gave him up for lost, until, 36 hours later, they were cutting up a freshly-caught whale; to their amazement, they found Bartley still alive (and as well as could be expected) in the whale’s stomach.
The book that retold this tale provided no evidence that it was true. Despite this, my first reaction was to accept it. As the author commented, the event should make it easier for people to accept the accuracy of the Biblical book of Jonah. So, because I wanted to believe the story, I did at first believe it.
Second thoughts, however, suggested caution. There is no air in a stomach; how did Bartley manage to breath for 36 hours? And the stomach of any carnivore is filled with acid and digestive enzymes that are capable of dissolving raw meat in much less than 36 hours.
It is evident that, if Bartley really did survive 36 hours in the stomach of a whale, his survival could hardly have been a natural event; God must have worked a miracle on him — a miracle almost as mighty as that which led to Jonah’s escape. But, like most brethren, I reject the idea that God is working miracles today, either at Lourdes, or in charismatic meetings, or anywhere else. So I started to have grave doubts about the Bartley story.
It now appears that the matter can at last be laid to rest. An American historian, Dr. Edward B. Davis, has thoroughly investigated it, and he published his findings in a long and well-documented paper.1 He found numerous evangelical books and articles that repeated the story (often with considerable variations), but none of them said how it originated.
Eventually, by patient scanning of old newspapers, he eventually tracked it down to its source. A local newspaper in the fishing port of Great Yarmouth, the Mercury, published a story about Bartley on August 22, 1891, entitled, “Man in a Whale’s Stomach.” Bartley’s adventure was said to have occurred in February of that year, when he was a crew member on the Star of the East under Captain John Killam.
The story was what nowadays would be called an “unconfirmed report,” since it relied upon Bartley’s word for it. The historian commented: “No one, repeat, no one, has given the story the kind of careful investigation it needs if it is to be used as evidence for the reliability of scripture. Yet this is precisely what everyone citing the story assumes — that its authenticity has been established.”
So Edwards continued with his own investigation, searching both maritime archives and religious journals and dug out the following facts.
- There was indeed a ship called Star of the Fast with a captain called John Killam, in the vicinity of the Falldands during February, 1891. But it was a cargo ship, not a whaler. In fact, British whalers did not start to operate around the Falklands until 1909.
- The full lists of the crew members of the Star of the East in and around 1891 have been preserved -but nobody of the name James Bartley, or anything resembling it, was included in the lists.
- A reader of the name of Williams had a letter published in The Expository Times in 1907. He reported that he had wished to get to the bottom of the Bartley story, and had therefore written to Mrs. Killam, the wife of the late captain of Star of the Fast. She replied to him: “There is not one word of truth in the whole story. I was with my husband all the years he was in the Star of the East. There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was in her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn.”
A Missing Day
Another interesting idea which surfaces from time to time is that there is a day missing from the earth’s astronomical history. This also is an attractive thought, because, if true, it would provide wonderful confirmation of the miracle recorded in Joshua 10:12-14. What are the facts?
So far as I have been able to discover, the idea seems to have been spread in the first place by one Sidney Collett, who wrote a popular book defending the Bible at the beginning of this century. In it, he had five pages under the heading, “Joshua’s Long Day.”2
This began with the following remarkable assertion. “It is generally held among scientific men that it is the action of the sun upon the earth that causes the latter to rotate upon its axis.” He went on to declare that, by “a temporary diminution of the action of the sun,” God could have slowed down the earth’s rotation for Joshua’s benefit.
This, of course, is nonsense. The sun’s gravity holds the earth in its year-long orbit, but the sun has nothing to do with the earth’s daily rotation upon its axis; that occurs because the earth is like a gigantic flywheel, with practically no friction to slow it down. Collett’s ignorance of these elementary facts of astronomy shows that he is not a sound guide in this field of science.
Collett says that he obtained his information from “Professor Totten of America,” but gives no bibliographical reference. It is therefore impossible to examine the Totten calculations. Nevertheless, what Collett reports of Totten’s work is enough to allow a reasonable assessment to be made. He says Totten found that: “By taking the equinoxes, eclipses, and transits, and working from the present time backwards to the winter solstice of Joshua’s day, it is found to fall on a Wednesday; whereas, by calculating from the prime date of creation onwards to the winter solstice of Joshua’s day, it is found to fall on a Tuesday; and he argues that by no possible mathematics can you avoid the conclusion that a whole day of exactly twenty-four hours has been inserted into the world’s history.” (My emphasis.)
It is clear from the expressions in italics that Totten must have assumed (1) a precise date (day, month and year) for creation, and (2) the year in which Joshua fought his battle at Gibeon. But since the Bible tells us neither of these things, Totten’s calculations must have been founded on human guesswork, and are therefore highly questionable.
Just in case there should be any misunderstanding, let me say this. The last thing I want to do is to undermine anybody’s faith in Biblical miracles. I, myself, accept these without question, and assume that readers will do so, too. Since our God is the Almighty of course He can — and, in Bible times, did — work miracles. We have no need to prop up our beliefs with shaky arguments based on false history or pseudo-science.
Woolley — Friend or Foe?
Another tale which crops up repeatedly is that Sir Leonard Woolley “found archaeological proof of the Genesis Flood.” Unfortunately, this also is not in accordance with the facts. What Woolley actually wrote is as follows:
“The flood, of which we had thus found the only possible evidence, was the flood of Sumerian history and legend, the flood on which is based the story of Noah…”3
So much for what Woolley said. What, then, is to be built on his statement? Woolley’s deluge was not universal, but a local disaster confined to the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, affecting an area perhaps 400 miles long and 100 miles across; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world!
Woolley goes on to explain that this must have been a river flood of unparalleled size. All those who lived in the valleys would have perished, and only those who dwelt on high ground would have survived. Some of those survivors, he argues, would have migrated to other lands, taking with them the story of a gigantic flood — a story which eventually, with various alterations and additions, he asserts was included in Genesis.
Thus, far from sharing our belief in the reliability of the Genesis record, Woolley clearly held the opinion that the early chapters of Genesis are a collection of myths. We cannot honestly quote him as a supporter of our views.
Two lessons
There are two obvious lessons to be learned from all this.
Whenever we read, or hear, an unconfirmed report or a statement that fits in happily with our existing ideas — then, beware! Examine it critically. Can we be sure that it is true? Whenever possible, it is best to go right back to the source. Woolley would not be so frequently misrepresented, if all of us made it a rule to check in an author’s book before quoting him.
The other lesson is for every one of us. It has often been pointed out that there is far too much unkind gossip about brethren and sisters. This would not be the case if we were all reluctant (as we should be) to believe unconfirmed reports. So the next time we hear a spicy tale about some poor brother or sister’s lapse (moral or doctrinal) — especially if he or she is someone we already disapprove of -then, beware! Let us take care not to think in our hearts, “That’s a good story. I like it. I’ll pass it on.”
Instead, let us say to the teller of the tale, “Have you asked so-and-so if this story about him is true? Because you really ought not to repeat it until you have!” Only by doing this can we help one another to obey the Lord’s command: “Do not go about spreading slander among your people” (Lev. 19:16 NIV).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One