separate the exaggeration from the fact. Who that claims there is exaggeration is fitted by his lack of prejudice to do the work of separation?
Is it not true that the claim of exaggeration is merely an assumption, and based entirely upon preconceived theories of critics whose opinions vary with their prejudices? They say in effect: "According to my ideas the thing cannot be true; therefore it is not true." It is the kind of reasoning which forced Galileo to recant and has opposed all progress. These critics have formulated their own theories of the complete truth of the universe, and whatever facts do not accord with their theories they exclude. Is not disbelief sometimes as bigoted and dogmatic, as intolerant of inconvenient facts, as were the opponents of Galileo?
One of these critics has recently rewritten the Gospels without the account of the virgin birth and omitting John altogether. Does any one fancy that this rewriting will fare better than other attempts to discredit the Bible story? It is hard to believe that the world will ever be satisfied with the Bible rewritten by its critics. They do well to leave the original statements alone. They have indeed the right of private
