True, it is not likely that Moses penned those words at the time he wrote the original record about the Israelites’ receiving manna, but who could argue that he himself did not add these words at the end of the forty-year trek in the wilderness when he stood at the frontier of the land of Canaan, knowing that his people would thereafter no longer be eating manna? Whether he or another added these words, they of themselves certainly cannot be used to argue that the entire book of Exodus was not written by Moses.

The conclusions of the books of Deuteronomy and of Joshua have been called anachronisms because they tell about the deaths of their respective writers. But a far more reasonable position to take is that these postscripts were providentially added to complete the record of their writers and do not at all prove that the books themselves were not written by Moses and Joshua. Such weak arguments merely show the lack of objectivity of the Bible critics.

If we read the Bible for the purpose of finding fault with it, to find some excuse for not accepting it as God’s Word and our Guide, we will find apparently what we are looking for. But if we are looking for the truth with an open mind we will find that and we will not be stumbled by so-called anachronisms. Surely the wealth of evidence in support of the Bible’s authenticity cannot be laid aside on the basis of such weak arguments as the so-called anachronisms.

Questions From Readers

● From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian’s obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given:

God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” (Eph. 4:25) This command, however, does not mean that we should tell everyone who asks us all he wants to know. We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. But we may not tell a falsehood.

Thus a sister should tell the truth about her age for the purpose of having correct information on her publisher’s record card, as that comes under the purvue of right to know. Fear to do so is a sign of vanity and immaturity. Nor may this particular information be kept from a prospective mate if that one thinks it important enough to ask. Such a one would also have a right to know. So it would depend upon the circumstances whether one may be evasive about one’s age or not.

The same principle applies in the case of a patient suffering from some incurable disease. He has the right to know the verdict of a medical examination as to his life prospects. He may not be denied the knowledge that is so vital to him—just how precious his days are to him by reason of their being so few. It does not make for trust, understanding and love to deceive such a one, and the one practicing the deception will be continually plagued by a guilty conscience. If the patient is dedicated to Jehovah he certainly will appreciate that his times are in God’s hands and therefore will not have a morbid fear of dying but will strengthen himself in the resurrection hope. Some who withheld such information, intending kindness, afterward found that it had been a mistaken kindness.

There is, of course, a right time and manner for divulging such information. The time should be opportune and the manner sympathetic yet not unduly sorrowful. It may not be amiss to observe that one may be hopeful about his condition in spite of such a prognosis, since medical knowledge is not infallible today. Love, wisdom and self-control will enable one to broach the subject properly and the result can be a far greater bond of affection than existed previously. At such a time the resurrection