The Bible is the most historically reliable book that exists.
Many people will take issue with this statement, but I challenge them:
how does one test a historical document for reliability?
There are three ways historical documents should be
tested:
It would be ridiculous to maintain that a book is reliable if it is not
the
same book that was originally written. If I mail you a letter, and you
get a
letter with half of my words missing and several lines added,
then you can not rely on the letter you got.
No one would maintain that ancient classics such as Homer's The
Iliad or
the history of Herodotus are in doubt as to being the original books
penned by
their authors.
The earliest handwritten copies of the history of Herodotus are
over 1,300 years later than the time Herodotus lived. The earliest
written copies
of the books of the New Testament are from the year 130, just 100 years
after Jesus
lived, and less than that for the apostles.
There are 643 individual handwritten copies of The Iliad. We can
examine
these for differences, and then decide what the original wording was.
The Iliad has substantially more copies in existence than almost
any
other book of antiquity. Most others have less than ten, yet historians
do not
regard these as later forgeries. The New Testament has over 22,000
handwritten
manuscripts in existence. We can be sure that the wording of these
books is
substantially the same as the original authors' wording.
How could a book be reliable if its author did not know the material
he was writing about? If I write you a letter telling you what happened
to me yesterday, you have no reason to doubt the letter on the basis
of my knowledge; I know what happened to me yesterday better than
anyone else. If, however, I write you a letter about what happened to
some
farmer in South America, you would immediately ask yourself: "How would
he know?"
Many of the books of the New Testament do not give an author.
The New Testament has four "Gospels," accounts of the life of Jesus,
yet not a single one of them states who wrote it. Nevertheless, almost
immediately after the books were completed, we have references in
extra-Biblical sources that associate each book with a definite author.
Think about this. If I give you an essay and tell you I wrote it, if
you
then give it to someone else you might tell them I wrote it, even if I
did not
sign my essay. If, on the other hand, I try to give you a check signed
by myself
from someone else that you know, you will know it is a forgery.
Those who are closest to a document and its author are best able to
evaluate
its reliablity in this respect.
However, it is still unnecessary to tie each book to a specific author.
The books have been shown to have been released in the time
period immediately after Jesus lived, and while eye-witnesses to him
were still living. In fact, many enemy eye-witnesses were alive. Any
of
these people could have squelched these books immediately if they
contained
inaccuracy.
Note the way New Testament authors refer to their writings:
II Peter 1:16
I John 1:1,3
Those who wrote the books of the New Testament claimed that
they were eyewitnesses, and no one living, including hostile
witnesses, could contradict them!
This is the final question. Once again, using the letter analogy,
if I write you a letter and tell you some things you don't know
about, and tell you some things you know to be false, you will
doubt that I am telling you the truth in the matters you do not know
about.
Challenges to the Bible's veracity, both Old and New Testaments,
have been frequent in the last couple of centuries. All of these
attempts to discredit the Bible have failed. Critics once charged
that the Hittite race mentioned in the Old Testament never existed.
They have now been shown to have been a prominent culture in
those days. The works of Luke, Acts and the Gospel of
Luke
have often come under attack. Luke has been charged with using
incorrect names for political leaders. A quick glance through his books
will show that he often ties the events he narrates to specific times by
telling who was in political authority in that place and time.
How can we trust Luke if he can't even figure out the titles of
governors
and rulers? We don't have to. Every time Luke has come under fire,
archeologists have discovered inscriptions and documents that also use
these same titles. Though Luke has sometimes been doubted, his
writings have proven to be trustworthy.
Similar arguments hold true for the other books of the New Testament.
In addition, those who proclaimed this message also proclaimed that
it was wrong to lie. If they told the truth in simple things, why is it
so
hard to believe that they told the truth in complex things?
David Blackstone
Integrity
Is the version of the book we have
identical to the original?
Authenticity
Were the books really written by people who
knew what they were talking about?
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made
known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we
were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
What was from the beginning, what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands
handled, concerning the word of life --
what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also
may have fellowship with us.
Veracity
Do the authors of these books tell the truth?
Summary
Thus, we have seen that the New Testament books are reliable on the
basis of their integrity, authenticity, and accuracy. No other books of
old, share this incredible witness to reliability, yet historians will
readily trust them.