The author of these posts made a mistake in attempting to open the topic from a neutral stance, and the Lord has pointed out that fact. Then, God used a comment left on this post as confirmation. Firstly, the author cannot be unbiased on this issue, as his life has often been occupied with studying all of these things, and the evidence is overwhelming. Secondly, objections from unbelievers can be so multitudinous that opening a forum for debate through blog posts would be foolhardy. There are nearly 2000 years worth of that sort of thing already. It’s not the first time and probably won’t be the last that this writer had an idea that was less than wonderful. He has no problem with admitting, accepting and proclaiming his fallibilities. Thirdly, he believes the bible when it states: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 1st Corinthians 2:14
The tremendous gift of life afforded through FAITH in the message of the bible, which is consummated in Christ Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be believed by those without faith, no matter how much evidence is heaped upon them. Salvation is by grace through FAITH, and so is a correct understanding of God and His works. The Lord also led this author to read again Romans 1:17-32, further confirming that enough evidence has already been presented to expound the truth of the God of the Bible. But that does not preclude a Christian from doing his job of sowing the seed of the Gospel of Christ. So we will continue, only now, with the understanding that this study is slanted towards truth as it has been superlatively proven to the author of this post.
Let’s get right to it and tackle the first question of the previous post. In way of refreshing our memories we are attempting to discover if the bible holds up under certain things that would logically be true if the bible really is God’s word.
- Is it historically accurate?
International Students Inc. queried leading archaeologists, both secular and believing ones. They write the following.
“The history given in the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology to a remarkable degree,” reports noted archaeologist Nelson Glueck.
“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.” (Emphasis mine) Glueck, Nelson. Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 1959).
There have been hundreds of people over the years that have set out to disprove the historicity of the bible. A few times it looked as though they had something, but then…
- There has been a better than good reason why a reference appeared to critics as not fitting the findings.
- They misunderstood the people group, the geological location, or the context of what the bible recorded.
- Better research by secular historians and archaeologists, as well as by proponents of the bible, disproved their claims of biblical error every time.
The Bible Is Historically Accurate.
The Bible is not merely a book containing theological teachings that are unrelated to history, but the theological statements of Scripture are closely linked to historical events. For example, Paul maintained that if Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead was not an historical fact, then our faith is futile (1 Cor. 15:17). Scriptural characters, like Paul, were not a group of gullible religious people who were ready to believe anything that came along.
Admittedly, there is such a plethora of false information out there that it can become an arduous task to disseminate the truth of what actually happened in history. Thankfully, we have extra biblical records that meticulous, secular historians have kept. Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Israel, Greece and more, all had good historians. Much of the rich and interesting Egyptian history was destroyed by Amenhotep (I think it was Amenhotep the 1st but my memory is a bit hazy there.) His reign as Pharaoh ended the “Shepherd Kings” era. The Shepherd kings weren’t even Egyptian, but had, never-the-less, come to reign as Pharaohs over Egypt. Amenhotep wanted to destroy all records of them, even striking their names from off obelisks and monuments. Much more of Egyptian history is currently being discovered today, and all of it matches up perfectly with bible history!
Archaeologist Millar Burrows notes that more than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.
William Ramsay is one such example of an archaeologist who went from believing that the Bible contained fabricated myths to believing that the Bible was not only accurate historically but that it was the Word of God.
From a collaborative publication by International Students Inc, we have this report:
Earlier in his life Ramsay had been influenced by a liberal theology, which taught that the writers of the Bible were more interested in promoting a biased theological perspective than in accurately recording history. In the course of his studies, however, Ramsay was surprised to find extensive archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the biblical narratives.
One thing that impressed Ramsay about Luke, the writer of Acts, was his accuracy with respect to ostensibly insignificant details. For example, Luke accurately names the rulers of Thessalonica politrarchs, Gallio the Proconsul of Achaea, the official in Ephesus, a temple warden, the governor of Cyprus a proconsul and the chief official in Malta: The first man of the island.. Such titles have since been confirmed in numerous Greek and Latin inscriptions.
What Ramsay began to realize was that the Bible was not mythical, but that it was a document that recorded history with extreme accuracy. He wrote, “Luke is an historian of the first rank.” (Wilson, 114) And if the Bible was accurate in its historical details, then he considered there to be a good chance that the biblical authors could be trusted to accurately relate the spiritual significance of the historical events as well. (End citation)
The author of this post is not a noted historian, and yet his research has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that the bible is pristine in its recording of historical events, from cover to cover. He has a lifetime collection of records and reports from professionals in the fields of history and archaeology. Further, he tried his best to find ANYTHING that might prove that his belief in the Bible was wrong. He has not yet found any objections to the historicity of the Bible that have stood up under testing.
Have a Supremely Blessed Day!