Part#2: The Bible is Historically Accurate 

          Skeptics claim that the Bible is not historically accurate, but contrary to what the skeptics want to believe, the Bible has been under attack for thousands of years and no one has been able to disprove any of its statements with legitimate evidence. Each time that archeologists have disagreed with the Bible, something is dug up that proves the Bible to be 100% right and the skeptic archeologists 100% wrong. The Bible is truly a reliable historical document.

          For example, skeptics used to claim that it was impossible for the Old Testament to have been written down thousands of years ago and that it must have had a huge oral tradition before it was eventually written down because they believed that writing was unknown in those days.Then the Telel Amarna tablets were dug up in Egypt. These tablets clearly demonstrated that not only did writing exist thousands of years ago, but that it was a common form of communication for commercial and other purposes in the world of that day.

          One hundred years ago many archeologists and scholars once again claimed that the Bible was inaccurate because the book of Daniel and Ezekiel mentioned Nebuchadnezzar as one of the kings of Babylon. They made this claim because they had never found an inscription with his name on it. Today, we have tens of thousands of bricks with his inscription.

          Skeptics used to claim that the Old Testament was inaccurate because it mentions the Hittite civilization. At the time, the skeptics didn’t think the Hittite civilization ever existed due to the lack of archeological evidence. Now archeologists know for sure that they were indeed a real civilization that had a lot of influence on the people of Israel.

          Each time the Bible has been vindicated.

          Author Robert Wilson says that over 40 kings are mentioned in the Old Testament from 2000 B.C. à 400B.C. and that each one is not only spelled correctly but also accurately described as being in the correct geographic region and time period.

  “No stronger evidence for substantial accuracy of the Old Testament records could possibly be imagined, than this collection of kings.”  -  Robert Wilson

He notes that the mathematical probability of any document getting this right by mere circumstance is 1 X 10-23. The Old Testament is clearly a solid historical document.

          The New Testament is also just as solid. It accurately describes the historical events, geography, architecture, and the religious and cultural practices that existed in and around Jesus’ life as well as other events that occurred during the first century. Many of these facts have been either confirmed by non-biblical historical documents and/or archeology.

The following are some examples:

          1.  The New Testament accurately describes first century Jewish religious practices as well as religious and political factions such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, High priests, and the Sanhedrin as well as the level of Roman involvement in Palestine at that time.

          2. King Herod is described in the gospels as a Roman sympathizer, an inscription in Caesarea maritime calls him "a lover of the Romans" another calls him "a lover of Caesar."

          3. The house of Simon Peter may have been found in Capernaum. The house would not have supported a Masonry roof, but one of thatch and mud (See Mark 2:4).

          4. In 1998 the foundation walls of the Samaritan temple at Gerizzim were found (John 4:20).

          5. The Pool of Bethesda was recently discovered in Jerusalem (John 5:1 – 5).

          6. The pool of Siloam has been located at the southern end of the tunnel of Hezekiah. (See John 9:1—12).

          7. Gergesa has been plausibly defended as the Gedara of the Gospels.

          8. Recent excavations of the Temple mount have revealed an eastern expansion by Herod that overlooked the Kidron valley (the pinnacle of the temple—Mathew 4:5).

          9. Multiple 1st century-2nd Temple tombs have been unearthed resulting in the following discovery: The bones of a crucified man were found in an ossuary in 1968. The importance is the contention that crucified criminals were simply thrown to the dumps and eaten by dogs. Here we have evidence of a man crucified and buried (just like the Gospel accounts of Jesus).

          10. The life, crucifixion, and death of Jesus Himself has been verified by non-biblical Roman and Jewish historical documentation as well as archeology.

          The only conclusion that anyone who has studied all of the evidence can come to is that the Bible is a very reliable historical document.

“In all of my Archeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement of the Word of God.”    - Nelson Glueck (Archeologist)

          Since the Bible has consistently demonstrated itself to be historically reliable, it doesn’t take a great leap in logic to consider Jesus’ resurrection account in the New Testament as also being historically reliable regardless of its supernatural nature.

          However I do understand how a skeptic might have a hard time conceding this point without careful examination of the evidence.

Click Here for Part#3: The Uniqueness of Jesus and the Historicity of His Ressurection