credibility of the Bible continued

Even MORE to consider ...

So although the oral and written testimony of the Bible displays unwavering credibility, it doesn’t stop there.  The Bible makes hundreds of references to historical events, places, people, etc.  Because of that, there are plenty of opportunities for contradiction between the Bible and historical record.  But in reality ... there have been very few contradictions, and although a small number have come up at some point, they have been dissolved by the realization that the Biblical account proved to be spot on.  This isn’t coming from a biased perspective, it’s coming from actual evidence that has been uncovered by Christian and non-Christian scholars, researchers, archeologists, and historians alike. 

Take these examples (from the few instances in which contradictions arose)…

Luke 3:1 says, “Lysanius was the tetrarch (governor) of Abilene” during the year of 29AD.  Well for years, critics said that Lysanius had been executed in 36BC – sixty years before the date that Luke claimed he was tetrarch of Abilene.  But about a decade ago, archeologists found an inscription on a stone that said “Lysanius: tetrarch of Abilene from 16-28AD.”  That’s legit evidence that the Biblical account was more accurate than the historical account.

Also in Luke, the word “polytarch” is used to describe governors, as well.  For years, historians were arguing that the world “polytarch” had not come into existence until hundreds of years after Luke was written … so obviously manuscripts have been altered since they were originally written.   But then in the last 15 years, there have been 35+ inscriptions on stone using the word “polytarch” that date back to the time that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke.

The book of Genesis talks about a nation of people known as the Hittites.  Historians were never able to come up with any trace of evidence for the existence of the nation, so for years this was used as evidence against the credibility of the Bible.  Then in 1906, an archeological dig proved the existence of the Hittite nation – it went so far as to uncover the nation’s capital and 40 other cities within it.  


In chapter 5 of Daniel, the Bible references a man named Belshazzar as being the King of Babylon in that day.  The historical records, though, have held that Nabonidus was the king of Babylon at the time that the book of Daniel is referencing.  Obviously a clear cut contradiction.  Historians argued that obviously the Bible is wrong – “We have straightforward evidence!”  Au contraire … in 1956, archeologists dug up 3 stones that contain the inscribed information that solved this problem.  It seems that Nabonidus decided to lead his armies out to a far away battle front, so he established his son as king of Babylon in his absence.  And his son’s name … Belshazzar.  Once again, the biblical account passed the test for historical accuracy. 

One archeologist did a study on Luke.  All 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands Luke discusses or makes mention of were talked about with absolute accuracy.  They all existed.  There is no evidence to contradict statements made in Luke about these places.  In fact, there has never been a discovery in archeology that has contradicted a single thing in the Bible.  Instead, in the few cases when contradictions between the Bible and historical record existed, archeological records have shown that the Biblical account was the more accurate account.  Archeologist, Nelson Glueck, was quoted stating, “It may be categorically stated that no archeological study has ever contradicted a biblical reference.  Not even one.”  That’s quite a statement, but it’s true across the boards.

What all of this tells us is that the Bible is entirely credible.  The authors were truly eyewitnesses – the oral and written testimony is legit.  The “stories” and messages are consistent with the historical happenings, places, people, etc – the collateral evidence is flawless.  In regards to the oral and written testimony, Simon Greenleaf, who is the head of law department at Harvard University, was not a believer in Christ when he made the following statement:  “The resurrection, because of the testimony of those witnesses, would stand as fact in any English speaking court of law in the world.”  Since he came to this realization, he committed his life to the Savior.  So whether you believe in the importance of accepting Christ as your Savior, you cannot argue against the truth that the Bible was written exactly as it happened.  It is accurate.  It is credible.  It is not a bunch of made-up stories to entertain people.

Even still, although the Bible is in fact true, I know the question still remains … “Yea, but was it really inspired by God?  Do I really have reason to base my whole life on it's message?!"  This is the stuff that is actually most exciting to me!  I can’t wait to share it with you in the near future – so be on the lookout. :)

K thanks for reading.  Grace and peace ♥