THE BIBLE AND HISTORY

1. King Herod
Archaelogical discoveries in Caesarea, Jericho, Jerusalem, Masada and Samaria have proven that there was indeed a King Herod who lived where and when the Bible said he did. Coins and other artifacts have recently been unearthed bearing the name of this mysterious King, proving his existence.

2. King David
Did King David ever truly exist? A large stone was uncovered in 1993 which had the inscriptions "House of David" and "King of Israel" on them. A Time Magazine story said: "This writing--dated to the 9th century BC, only a century after David's reign--described a victory by a neighboring King over the Israelites. Some mimialists tried to argue that the inscription might have been misread, but most experts believe Biran and Nivah [the two archaeologists who discovered the chunk of basalt at Tel Dan] got it right. The skeptics' claim that King David never existed is now hard to defend."

3. The Endurance of the Bible Throughout History
The endurance of the Bible throughout its long history of being attacked is evidence enough that it truly is God's Word. H.L. Hastings said, "Infidels for eighteen hundred years have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Infidels, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt. When the French monarch proposed the persecution of the Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, 'Sire, the Church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.' So the hammers of infidels have been picking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emporers and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives." And that is true. For example: In 303 AD, Dicoletian declared that the Bible must be destroyed. Bernard Ramm said, "The Bible has withstood vicious attacks of its enemies as no other book. Many have tried to burn it, ban it and 'outlaw it from the days of Roman emporers to present-day Communist-dominated countries.'"

4. King Belshazzar
For ages, archaeologists had no evidence of a Babylonian King Belshazzar reigning during Daniel's day. But recently, a document known as the "Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus" was unearthed. The king that was thought previously reigned during Daniel's time--King Nabonidus--who reigned from 556 to 539 BC, left on a journey to Arabia, leaving Belshazzar in charge in 553 BC. Thus proving that King Belshazzar was indeed the reigning king during Daniel's time. Yet more proof of the Bible's historical accuracy.

5. Jericho
During excavactions in the 1930's, archaeologists discovered something very odd. While archaeologists had always thought that the Jericho walls were knocked down, they found the results of their study on ancient Jericho quite interesting. It seems that the walls fell straight down for no reason at all. In Peter and Paul Lalondes' book, "301 Startling Proofs and Prophecies," they said that it were "as if the Earth had disappeared beneath them." And, archaeologists also made another interesting discovery about Jericho. Archaeologists thought that perhaps since the walls fell straight down, there might have been an earthquake. But the side of Jericho's walls against which Rahab's house was said to have been built, apparently never fell. Consistent with the biblical account.

6. Pontius Pilate
The existence of Pontius Pilate, a ruler in biblical times, was very vague and shady. Some doubted he even existed. That is until a mention of him was found in Cornelius Tacitus' "Annals." Tacitus wrote, "Therefore, to scotch the rumor [that Nero had instigated the fire which ravaged Rome in AD 64], Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of curelty, styled Christians. Christus [Christ] from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pilate when Tiberius was emporer." And yet more proof: A stone was uncovered in an archaeological dig at a Roman theater in Caesarea. On the stone, bore the name of--you guessed it--Pontius Pilate.

7. Iconium
In Acts chapter 14, it is recorded that Paul and Barnabas fled from Iconium to Lyconium. However, it is known that Iconium was a city in the province of Lyconium. So it would be like saying: they fled from San FranSisco to California. However, newer archaeological discoveries have proven that at the time when Paul and Barnabas were alive, Iconium was originally part of the province of Phyrgia. The Bible still withstands the pummel of attacks and is still proven true, every time.

8. Census
In Luke 2:1-3, it was recorded that Joseph and Mary had to go to the city where Joseph was born, to pay taxes. This census practice was originally thought un-historical. But an archaeoligcal find in Egypt--a copy of a Roman edict dated at 104 AD--written by C. Vibius Maximus, the Roman prefect of Egypt, declared, "The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside of their administrative districts that they return at once to their homes to carry out the customary enrollment." The Bible's words are once again confirmed as truth.

9. Quirinius
In Luke 2:2, it is stated that Quirinius was governor of Syria at the time the census took place. But archaeologists argued that it was Saturninus who was governor at that time. However, in archaeological digs at Tiber, an inscription was found indicating that Quirinius was not only governor during 10 and 7 BC (before the census) but also during the census, in 6 AD. The Bible's accuracy was once again confirmed.

10. Sir William Ramsay
Sir William Ramsay, a famous archaeologist, set out to disprove the gospel of Luke's chronology and historical claims. However, every time he set out to disprove a claim, he found evidence confirming the biblical accounts! The evidence was so overwhelming, that he became a Christian and wrote apologetics on the New Testament.

11. Genesis Chapter Ten
The list of nations in Genesis chapter 10 is--to this day--renowned for its great accuracy. Arcaheologist William Albright once said, "It remains an astonishingly accurate document...[and] shows such remarkably 'modern' understanding of the ethnic and linguistic situation in the modern world, in spite of all its complexity, that scholars never fail to be impressed with the author's knoweledge of the subject." Truly, this is the Word of God.

12. Witnesses
In Acts 2:22 Paul says "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazrene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know." There were far too many eyewitnesses to the events of the Bible, that it would have been impossible disprove God's Word. Luke 1:1-3 says "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of hte things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus." If the words of the Bible were lies, so many who witnessed otherwise would have come forward, bringing about the fall of this Book. However, this is not the case. Because so many eyewitnesses had seen in correspondence with the words of the Bible, Christianity spread like wildfire, so that the Roman Empire, which had--at first--persecuted Christianity so severely, in a matter of centuries, had adopted Christianity as the state religion! It would have been impossible for the Bible to stand had it been wrong about so many things. As Peter Lalonde said, "If someone wrote a book today saying that John F. Kennedy was killed by a bow and an arrow, there are still many witnesses around who would step forward and set the record straight." And so it is with the Bible.

13. Gospels
Just the gospels alone are proof enough of the truth and holy inspiration of the Bible. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)--especially Matthew, Mark and Luke--are almost identical factually, yet each has their own writing style.

14. Biblical Continuity
The biblical continuity itself attests to the truth and divine inspiration of the Bible as well. The Bible--though written over a span of 1,400 years by many different people from different backgrounds--remains consistent with itself the entire way through! An unimagineable achievement. A book with no contradictions--the living Word of God.

15. Accuracy of the New Testament
Caesar's Gaelic Wars were written 900 years after the life of Caesar and it is almost unanimously considered fact. The oldest copy of Sophocles' plays was written 1400 years after Sophocles died, yet it is considered accurate. Why then, is the New Testament, which was written during the time period it actually happened in, and compiled only 200-some years later, considered false by anyone?

16. Copies
Just to prove the accuracy of the Jewish process of making new copies of their manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, it should be noted that a study of a copy of Isaiah, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated at 125 BC) matched word for word a copy of Isaiah dated at 980 AD! Even over a thousand years, these Jewish writings remained the same, evidence that they had not been altered!

17. Jonah
Is the story of Jonah and the whale true? We know that Jonah existed, for his tomb has been found in Northern Israel. But even more striking, is the fact that ancient coins have been found that have a picture of a man coming out of a fish's mouth.

18. Miracles and Crucifixion in the Talmud
After Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, a group of Pharisees put together something called the Talmud. According to some of the commentaries in the Talmud, there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was a "transgressor" because he practice "magic." It also says that this Jesus was executed on "Passover Eve."

19. Mark Made "No Mistake" in Writing Gospel
Eusebius, in his Hist. Eccl. iii, quoted from Papias, who said about the gospel of Mark: "Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

20. Gospel Authors Were Who They Said They Were
Irenaeus, in his Adversus Haeresus 3.3.4, said "Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia." Thus, since we know that the gospels were indeed written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it can be confirmed that the gospels are indeed based on indirect or direct eyewitness testimony, which is more than can be said for most ancient writings of the time. This in itself bears witness to the reliability of the gospels.

21. Dating of the Gospels
Most liberal circles usually accept that the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written sometime from AD 70-90. However, the dates for the writing of these documents must be much earlier. Here is the reasoning: First of all, Acts ends unfinished. The book comes to an abrupt halt when Paul is under house arrest. We don't know what happens after that, because the book was written prior to Paul's execution (obviously). That means that Acts cannot be dated any later than AD 62. So how does this apply to the dating of the gospels, you ask? Since Acts is part of Luke's two-fold work, (the first section of his work being the gospel of Luke), we know that the gospel of Luke must have been written earlier than its second part, Acts! And since Luke references to parts of the gospel of Mark, we know that Mark was earlier yet. That would mean (giving the liberal an extreme concession advantage) that Mark was written in the early AD 50's/late 60's, meaning at least Mark and Luke were written only 20-30 years from the events they describe, instead of 40-60. Back in those days, that would pretty much be considered "breaking news".

22. Alexander the Not-As-Great
The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after the death of Alexander in 323 BC. But historians view them as trustworthy. Why not, better yet, four eyewitness accounts (the gospels), matching up flawlessly, written only 20-60 years after the events of which they describe? Doesn't that make even more sense?

23. Creeds of the Resurrection
People try to say that the account of the resurrection never happened and was developed over a period of many decades after the life and death of Jesus. However, consider this evidence demonstrating otherwise. In I Corinthians 15, Paul recounts some of the creeds of Jesus' resurrection that were in the early church (already!). Now, to prove that the followers of Jesus who lived immediately after Jesus' ressurection, truly did believe in the resurrection, it must be noted that if Christ's crucifixion took place in AD 30 (at the very earliest, AD 33 at the latest) Paul's conversion took place 2 years after, which would be AD 32. And that would mean that Paul met the apostles and received the creed of Jesus' resurrection in AD 35. That means, that the idea of Jesus resurrection did not just come about hundreds of years after Jesus lived and died, but already, 5 years after Jesus left the earth, people were proclaiming that Christ had risen. And, using logic and common sense, it would make sense that if people were proclaiming this 5 years after it had happened, they had been proclaiming it from the beginning. If their claims had been false, the early Christians would have been shut up by people who had seen otherwise. But their words were not deadened. There were hundreds of people alive in AD 35 who could attest that they had seen Jesus alive after they had seen Him dead. If this was a lie, the opposition would have spoke up otherwise and wiped Christianity from the face of the earth by clearly demonstrating that the early Christians were in the wrong... but that didn't happen (for instance, today, if a group of people came up and started proclaiming that it was a fleet of UFO's that brought the Twin Towers down, many eyewitnesses who had seen otherwise would have spoken up and drowned out the lies). But, in fact, much of the early apostles' preachings included them saying that they had all been witnesses of Jesus' resurrection for themselves, therefore they should not have been questioning. For instance, in Acts 2:32, when Peter is preaching, he declares that even the unbelievers saw Jesus alive after he was dead, whether they accept it or not.

24. Integrity and Intentions
Now, think about this. Would the disciples, in their writing of the gospels, have had any intention to lie or deceive? These were men of unprecedented moral integrity and ethics. These were men who believed so firmly in what they knew was right in that all of the Twelve Disciples but one were killed, martyred for what they truly knew in their hearts. If they were not trying to deceive anyone, they must have truly believed with all their hearts in what they were saying. That means that they truly saw (or some would say, "thought they saw") what they claimed to have seen. But if what they had seen was just fake, then none of it can be trusted. However, with the evidence that can be presented, to prove that what they had seen was real, it boils down to one option: It is all true.

25. Continuity Among Copies
How can we know if the copies of the New Testament line up the originals (which have long since disintegrated)? First of all, compared to other ancient manuscripts (which usually have a gap of up to 1000 years between the existing copies and the writing of the originals) we have New Testament copies written only a couple generations after the originals. Also, by comparing all of the copies from different languages, ethnicities, and geological sources, we see an unprecedented overall cont inuity, indicating that there has been little--if any--major changes throughout the history of the New Testament manuscripts and copies. Not only that, but there are still many early sermons and letters containing quotes from the original documents, verifying that our contemporary copies match up with the originals.

26. John's Papyrus Gospel
Previously, it had been thought by skeptics that John's gospel had been "counterfeited" around 160 A.D., however, in the early 1900's, a scrap of papyrus that had been purchased from Egypt was discovered, containing a portion of John's gospel. The amazing thing was, this scrap of papyrus was dated by several different respectable paleographers as most likely having been in the late 90's A.D., pushing the extreme latest date for the writing of John back 60-70 years earlier! And that would mean that the original manuscript was written by John even earlier than that: most likely around 90 A.D. or earlier. Not just that, but this document was from Egypt, far from Ephesus, where John composed his gospel. Which means we would need to allot time for copies of the gospel to arrive in Egypt and be copied all over again. This supports the fact that John wrote his own gospel and that he really did write it when it is said to have been written.

27. Sir Fredric Kenyon
The famous archaeologist, Sir Fredric Kenyon, commented on the New Testament saying, "In no other case is the interval of time between the composition and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament." And how true that statement is. The New Testament was written closer to the actual events than any other major ancient writing, giving support to the accuracy of the books.

28. Errors
Some point out that there are 200,000 known discrepancies amonst the early New Testament manuscripts. But one must think of this number in perspective. Errors include the smallest changes. For instance, if the same word was misspelled by one letter in 10,000 manuscripts, that would count as 10,000 mistakes. Since there are approximately 24,000 early New Testament manuscripts, knowing that there are 200,000 known "errors", that would average out to be only around 7 or so discrepancies per each entire manuscript of the New Testament. Compare this with other ancient documents and antiquities and it will be hard to deny that the New Testament was indeed divinely inspired and preserved. It should also be noted that there were absolutely no meaningful inconsistencies throughout the manuscripts!