The Bible makes many claims about history, science, prophecy, and God himself. But are these claims true? Can the Bible be trusted as a reliable source of truth? This is an important question that deserves careful examination.
First, it is important to understand what the Bible claims about itself. The Bible declares that “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). It claims to contain the very words of God – not just spiritual truths, but historically accurate accounts and prophecies that only an all-knowing God could give. If the Bible is indeed the word of God, then its teachings must be completely true and reliable.
However, the Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by over 40 authors from diverse backgrounds. It contains many different kinds of literature – history, poetry, prophecy, letters, and apocalyptic writings. This diversity has led some to question whether the Bible can be trusted as a coherent and consistent source. Several arguments are often given against the historical reliability of the Bible:
- The Bible contains supernatural claims about miracles, prophecy, and the resurrection of Jesus. Skeptics argue that these claims are unbelievable and unscientific.
- The Bible contains historical and scientific inaccuracies. Many allege it promotes mythological and unscientific views.
- The Bible contains contradictions between different passages and books. How can it be considered inerrant if it contradicts itself?
- The Bible has been changed and corrupted over time. How can we have confidence that the original biblical writings have been accurately transmitted to us?
These are reasonable objections that should be addressed honestly. Examining the evidence related to each of these claims can shed light on whether or not the Bible can be considered historically reliable.
The Possibility of Miracles and Prophecy
First, the supernatural claims of the Bible do not necessarily make it unreliable. If God exists and chose to interact with humanity by inspiring prophets and performing miracles, there is no reason why these acts could not be recorded accurately. One cannot rule out miracles merely because they seem unlikely without first disproving the existence of God. While supernatural acts cannot be replicated in a lab, historical evidence can give us reasonable confidence in both the existence of God and the accuracy of the biblical accounts.
Furthermore, the stunning fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible lends credence to its claims to be inspired by God. The Old Testament contains over 300 prophecies about the Messiah – where he would be born, his lineage, how he would die, etc. (Isaiah 53; Micah 5:2). Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all these prophecies made hundreds of years prior (Luke 24:44). The probability of this happening by chance is astronomically low. This gives us reason to believe supernaturally-inspired prophecy is possible.
Historical and Scientific Claims
What about the claim that the Bible contains false historical and scientific details? This accusation does not stand up to scrutiny.
Archeological discoveries have consistently confirmed that the Bible gives accurate historical details. Historians once doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor who interviewed Jesus (John 18:28-38). But archeological evidence proved the Bible was right all along. Similar archeological finds have supported numerous details once thought to be unhistorical (Acts 17:6).
Likewise, though critics have claimed the Bible contains false scientific claims, conservative biblical scholars have reasonable explanations for these apparent discrepancies. For example, the Bible speaks of the sun “standing still” (Joshua 10:12-13), which seems unscientific given the sun’s stationary position. However, this language simply reflects the perspective of the author on earth, consistent with other ancient literature. The Bible does not contain blatant scientific errors, but simply describes natural phenomena from the perspective of the original audience.
Apparent conflicts with science arise from interpretive issues, not mistakes within the original text. When understood from the perspective of the original audience, the Bible does not promote false scientific or historical facts.
Alleged Contradictions
What about the charge that the Bible contradicts itself? This is a common argument from skeptics. However, reasonable explanations exist for nearly all alleged discrepancies:
- Differences between accounts reflect different perspective, not error. For example, Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 describe Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. They differ on some details but do not contradict – they simply emphasize different aspects based on their purposes.
- Some verses can be harmonized when properly understood. Mark 10:18 depicts Jesus denying his own goodness – because only God is “good” (Luke 18:19). This is not ultimately a contradiction.
- Later revelations can further illuminate earlier ones. Jesus claimed no one had gone to heaven (John 3:13), which seems to conflict with Elijah being taken to heaven (2 Kings 2:11). However, the New Testament later reveals heaven to have levels, resolving the apparent discrepancy (2 Corinthians 12:2).
- Copying errors may account for a handful discrepancies. But these are minor and do not affect any theological or historical facts.
Alleged contradictions nearly always evaporate upon deeper study of the contexts, meanings, and literary techniques of the passages in question. When appropriately understood, the Bible demonstrates remarkable internal consistency.
Reliable Manuscript Transmission
Finally, is the text of the Bible we read today the same as what was originally written? Can it be trusted after centuries of transmission?
The manuscript evidence demonstrates that the biblical texts have been transmitted accurately.
The New Testament has far better textual support than any other ancient work. Over 5,000 Greek manuscripts contain all or part of the New Testament. The manuscripts agree in the vast majority of passages, with only minor variations. None of these variations impact key theological or historical doctrines.
Likewise, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted over the centuries. These scrolls from the second century B.C. contained a complete copy of Isaiah and portions of almost every other Old Testament book. The scrolls showed the manuscript traditions faithfully preserved the text over centuries.
While we do not have the original biblical manuscripts, the copies we do have allow scholars to reconstruct the original with remarkable precision. There is no evidence the texts have been deliberately changed. The Bible we read today is extremely faithful to the original writings.
Conclusion
When examined closely, the objections against the historical reliability of the Bible do not stand up under scrutiny. There are reasonable explanations for the Bible’s miracles, prophecies, alleged scientific problems, discrepancies, and manuscript transmission.
While compelling historical evidence supports the accuracy of the Bible, ultimately it requires faith to trust in its supernatural claims. The Holy Spirit helps followers of Jesus recognize the Bible’s divine authority. However, historical evidence provides a reasonable basis for faith in the reliability of the Scriptures.
Given the Bible’s textual reliability and the credibility of its writers as demonstrated by their willingness to die for their testimony, the Bible can be trusted as an authentic record of God’s interaction with humanity. When properly interpreted, the Bible provides consistent and accurate truth about God and his purposes in history. The Christian can have full confidence in the veracity of the Scriptures.
