• The New Testament is the best preserved set of texts with greater numbers and better accuracy than any other historical document.

    The New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... And they are very consistent. Many historical / archaeological discoveries started with looking for locations referenced in the Bible. The Bible gives so much evidence of ancient cultures and events that can be searched for by archaeologists.

  • It's as reliable as any other

    History is almost always written by the victors, and its usually exaggerated and full of prejudices. The bible is no different, but I still think it's better than nothing at all. Even if every single story is not exactly true there's a lot we can learn about the people and the way they looked at things back then. In this way I feel that it is very valuable as a historical source.

  • God Protects His Word and Validates its Reliability!

    Those who think the Bible is an unreliable historical source are indirectly saying God is unreliable. The Bible is a TRUE account of history for the time period that it covers and is indeed God's word. God said His word would not return unto Him void... Therefore, we have to trust that He is fully able to protect His Word, which is the Bible, and regardless of how many "human" hands have touched it, the reliability of it has not diminished. If we can trust the US Copyright office to stand behind and validate volumes of material, without doubting or questioning their competency, then why not God? If you believe God, then you will know that He's fully able to protect His word and validate that the contents of the Bible are indeed a reliable historical source.

  • As a historical source for archeology the Bible is unmatched.

    The Bible has been used as a historical source for where to search for archaeological digs for centuries. Http://www.Biblearchaeology.Org/

    Show me a historical documentary source that has been more effective in research and I will be surprised.

    Here is a good review of the evidence. Http://www.Manavai.Com/articles/art1.Htm

    , the discoveries of archaeology since the mid 1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative. Here are some examples.
    The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. Demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
    The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
    Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

  • Why not

    Bible is proven to be quite accurate. In the discovery of Ur, the capital city of
    Abraham’s culture, researchers found many clay tablets which are the equivalent of our books, business receipts,
    temple song books, mathematical tables, inventory lists and even records of how much various workers had been paid for each month. This was indeed a society which looked just as the Bible had said. More than 25,000 archaeological sites have been uncovered which relate to the stories of the Bible. The Bible has shown to be a very accurate record of people, places and culture.

  • As reliable as any other

    If we cannot trust the Bible as reliable historical source, we cannot trust just about any piece of historical material. Even atheistic historians believe that, at the very least, 75% of the Bible is solid enough of a historical source to believe it has a high chance of being credible.

  • As reliable as any other

    If we cannot trust the Bible as reliable historical source, we cannot trust just about any piece of historical material. Even atheistic historians believe that, at the very least, 75% of the Bible is solid enough of a historical source to believe it has a high chance of being credible.

  • As reliable as any other

    If we cannot trust the Bible as reliable historical source, we cannot trust just about any piece of historical material. Even atheistic historians believe that, at the very least, 75% of the Bible is solid enough of a historical source to believe it has a high chance of being credible.

  • A valuable historical source

    1. There are those who put the stories of the Bible into the same class as the myths of the Greek and Roman Gods but a careful reading will show that it is not. The mythical tales ...Not just the Greek and Roman myths but even those of the other cultures whether Indian like the Ramanyana are very fantastical...Ie Hanuman lifting flying with an entire mountain... Which compares well with the Titans of the Greek tales...But the stories of the Bible are very reality based. Think about a GIANT...A giant in the Greek tales is GIANT.....Not at all like Goliath which if you check the Guiness Book of Records or Ripley's Amazing...You will know is entirely plausible, believable.
    2. Even for stories like Noah Ark's ..The fact that the design and specific dimensions
    (( and again these are not fantastical dimensions like a boat the size of a continent for example...Or a magical boat made of magic wood or a boat with wings )) are given should give a clue that its
    reality based.
    3. The Bible is not one book....If a writer in say 1AD were to write about something 1000BC
    maybe there would be errors...But the Bible is a compilation of books...Written as history unfolded.
    Each book being written as close as possible to the time history was made...Makes the Bible a valuable historical source.

  • WHO was the grandfather?

    Narrative which includes super natural phenomena is problematic as a historical source. Additionally, internal conflicts that cannot be reconciled demonstrates that it is not reliable. One simple challenge will demonstrate just how bad the source is. Look at the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke. Both are tracing Joseph' s lineage as is explicitly stated by both writers, yet they do not agree even on who was the grandfather of Jesus. More importantly, one must ask why the two writers would both be making the same mistake by tracing the lineage through Joseph at all since he was (according to the myth) not the biological father? This one critical examination demonstrates multiple problems with claims that the Bible is either historical or reliable.

  • Of course not

    No. The bible is not a reliable source. The stories told in the bible have no sources. Religious people tend to claim that the bible is the source for its own existence. That is preposterous. The stories in the bible are nice. People should not take them literally. They were meant to bing a hidden message, a moral teaching (some are not that moral but still). The bible is not a piece of historical fact. It is a book that contains stories meant to teach (some) morality.

  • Are you kidding me?

    The Bible was written by many different uneducated MEN, not historians. These guys believed the Earth was flat, and that snakes could talk. The Bible is mostly oral stories translated and written down by other UNEDUCATED men. It's obvious the Bible isn't a reliable historical source. If it were, we might as well just burn all the history books and force the children to read the Bible instead.

  • No, it's not.

    No, not at all. The bible is filled with passages that contradict each other and things that don't show up in any other place in written history at the time. It is very inaccurate. I would tend to believe the historical books that contained things that could be proven and not the book filled with stories about supernatural events.

  • Criteria for historical reliability

    In order to be a reliable historical source it must meet certain criteria. The Bible fails in many instances to meet these criteria. The Bible is not really one book, written by one person, or about one topic. So parts of it may meet the criteria of being historical, while other parts fail. Certainly any claims made about divinity or supernatural phenomena are problematic when it comes to historical reliability. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Historical_method
    Readers here might find it interesting to watch this - the PBS special http://www.Pbs.Org/wgbh/nova/ancient/bibles-buried-secrets.Html

    "The Bible's Buried Secrets," on PBS, presents archaeological findings that will annoy believers as well as skeptics - which suggests the TV documentary just might be on the right track.

    At least that's the view of William Dever, a world-renowned archaeologist who worked on the show and calls it "the first honest film that's been made" about the first books of the Bible. For Jews, those books make up the Torah and other early scriptures, while Christians would call them the early part of the Old Testament.

  • There is no reson to believe

    Historical fiction includes references to real places and actual people and events, but those references do not provide proof that fabulous claims regarding religion are true or that the characters in the story were real living people-certainly doesn't prove claims of divinity. Does anyone still believe in the Roman or Greek gods? There is plenty of remaining evidence that thee gods were once worshipped, but that evidence does not mean that those gods actually ever existed.

  • No Its not

    With history books those can be proven to be true there are actual photographs from things that happened back then and writings that the people did and stories passed down from generation to generation. However with the bible those are a set of stories made up by people. Prove them to be true to me and I won't say another thing about it. You can't say because God knows his stories are true or anything of that sort.

  • No. It is just literature.

    The Bible is a set of writings so loosely based on facts that it cannot be a reliable historical source. We can get some basic information from it, but that must be corroborated with other sources from the time period, especially since most of it was written much later than the events in it actually occurred.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.