Why can I believe in the Bible?

The history of the Bible is distinquished by its declarative style from any other religious text. The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by forty authors. The Bible is read as a realistic news account of real events, places, people and dialogues, in contrast to the writings of other religions. Historians and archaeologists have repeatedly confirmed the authenticity of the Bible.

God showed us himself and what we need to truly know him, using the authors' distinctive writing styles and personalities.

Forty authors of the Bible carried one essential message: God is the Creator of all of us, He desires to be in relationship with us, and He invites us to know and trust Him.

The Bible not only encourages us, but also explains life and God. It may not answer all the questions on our minds, but it answers enough of them. It explains how to live with purpose in life, act with compassion, and how to relate to and be in relationship with others. It also encourages us to depend on God as our source of strength and direction, and to also enjoy His love for us. The Bible also tells us how to have eternal life.

Many pieces of evidence support the historical accuracy of the Bible as well as divine authorship.

1. How does archeology support the Bible?

Archeology cannot prove to us that the Bible is the word of God. However, archeology can and does demonstrate the Bible's historical accuracy. Archaeologists have discovered names of government officials, kings, cities, and ceremonies that match names mentioned in the Bible, although historians sometimes do not believe that these people or places existed. For example, the Gospel of John tells of Jesus healing the paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda. The text describes the five galleries leading to the pool. The teachers didn't believe the pond actually existed until archaeologists found it complete with five galleries forty feet underground. ¹

The Bible tells a huge amount of historical details, and archeology has yet to be discovered after everything mentioned in the Bible. However, not a single archaeological discovery contradicted what was recorded in the Bible. ² By contrast, news reporter Lee Strobel comments on the Book of Mormon: “Archaeology fails again and again to substantiate the claim of events supposedly long ago in the Americas. I remember writing I went to the Smithsonian Institution to inquire about any evidence to support the claims of Mormonism, and I heard only unequivocal words that archaeologists saw "no direct connection between New World archeology and the subject matter of this book."The Book of Mormon. ³

While archeology identified many of the ancient places mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament, "and the total names mentioned by Luke are thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without any error in it." ⁴

Archeology has also disproved many baseless theories about the Bible. For example, one theory still taught in some colleges today asserts that Moses did not write the Torah (the five books of the Bible); Because writing had not been invented in his time. Then archaeologists discovered the "Black Stone" with wedge-shaped letters written on it, which contained the detailed laws written by Hammurabi. Were these writings after Moses? No! Not only pre-Moses, but before Abraham (2000 B.C.) birth), that is, it preceded the writings of Moses by at least three centuries. ⁵ Archeology has consistently emphasized the Bible's historical accuracy.

For further study, click here to see a table with a list of some of the most important archaeological finds.

2. Has the Bible changed over time, or do we have what was written in the original language?

Some have the idea that the Bible has been translated "many times" and that it has been altered during the translation stages. If the translation had been from other translations, it would have happened, but in fact, the translation process was directly from the original texts in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

The archaeological discovery that took place in the year 1947 AD, in the area now known as the West Bank in Israel, confirmed the accuracy of the Old Testament. The 1,000-year-old Black Sea Scrolls contained the Old Testament; Which is older than any manuscripts we have. And when we compare the manuscripts in our hands with these manuscripts dating back 1000 years, we find that they agree with them by 99.5%. The .5% are minor differences in spelling, writing, and sentence structure that did not change the meaning of the sentences.

With regard to the New Testament, it is the most reliable ancient document in mankind; We have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all of whose dates of writing are close to the dates of the original writing. In fact, we are more certain that the New Testament remained as it was originally written by its authors than we are of writings attributed to Plato or Aristotle or the Iliad attributed to Homer.

For a comparison of the New Testament with other ancient writings, click here.

3. Are the Bible accounts of Jesus credible?

Four New Testament writers wrote biographies of Jesus. These writings are called the Four Gospels, which are the first four books in the New Testament. How can we be sure of the accuracy of these four biographies of Jesus' life?

When historians try to determine whether someone's biography is credible, they ask, "How many other sources give the same details about this person?" Here is an explanation of how this method works. Imagine that you are collecting the biography of President John. F. Kennedy, and I found many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban missile crisis, and nearly all biographies reporting the same facts. But what if you find one of these biographies mentioning that the president lived ten years as president in South Africa? Other biographies show that he lived in the United States all his life. The informed historian will be satisfied with the accounts that agree with each other, and exclude the different biographies.

Concerning Jesus, do we find many biographies that present similar facts about his life? Yes, the following is a sampling of the facts that were reported about Jesus as you will find the truth stated in each one of these biographies of his life.

The apostles Matthew and John, who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him over the course of the three years, wrote two biographies of Jesus' life, while Mark and Luke, close companions of the apostles, wrote the other two. These writers had direct access to the facts they were recording. The early church accepted the four gospels; Because it came out consistent with common information about the life of Jesus.

Again, the Gospels read like news reports, bearing true stories of the events of those days, with each writer writing about the life of Jesus from his own perspective. Each author has a special way of describing events, but the facts are consistent with each other. The Gospels provide specific geographical names and cultural details that have been confirmed by historians and archaeologists.

To read a sample of one of the Gospels, click here.

4. Do historians confirm what the Bible says about Jesus?

The Bible says that Jesus of Nazareth performed many miracles, was crucified by the Romans, and rose from the dead. Many historians have endorsed the biblical account of the life of Jesus and his disciples, for example:

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 BC), first-century Roman historian, is considered the most accurate historian of the ancient world. ⁶ He tells us in one of the quotes that Nero, the Roman emperor, "went the most severe types of torment on a class known as the Christians, and Christ, from whom the Christians derived their name, was subjected to the most severe punishment during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our governors called Pontius Pilate." ⁷

Flavius ​​Josephus, a Jewish historian (38-100 BC), wrote about Jesus in his book "Jewish antiquities". Josephus said: "Jesus was a wise man who did amazing heroic deeds, so he taught many, won followers from the Jews and the Greeks, and many believed in him as the Messiah, but the leaders of the Jews accused him, and he was crucified by Pilate, and he rose from the dead." ⁸

Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution, which is consistent with the accounts of the New Testament.

Even the Jewish Talmud , which was decidedly unbiased of Jesus, agreed with the most important events of his life. And it was stated in the Talmud: “Jesus was born illegitimately, and gathered disciples for him, and claimed many blasphemies about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles were attributed to witchcraft and sorcery, not to God.” ⁹

This salient piece of information considers that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not obscure rabbis from the outlying provinces of the Roman Empire. However, ancient historians (Jews, Greeks, and Romans) emphasized the most important events presented by the New Testament even if they themselves did not believe in it.

5. Are there contradictions in the Bible?

There are some claims that the Bible is full of contradictions, which are simply not true. In fact, the number of apparent contradictions is small and unnoticed, especially in a book of the size and scope of the Bible. The apparent differences that are present are those of curiosity rather than catastrophe, touching no important event or doctrine of faith.

Here is an example of one of the alleged contradictions. Pilate ordered an inscription to be placed on the cross; Where Jesus was hung. Three Gospels recorded what was written on this title: 
      In Matthew: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” 
      In Mark: “The King of the Jews.” 
      In John: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.”

The wording may be different, so it is an apparent contradiction, and yet the remarkable thing is that the three writers describe in detail the same event, that Jesus was crucified, and they all agree on this, even recording that he put the title of Jesus' ailment on the cross, and the meaning of the title is the same in The three novels.

What is the exact wording? The original Greek language in which the Gospels were written did not use quotation marks as we use them today to indicate that these words are direct quotation. The authors of the Gospels used indirect quotation which explains the subtle differences in the texts.

Here is another example illustrating an apparent contradiction. Was Jesus in the tomb two or three nights before his resurrection? Jesus said, before his crucifixion: “For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days.” days and three nights.” ¹⁰ Mark records another statement by Jesus: "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will judge me." death, and they will deliver him to the nations, and they will mock him and flog him and spit on him and kill him, and on the third day He gets up.” ¹¹

Jesus was crucified, died on Friday, and resurrected on Sunday. How could this period be three days and nights in the grave? It was a Jewish metaphor in Jesus' day to consider any part of the day or night as a whole day, so Friday, Saturday and Sunday are three days and three nights in the culture in which Jesus lived. We speak in similar ways today. If a person says, “I will spend all day shopping,” we understand that of course the person does not mean that he will spend 24 hours buying.

The aforementioned contradictions represent typical paradoxes in the New Testament. Most of these contradictions are resolved by a close study of the text itself or by studying the historical background.

6. How were the books of the New Testament determined? Why were the Apocrypha (omitted books), the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas not accepted?

There are several strong reasons for confidence in the list of New Testament books we have today. The church accepted the books of the New Testament as soon as they were written. The authors were friends or direct followers of Jesus, men whom Jesus had entrusted with the leadership of the early church. Matthew and John, who wrote two of the Gospels, are among the closest disciples to Jesus. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles and heard the apostles' account of Jesus' life.

In addition, New Testament authors had direct access to Jesus' life as well: for example, James and Judas were half-brothers of Jesus and did not believe in him at first. Paul appears at first as a fierce enemy of Christianity and a member of the ruling religious class, but becomes an ardent and zealous disciple of Jesus convinced that he has risen from the dead.

The accounts in the books of the New Testament are in line with what thousands of eyewitnesses saw for themselves. When some of the books were written hundreds of years later, it was not difficult for the church to detect the forgery. For example, the Gnostic sect wrote the Gospel of Judas around 130-170 BC, after the death of Judas. The Gospel of Thomas, written around 140 B.C., is another example of a false writing that mistakenly bears the name of one of the apostles. These gospels, as well as other Gnostic gospels, contradicted the well-known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and contained many historical and geographical errors. ¹²

In the year 367 BC, Athanasius compiled a list of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (which is the same list we have today). Jerome and Augustine soon afterwards published this same list. However, this list was not necessary for the majority of believers. The whole church generally recognized and used the same list of books from the first century AD. When the Church was growing and spreading beyond Greek-speaking countries, it needed to translate the Bible, and when splinter sects kept popping up with their rival scriptures, it became even more important to have a definite list.

7. Why did it take 30 to 60 years for the New Testament Gospels to be written?

The main reason the gospel accounts were not written immediately after Jesus' death and resurrection was that there was no apparent need for such writings; Where the gospel first spread orally in Jerusalem.

There was no need to compose written accounts of Jesus' life; Because those who lived in the Jerusalem area were witnesses of Jesus and knew his ministry. ¹³

However, as the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem, it was no longer easy to quickly reach and talk to eyewitnesses, so written stories were needed in order to teach others about Jesus' life and ministry. Many scholars have attributed the date of writing the Gospels to between 30 and 60 years after the death of Jesus.

Luke tells us at the beginning of the gospel that he wrote about the reason for writing it: “For many have begun to compose an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who delivered them to us They were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. I also saw, in having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, that write on It is to you, dear Theophilus, that you may know the truth of the words which you have been taught. ¹⁴

Have you ever read any part of the New Testament gospels? To read a sample of the Gospel of John, click here .

If you would like to know more about Jesus, the following article, Faith Not Blind, provides a good summary of his life.

8. Is it really important to know what Jesus said and did in the Gospels?

Yes, faith must be based on actual facts in order to have value. Here's why: If you fly to London, you'll likely be confident that the plane is fueled, mechanically reliable, that the pilot is trained, and that it doesn't have any terrorists on board. However, your trust will not get you to London. Your confidence is useful when boarding a plane, but in reality what makes you reach London is the safety of the plane, the pilot...etc. You can count on your positive experience on past flights, but even this positive experience will not be enough to get this plane to London. What matters is your confidence; That is, you can trust this plane.

Does the New Testament provide an accurate and reliable account of Jesus' life? Yes, we can trust the New Testament; Because many facts support it. This article touched on the following points: the agreement of historians, the agreement of archeology, as well as the agreement of the biographies of the four Gospels with each other, and the preservation of copies of documents was clear and prominent; It is characterized by the greatest accuracy in translations. All of this provides a solid foundation for believing that what we are reading today is what the original authors wrote and experienced in real life and real places.

John, one of the authors, sums it up well: “And many other signs that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples are not written in this book. Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that if you believe you may have life in his name.” ¹⁵

Notes: [10] Matthew 12: 40 [11] Mark 10: 33, 34 [13] See Acts 2: 22, 3: 13, 4: 13, 5: 30, 5: 42, 6: 14... etc. [14] Luke 1: 1-3 [15] John 20: 30, 31

Footnotes: [1] Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ (Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), p. 132. [2] The renowned Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck, wrote: “It may be categorically stated that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.” cited by McDowell, Josh. [3] Strobel, p. 143-144. [4] Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). [5] McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict (1972), p. 19. [6] McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), p. 55. [7] Tacitus, A. 15.44. [8] Wilkins, Michael J. & Moreland, JP Jesus Under Fire(Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 40. [9] Ibid. [12] Bruce, FF The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Fleming H. Revell Co., 1950), p. 113.