The Reliability of the Bible

By Jimmy Kinnaird
I think that every argument that we may have come at us who believe in Christ
finds itself, in the end, attacking the reliability of the Bible. Other religions have their
books of authority. How do they stack up to the Bible? I just had a conversation with a
certain Elder Robinson. He is a Mormon missionary from Idaho Falls, Idaho. I was up in
his hometown two years ago doing what he is trying to accomplish here in Oklahoma
City. He believes that he is right. Why? He believes he is right because of revelation and
experience. How can we know that the book of Mormon is true? How can we know that
the Bible is true? One thing is for certain. They both cannot be true for they each teach
quite a different view of God.
Then there are those who claim that there is no God. They obviously have a
problem with the credibility of the Bible. After all, what they say cannot be true and the
Bible still be reliable. But if the Bible is reliable, then what the atheists or even agnostics
say cannot be true. Webster gave a very simple definition of reliability. It simply means
dependable or trustworthy (Webster, 385).
D. James Kennedy, Senior Pastor of the historic Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
has written on the unique nature of the Bible. He stated that:
The Bible was written over a period of more than 1600 years by forty different
human writers. There are sixty-six separate volumes contained in the Bible that
are written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. What is also amazing is that
with such diversity, each of the sixty-six books contain structural, historical,
prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual unity and after more than 1900 years has not
needed updating or correcting. The human writers of the Bible come from a
variety of backgrounds. Moses was a well-educated political leader. Joshua was a
military general. Solomon was a king. Daniel was a Prime Minister. Nehemiah
was a cupbearer. Amos was a herdsman. Matthew was a tax collector. Simon Peter
was a fisherman. Paul was a rabbi. What is amazing is that even though these
people come from a variety of backgrounds, time spans cultures and languages
they all agree on such important eternal issues. The only satisfactory explanation
for this is that the Bible was penned by human writers but its author is God.
(Kennedy, 23-24)
This diversity yet unity is one of Kennedys reasons for the unique nature of the Bible.
Because a variety of people over a long period of time agree on issues that could be
contested so easily is certainly impressive. Some may ask, But did these people really
write these words and did they mean them they way they are interpreted? This will be
dealt with later in this paper. For now, the answer is an unqualified yes.
This kind of unity in itself can be called a miracle. But there were other most
unusual events surrounding the formation of the Scriptures we know today as the Bible.
There are the authenticating miracles recorded in Scripture. These cannot be
easily written off as the product of a prescientific era. There is a restrained
character to biblical miracles that distinguishes them from other ancient sources.
They occur, as C. S. Lewis reminds us in Miracles, not randomly, but cluster

around critical points in divine revelation. Where miracle is the order of the day, it
loses any leverage as a means of verification. It is rather when the miraculous
appears in some meaningful context or another that we are impressed by its
relevance. Such is the persistent and obvious pattern of the biblical account"
(Inch, 96-97)
Thus the activity of the miraculous, which is presented at certain points in the formation
of the scriptures points to the Bible as a most unusual book that deserves closer scrutiny.
Reliability of the New Testament
R. C. Sproul wrote of the importance of the reliability of the New Testament.
"If the Biblical documents are not at least basically trustworthy then we have no
historical basis for knowledge of Jesus at all. Without a reliable historical witness to Jesus
the Christian faith would be reduced to an esoteric-gnostic religion" (Sproul, 249). It
would be reduce Jesus to simply personal opinion. There are several tests of bibliographic
data that can be performed to verify if a document is trustworthy. One of these is called
the internal evidence test.
The Internal Evidence Test
Perhaps the strongest argument that the Bible is the Word of God is the testimony
of Jesus. Even non-Christians believe he was a good teacher. Jesus affirmed the Old
Testament to be the Word of God and promised to guide his disciples to know all truth.
Jesus accepted the Bible as not only authoritative, but as the very words of God. We also
have abundance of scripture that bears testimony of itself as the word of God and as such,
being reliable.
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to
you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His
majesty (2 Peter 1:16, NKJV).
That which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may
have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His
Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3, NKJV).
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those
things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good
to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:1-3, NKJV).
While the record of scripture bears a unity within itself, that does not mean that
the events that transpired really happened. What it does say is that they all have the same
story. The question could be posed, Could not there have been a conspiracy to makeup a
story? Don Bierles response to this is very interesting.
The early dating of the New Testament documents within 20-30 years after Jesus'
death made the theory of legends untenable. As [F.F.] Bruce says, The disciples
could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the
facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to

do so. No legend is known to have developed within the same generation as the
events and persons themselves (Bierle, 42).
Bierle further adds the incredible obstacles in fabricating a history during the lifetime of
the original witnesses.
The gospel accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus were being preached within
fifty days and had limited circulation in written form within twenty-five years
after his death and resurrection. Imagine the difficulties today of trying to publish
a totally fabricated biography of former president John F. Kennedy. In this
account JFK is depicted as walking on water, healing the sick in front of crowds,
raising the dead, and feeding 5000 people with five barley loaves and two fish.
Following his death he was said to be resurrected as he ascended to heaven before
over 500 eyewitnesses. As a result, a massive religious movement has begun with
which JFK is worshipped (Bierle, 41-42).
The only way that this fabricated biography would come close to being accepted would
be by none of the people living at the time to see or hear about the biography or that the
people who knew JFK were all dead. The same situation is true for Peter's proclamation
of Jesus on Pentecost. 3,000 responded in faith and repentance. Hardly a showing of
skeptical doubts just 50 days after his crucifixion and resurrection. The very place where
all of the events happened to Jesus was the very place that he was first declared risen
from the dead.
Eight Tests of Eyewitness Evidence
In Lee Strobels book, The Case for Christ, he interviewed noted New Testament
scholar Dr. Craig Blomberg, Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary. Blomberg
answered eight key questions on reliability of the evidences of the New Testament. In this
he gave eight tests for verifying reliability.
1. Was the stated or intended intention of the writers accurately preserved? A
follow-up question is, "Were these first century writers really trying to write down
accurately what happened? Craig Blomberg gives an emphatic "yes(Strobel, 44). Luke's
gospel and Acts begins with These words"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in
order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very
first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know
the certainty of those things in which you were instructed (Luke 1:1-4, NKJV).
2. How well could the material in the gospels be preserved orally for thirty years
before it was finally written down in the gospels? Blomberg states:
"This was an oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on
memorization. And remember that eighty to ninety percent of Jesus' words were
originally in poetic form. This doesn't mean stuff that rhymes, but it has a meter,
balanced lines, parallelism, and so forth-and this would have created a great
memory help. The other thing that needs to be said is that the definition of
memorization was more flexible back then. In studies of cultures with oral
traditions, there was freedom to vary how much of the story was told on any given
occasion-what was included, what was left out, what was paraphrased, what was

explained, and so forth. (Strobel, 45)

What Blomberg states is that it was very probable that the New Testament story of Christ
was preserved in a form especially suited for faithful oral transmission. He then goes on
to say:
One study suggested that in the ancient Middle East, anywhere from ten to forty
percent of any given retelling of sacred tradition could vary from one occasion to
the next. However, there were always fixed points that were unalterable, and the
community had the right to intervene and correct the storyteller if he erred on
those important aspects of the story. (Strobel, 43)
What is important to note is the community kept the checks and balances. Blomberg says
that the synoptic are consistent with the ten to forty percent variations in the telling of the
story (Strobel, 43).
3. Was there any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that would discredit their
ability to correctly transmit what really happened historically? Blomberg stated: "We see
them reporting the words and actions of a man who called them to as exacting a level of
integrity as any religion has ever known. They were willing to live out their beliefs even
to the point of ten of the eleven remaining disciples being put to grisly deaths, which
shows great character" (Strobel, 45)
4. Are the New Testament documents internally free from internal contradictions?
There has been accusation that the gospels are hopelessly contradictory. Scholars agree
that there are many apparent contradictions. Blomberg states: "My own conviction is,
once you allow for the elements I've talked about earlier-of paraphrase, of abridgment, of
explanatory additions, of selection, of omission-the gospels are extremely consistent with
each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge
them" (Strobel, 45). We must remember that if the gospels were too consistent with one
another, that would invalidate them as independent witnesses (Strobel, 45).
5. Were the writers biased to reporting inaccurately? This test analyzes whether
the gospel writers had any biases that would have colored their work (Strobel, 48).
Blomberg said, "These disciples had nothing to gain except criticism, ostracism, and
martyrdom. They certainly had nothing to win financially. If anything, this would have
provided pressure to keep quiet, to deny Jesus, to downplay him, even to forget they ever
met him-yet because of their integrity, they proclaimed what they saw, even when it
meant suffering and death"(Strobel, 48). The easiest thing to do would have been to
accommodate.
6. "When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be
correct in cases in which they can be independently verified?" (Strobel, 50). "Yes, they
do, and the longer people explore this, the more the details get confirmed," Blomberg
replied. "Within the last hundred years archeology has repeatedly unearthed discoveries
that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of Johnironically, the one that's supposedly so suspect!" (Strobel, 50). Archeology is examined in
greater depth later.
7. When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they check out to be
correct in cases in which they can be independently verified? (Strobel, 50). Blomberg
stated that the more archeology we find in the Bible lands, the more the historical
accuracy is verified. Blomberg further stated, Within the last hundred years archaeology
has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the

gospels, particularly the gospel of John-Ironically, the one thats supposedly so suspect!
(Strobel, 50). Through these non-Christian resources we see the verification of the
historical setting as posted by the Bible.
8. "Were there others present who would have contradicted or corrected the
gospels if they had been distorted or false?" (Strobel, 51). One must remember that many
people could have had reasons for discrediting the Christian movement. "In later Jewish
writings Jesus is called a sorcerer who led Israel astray-which acknowledges that he
really did work marvelous wonders, although the writers dispute the source of his power"
(Strobel, 51). These would have been effective in discrediting him if they had done a
better job of it. Instead they did not deny his miraculous powers, they just denied that his
power came from God. Strobel asked Blomberg, "Could this Christian movement have
taken root right there in Jerusalem-in the very area where Jesus had done much of his
ministry, had been crucified, buried, and resurrected-if people who knew him were aware
that the disciples were exaggerating or distorting the things that he did?" (Strobel, 51). "I
don't believe so," Blomberg replied. "We have a picture of what was initially a very
vulnerable and fragile movement that was being subjected to persecution. If critics could
have attacked it on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have.
"But," he emphasized in conclusion, "that's exactly what we don't see" (Strobel, 51). The
attacks are not on the veracity of his miracles or even the resurrection, but on the
character and source of power.
The Bibliographical Test of the New Testament
The bibliographical test is one that examines the reliable transmission of the
documents. The question that is asked is: Are the copies faithful to the original?
What we are establishing here is the historical reliability through historiography
of the Scripture, not its inspiration. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English
Literary History, lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography. These are
the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test
(McDowell, 33).
To illustrate the importance of the bibliographical, imagine this scenario by Don
Bierle:
There is a well-known work written about 50 BC entitled 'Ceasar's War
Commentaries.' They are the personal memoirs of Julius Ceasar's brilliant military
campaigns. Let us suppose shortly after they were written that a friend of Caesar
was visiting the palace, noted the work, and requested a copy for his own library.
Caesar granted his request, but there was no Xerox machine in his office. Instead,
the friend needed to send for a trained copyist who would labor for days to
handwrite every letter, word, and sentence. Would the copy be exactly like
Caesar's original? That is unlikely. Now a person visits the home of Caesar's
friend, notes his copy, and secures permission to have his copyist come in to make
a second-generation copy for himself. Will it be exactly like the first generation
copy? That is also unlikely. Furthermore, it is even less like Caesar's original. To
the extent that changes occur in the copies, that is the extent to which they lack
authenticity. So far the changes are probably minor, but multiply that scenario by
hundreds of generations over centuries of time. The authenticity is certain to
degenerate. by the time we reach the fifteenth century and put it on the printing

press, only a shadow of Caesar's original writing may remain" (Bierle, 29).
The logical thing to do would be to go to Caesar's original, but that no longer exists. The
same is true of every other ancient document, including the New Testament writings.
Because of this, we must work with whatever copies have been found. This is the reason
for developing some guidelines to determine to what degree the document is authentic
(Bierle, 29).
An abundance of manuscripts will help determine the accuracy of the
transmission. The New Testament is unique in that it has more manuscripts that any other
document of antiquity.
There are now more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS), and
we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the
New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to
approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer's "Iliad" is second,
with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of
Home dates from the thirteenth century. (McDowell, 34)
The New Testament clearly outshines the next earliest document by a millennium.
Bierle expands on the importance of the large numbers of manuscripts noted
earlier.
The more abundant the number of ancient copies that are found, the better. Even if
there are variant readings, a large number of copies allows comparison and
correlation in order to reproduce the original. Furthermore, a large number of
manuscripts over the centuries minimize the possibility that a little band of people
created the documents 'behind closed doors', so to speak. A large number of
copies means broader public exposure and greater accountability to integrity
(Bierle, 29-30).
When there are more manuscripts, that means that a better correlation can be found,
bringing it closer to the original, but also it indicates that these copies were also known in
various public arenas.
On a purely bibliographical examination, if the New Testament documents are not
deemed reliable, then no ancient documents can be deemed reliable. "John Warwick
Montgomery says that 'to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is
to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient
period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.'" (McDowell, 35).
Sir Fredrick G. Kenyon served as the director for the British Museum and was
second to none in authority on manuscripts (MSS). He wrote:
The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant
evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for
any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were
written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of
the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established
(McDowell, 35).
This should leave no room for doubt in the historicity of the New Testament.
Archaeologist W.F. Albright confidently informed:
No other work from Graeco-Roman antiquity is so well attested by manuscript
tradition as the New Testament. There are many more early manuscripts of the

New testament than there are of any classical author, and the oldest extensive
remains of it date only about two centuries after their original composition
(McDowell, 36).
The New Testament is much closer to the originals in its copies than other documents of
antiquity.
In comparison to other documents of antiquity, Metzger wrote:
The textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his
material. Furthermore, the work of many an ancient author has been preserved
only in manuscripts which date from the Middle Ages (sometimes the late Middle
Ages), far removed form the time at which he lived and wrote. On the contrary,
the time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the
earliest extant copies is relatively brief. Instead of the laps of a millennium or
more, as is the case of not a few classical authors, several papyrus manuscripts of
portions of the New Testament are extant which were copied within a century or
so after the composition of the original documents (Metzger, 34-35).
This gives the New Testament an advantage of a thousand years or more in most cases.
Ravi Zacharias added:
In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best-attested ancient writing in
terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the
document, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There
is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and
integrity (Zacharias, 162).
The New Testament beats every other document of antiquity in the bibliographical test.
Bierle gave us a direct comparison of the scriptures to a comparable document of
the times.
Dr. Metzger reported that 746 lines of the 'Iliad' were corrupted, a distortion rate
of about 5%. Said another way, the meaning of one out of every twenty lines is
uncertain. Which Iliad do we read in literature class? Who decided which
manuscript was correct? Yet, it is probably rare that an instructor would caution
students about the authenticity of the Iliad when it is assigned or discussed. The
authenticity is assumed. The data for the New Testament is incredible. Only 40
lines of 1/5 or 1% (0.2%), are distorted. This is twenty-five times more accurately
copied than the Iliad, which is considered good. Besides, F.F. Bruce has said that
the variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the
New Testament affect no material question of historic fact of Christian faith and
practice (Bierle, 34-35).
With these kinds of numbers, one can have assurance of the reliability of the Bible in
comparison with other world literature.
The question of whether the Bible we hold in our hands today is the same as the
original is also germane to all ancient works that have been handed down to us. Bruce
Metzger said, "What the New Testament has in its favor, especially when compared with
other ancient writings, is the unprecedented multiplicity of copies that have survived"
(Strobel, 59). Metzger further stated:
The more often you have copies agreeing with each other, especially if they
emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can crosscheck them to
figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would

be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that represents the
descent of the manuscripts. In addition to Greek manuscripts, we also have
translations of the gospels into other languages at a relatively early time-into
Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. And beyond that, we have what may be called
secondary translations made a little later, like Armenian and Gothic. And a lot of
others-Georgian, Ethiopic, a great variety (Strobel, 59).
These copies, in all of these languages are also found in many different geographical
parts of the ancient world and some are written close to the time of the original
documents. Metzger said, We have copies commencing within a couple of generations
from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five,
eight, or ten centuries lapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy"
(Strobel, 59).
The wealth of quotations from the New Testament books in sermons and other
literature from the early church father and their disciples is also extensive and gives
another valuable historical verification. The textual critic has available the numerous
scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written
by early Church Fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources
for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be
sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament" (Metzger,
86). This fact is often overlooked by critics of the New Testament.
Often the question comes up as to how certain books made it into the Bible.
Basically the early church had three criteria," Metzger said, "First, the books must
have apostolic authority-that is, they must have been written either by apostles
themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by followers of
apostles. Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the rule
of faith. That is, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition
that the church recognized as normative? And third, there was the criterion of
whether a document had had continuous acceptance and usage by the church at
large (Strobel, 66).
This process did not occur immediately, but as the need arose in the church for a
definitive authority, these criteria emerged.
The acceptance of the Old Testament was recognized from the beginning.
The protestant Church accepts identically the same Old Testament books as the
Jews had, and as Jesus and the apostles accepted. The Roman Catholic Church,
since the Council of Trent in 1546, includes the books of the Apocrypha. By the
time of the Christian era the term 'Scripture' had come to mean a fixed body of
divinely inspired writings that were fully recognized as authoritative (Little, 8182). Thus now the conclusion can be reached based on internal and textual
evidence that the New Testament was faithfully transmitted down through time.
External Test: Evidence outside the New Testament
Dr. Gleason Archer, who taught for over thirty years at the graduate seminary
level in biblical criticism has an impeccable background. As a classics major at Harvard
he received training in Latin and Greek, French and German. At Seminary he majored in
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic; and in post-graduate years he studied and taught courses in
Syriac and Akkadian. He also acquired a special interest in Middle Kingdom Egyptian

studies which he later taught classes in the Eighteenth Dynasty historical records at the
Oriental Institute in Chicago. Dr. Archer was also admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in
1939. This gave him a thorough grounding in the field of legal evidences (McDowell, 4546). This quote is from the forward in Archer's book: "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties"
As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the
alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics,
archaeology, and science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has
been repeatedly verified and strenghtened by the discovery that almost every
problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times
until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical
text itself-or else by objective archaeological information (McDowell, 46).
In Dr. Archers opinion, every Bible discrepancy is just an apparent discrepancy until
further facts are in.
Authorship and Dating
Lee Strobel asked Craig L. Blomberg, "Tell me this, is it really possible to be an
intelligent, critically thinking person and still believe that the four gospels were written
by the people whose names nave been attached to them?" (Strobel, 22)."The answer is
yes, " Blomberg said with conviction. "The uniform testimony of the early church was
that Matthew, also known as Levi, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was
the author of the first gospel in the New Testament; that John Mark, a companion of
Peter, was the author of the gospel we call Mark; and that Luke, known as Paul's 'beloved
physician,' wrote both the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles" (Strobel, 22).
"There are no known competitors for these three gospels," He said. "Apparently, it was
just not in dispute" (Strobel, 23).
There are testimonies from those who knew some of the disciples or their
disciples. The oldest and most significant testimony comes from Papias about A.D. 125.
He specifically confirmed that Mark had "made no mistake" and did not include "any
false statement." He also concluded that Matthew had preserved the teachings of Christ
as well (Strobel, 24).
Later about AD 180, Irenaeus confirmed the traditional authorship.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect,
while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the
Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also
hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the
companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards,
John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself
publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia (Against Heresies).
Here, Irenaeus testimony also attributes to Pauls work as does the Book of Acts written
by Luke.
Eusebius wrote the following of the Gospel of Mark:
And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that
they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the
unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they
besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he
would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally

communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man,
and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of
Mark. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the
Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that
the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in
the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account,
and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias." (Eusebius, 196).
Here we have several references to testimonials of the authorship of Marks gospel.
One thing that must be remembered in studying the authorship and dating of the
New Testament is that these works were not written long after the events themselves.
This is important for primary documentary source study. "The books of the New
Testament were not written down a century or more after the events they described, but
during the lifetimes of those involved in the accounts themselves. Therefore, the New
Testament must be regarded by scholars today as a competent primary source document
from the first century" (McDowell, 52).
Irenaeus wrote that even the critics of Christianity in the first centuries did not
deny the authentic authorship of the gospels. "So firm is the ground upon which these
Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from
these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine"
(Against Heresies). Of all the attacks on Christianity, one would have thought that if there
were even a hint of doubt concerning the dating and authorship of the New Testament,
that would have come out. It did not.
Evidence from Secular Sources
Secular sources out side of the followers of Christ are almost unheard of to most people.
Many would be fascinated to know that there is great documentation in antiquity
concerning the person of Christ and of the early church. One such important source was
the Jewish historian, Josephus.
Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. He was born
in AD 37, and he wrote most of his four works toward the end of the first century.
He was a priest, a Pharisee, and he was somewhat egotistical. His most ambitious
work was called "The Antiquities", which was a history of the Jewish people from
Creation until his time. He probably completed it in about AD 93. In "The
Antiquities" he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the
death of the Roman governor Festus-who is also mentioned in the New
Testament-in order to have James killed." (Strobel, 77-78).
Josephus was in a unique position to chronicle the spread of early Christianity as it
interacted with Judaism.
In speaking of Ananias, Josephus wrote of how he tried to destroy the fledgling
church."Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the
sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,
whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
(Josephus, 1251).
Concerning Jesus, Josephus wrote:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;

10

for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth
with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the
Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal
men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first
did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at
this day (Josephus, 1122).
What Josephus wrote is entirely consistent with the testimony of the church in the gospels
and Acts.
Edwin Yamauchi said, "Tacitus recorded what is probably the most important
reference to Jesus outside the New Testament. In AD 115 he explicitly states that Nero
persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the
great fire that had devastated Rome in AD 64" (Strobel, 82).
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated
for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom
the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius
at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous
superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the
first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, an arrest was first made
of all who pleaded guilty. Then, upon their information, an immense multitude
was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against
mankind (Annals, 15.44).
Here we have from a Roman historian the account of the persecution of Christians by
Rome, but also the acknowledgment of Pontius Pilates decision to crucify Jesus Christ.
This is what is meant by the extreme penalty. One Jewish and one Roman historian are
examples of evidence from secular sources of that day of the trustworthiness of the New
Testament.
Archeological Evidence
If the Bible is to be reliable, there would certainly be some kind of archeological data to
back up the geographic locations and the customs of the people of that day. John McRay
is Professor of New Testament and Archeology at Wheaton College. As to the
contribution of archeology he stated:
Archeology has made some important contributions, but it certainly can't prove
whether the New Testament is the Word of God. If we dig in Israel and find
ancient sites that are consistent with where the Bible said we'd find them, that
shows that its history and geography are accurate. However, it doesn't confirm
that what Jesus Christ said is right. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved
by archeological discoveries. Archeology has not produced anything that is
unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible," McRay replied with confidence. "On
the contrary, as we've seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars
that have become codified into 'fact' over the years but that archaeology has
shown to be wrong" (Strobel, 95, 100).
The archeology should be collaborative evidence with the written documents. If the
customs, dress and rituals included in the text checks out with the archeological evidence

11

then we can have greater confidence in the text.

Archeology has collaborated that the background of the New Testament will not
fit any other time period than the first century. F.F. Bruce wrote, "For the most part the
service which archaeology has rendered to New Testament studies is the filling in of the
contemporary background, against which we can read the record with enhanced
comprehension and appreciation. And this background is a first-century background. The
New Testament narrative just will not fit into a second century background" (McDowell,
62).
The archeological evidence has also validated conservative biblical scholarship.
The book of Daniel is but one example.
For years, critics dismissed the book of Daniel, partly because there was no
evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that period. Later
archaeological research, however, confirmed that the reigning monarch,
Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzar as his coregent while he was waging war away
from Babylon" (Hanegraaff, 130).
Once again the Bible is confirmed over its critics.
An example of further archeology giving evidence for the reliability of the New
Testament is found in Lukes gospel.
In Luke 3:1 he refers to Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about AD 27.
For years scholars pointed to this as evidence that Luke didn't know what he was
talking about, since everybody knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather
the ruler of Chalcis half a century earlier. If Luke can't get that basic fact right,
they suggested, nothing he has written can be trusted. That's when archaeology
stepped in. An inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius, from AD 14
to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus-just as Luke had
written, McRay explained. It turned out there had been two government
officials named Lysanias!" (Strobel, 97).
Luke was shown to be exactly right.
Another example is also found in Lukes reference to city magistrates.
During the apostle Paul's second missionary journey he visited the city of
Thessalonica. Luke refers to the city magistrates there by the term 'Politarchs'
(Acts 17:16). The problem is that this title does not occur anywhere in other
literature, and it was assumed that Luke coined the term because he did not have
first-hand knowledge of the area. Obviously this was an alleged example of the
New Testament's sloppy history. But beginning with William Ramsay in the late
19th century, at least nineteen inscriptions have been found by archaeologists,
which cite 'Politarchs' as the correct title of magistrates in Macedonian towns.
Luke was historically right (Bierle, 38).
Luke again has shown that the critics wrong when more evidence was found.
Don Bierle sums up very well what archaeology has done for confidence in the New
Testament documents.
Nearly everything that I have read over the years in the field of archaeology
seems to confirm the trustworthiness of biblical statements. The census referred to
by Luke which took Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to be registered is now known
to be something the Roman Empire did every fourteen years beginning with
Augustus, and can be reconciled with the biblical date of their journey (Bierle,

12

39).
The New Testament has been able to withstand every turn of the shovel that archaeology
has brought. Not only has it withstood it, but has gloried in it. It has been vindicated by
some of its most severe critics.
Having done a careful study concerning the reliability of the New Testament, I
now turn and examine documents much older in scope, those of the Old Testament. In
this part of the paper I will look at the Old Testament in its transmission, archaeology,
history, testimony of Christ, and its fulfillment of prophecy.
Reliability of the Old Testament
Transmission of the Old Testament
Eyewitnesses wrote much of the Old Testament and greater manuscript support than any
other document of antiquity.
The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical
literature, including those of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Tacitus. The
reliability of Scripture is also confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of the
authors. Moses, for example, participated in and was an eyewitness to the
remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the exodus, the forty years in the
desert, and Israel's final encampment before entering the Promised Land, all of
which are accurately chronicled in the Old Testament (Hanegraaff, 129-30).
All of the above works of classical literature do not come even close to the Old Testament
in its transmission. A dismissal of the Old Testament would mean an immediate dismissal
of all classical works on the same basis.
The form that the Old Testament takes today was given to us by a group of Jewish
scholars called Masoretes, who lived between 500 and 900 AD. F.F. Bruce stated:
The Masoretes were well disciplined and treated the text with the greatest
imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against
scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the
alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch
and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed
calculations than these. The scribes could tell if one consonant was left out of say
the entire book of Isaiah or the entire Hebrew Bible. They built in so many
safeguards that they knew when they finished that they had an exact copy
(McDowell, 75-76).
These scholars took the most exacting precautions to preserve what they believed to be
the very words of God.
The regulations or rules that all official copies of the Old Testament were made
are impressive. I quote extensively from what Harry Ropp discovered on the diligence of
Old Testament transmission.
Samuel Davidson describes how the Talmudist went about making a copy of the
Old Testament text. The minute regulations were as follows: (1) A synagogue roll
must be written on the skins of clean animals, (2) prepared for particular use of
the synagogue by a Jew. (3) These must be fastened together with strings taken
from clean animals. (4) Every skin must contain a certain number of columns,

13

equal throughout the entire codex. (5) The length of each column must not extend
over less than 48 or more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty
letters. (6) The whole copy must be first lined; and if three words be written
without a line, it is worthless. (7) The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor
any other colour, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. (8) An authentic
copy must be the examplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least
deviate. (9) No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the
scribe not having looked at the codex before him.... (10) Between every consonant
the space of a hair or thread must intervene. (11) Between every new paragraph,
or section, the breadth of nine consonants; (12) between every book, three lines.
(13) The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need
not do so. (14) Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, (15) wash his
whole body, (16) not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in
ink, (17) and should a king address him while writing that name he must take no
notice of him. Rolls that did not measure up to the standards were destroyed
(Ropp, 88-89).
With all of these precautions in place, It is easy to see how the text of the Old Testament
was preserved so accurately. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls testifies to that fact.
"With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have Hebrew manuscripts dated
one thousand years earlier than the great Masoretic Text manuscripts, enabling them to
check the fidelity of the Hebrew text. There is a word-for-word identity in more than 95
percent of the cases, and the 5-percent variation consists mostly of slips of the pen and
spelling" (McDowell, 90).
It is important to know the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The first pieces were discovered in 1946 when a shepherd boy threw a rock into a
cave near the Dead Sea and heard a jar break. This led to a series of excavations
that uncovered one of the richest biblical manuscript finds ever. The Dead Sea
Scrolls contain portions of every Old Testament book except Ester. Until the
discovery of these manuscripts, the oldest Old Testament manuscript in existence
dated from around AD 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls were produced between 200 BC
and AD 68. That means the Dead Sea Scrolls are from 900 to 1,100 years older
than the oldest previously existing manuscript (Ropp, 87-88).
These scrolls have been one of the most important manuscript finds to date. This showed
the accuracy of the transmission of the Old Testament.
An example of the accuracy of transmission is given from the book of Isaiah.
Consider how the Masoretic text of Isaiah 53 (produced in AD 916 and used in
making most English translations) compares with Isaiah 53 in a portion of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (dated 125 BC): Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only
seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling,
which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes,
such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light,' which
is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly.... Thus, in one
chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a
thousand years of transmission and this word does not significantly change the
meaning of the passage. (Ropp, 88).
The passage on the suffering servant in Isaiah has only three letters, which are truly in

14

question, after over 1,000 years of copying. And these letters do not affect the meaning of
the text. The conclusion that comes is that the Old Testament was faithfully transmitted in
the copies, right down to today from the original.
Archeology and History
The value of archeology has already been explained in the section of the paper on the
New Testament. However it is worth noting again the value of archeology as it relates to
the reliability of the scriptures.
Millard Burrows of Yale recognized the value of archaeology in confirming the
reliability of the scriptures:
The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence again and again. On the whole,
there can be no question that the results of excavation have increased the respect
of scholars for the Bible as a collection of historical documents. The confirmation
is both general and specific. The fact that the record can be so often explained or
illustrated by archaeological data shows that it fits into the framework of history
as only a genuine product of ancient life could do. In addition to this general
authentication, however, we find the record verified repeatedly at specific points.
Names of places and persons turn up at the right places and in the right periods
(McDowell, 100).
The Bible is not just a book of history, but archeology shows that it is a book that was
written in the context of actual events of real people in real time. An example of this
evidence came from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, according to the book of Genesis,
were judged and destroyed by God (Genesis 19). Because these cities had never
been found or identified in any other literature, they were viewed as teaching a
moral lesson but were not actual historical places. But now they are known to be
very real places according to excavations at Ebla, a city in northern Syria dating
from the third and early second centuries BC. Inscriptions on some of the more
than 20,000 tablets found there refer to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as
trading partners of Ebla (Bierle, 39).
So the excavations of these tablets at Ebla dispel the theory that Sodom and Gomorrah
were just moral lessons. These tablets let us know that the two cities were real and that
based on reliable evidence they were destroyed. The Bible tells us why. Men my refuse to
believe the why, but they cannot any longer doubt that they were not really there.
Archeology has become an important aide in the battle of the reliability of the Bible.
The Testimony of Christ
There are several references in the New Testament of Jesus affirming the reliability of the
Old Testament. "Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to be the Word of God and promised to
guide his disciples to know all truth"(Geisler, 93). What we have is Jesus doing more than
affirming the Old Testament as reliable, but as the very Word of God.
Jesus used the Old Testament to defeat the devil in his temptation. "But He
answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word
that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4, NKJV). Jesus relied on the Old
Testament and attributed it as the very word of God. In this he defeated the devil in
temptation.

15

Jesus also states the purpose of his ministry in conjuction with the Old Testament:
"17"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to
destroy but to fulfill. 18"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one
jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18,
NKJV). Jesus attributes permanence to the law of the Old Testament.
What we have in these verses is Jesus Christ attributing the Old Testament as the
Word of God, the rule for life and conduct and permanence. Jesus certainly looked at the
Old Testament of his day as reliable.
Fulfilled Predictions
Dr. Frank Harber wrote of the value of prophecy in the Bible.
Only in the Bible does one find predictive prophecy. This important verification is
noticeably absent from all other major religions such as Islam, Buddhism,
Zoroastrianism, or in the writings of Confucius and Laotse. Other self-proclaimed
prophets such as Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon
have delivered prophecies of which almost all have failed. The few which could
be deemed as true are for the most part nebulous, general, and capable of multiple
meanings" (Harber, 54).
There are no other writings that contain the detailed predictions of what will happen in
the near future and the distant future than the Bible.
This test, if one could call it that, is one that the Lord God gave through Isaiah to
the other gods of the nations.
Present your case," says the Lord. "Set forth your strong arguments," the King of
Jacob says. "Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as
for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them, and
know their outcome; or announce to us what is coming. Declare the things that are
going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods..." (Isaiah 41:2123, NASB).
The challenge is that if these gods can foretell the future then they truly are gods. "The
God of the Bible is calling for a rigorous test which involves the objective prediction of
future events in human history. The God of the Bible does not ask us to trust Him on the
basis of a 'leap in the dark' kind of faith or a mere emotional experience" (Bloom, 17576).
John A. Bloom wrote what the criteria were for fulfillment of predictions. The
first is clarity. It must be clear and specific enough to be recognized when it occurs,
without ambiguity. A second criterion is that of prior announcement. The event and the
evidence of the prediction must come before the event. Independence is a third criteria. A
prediction must be fulfilled independent of the one making the prediction or his
followers. The final criterion that Jones gave is one of likelihood. The question is asked,
"How likely is it that this event will happen?" If it is something that could happen in all
probability then it could be something simply human in origin (Bloom, 176-77).
To discover whether or not true prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled, we would
have to find instances that without a doubt were prophesied long before the actual events
occurred. "For our purposes, this is any time near or after the time of Christ, as by then
the Old Testament was at least two hundred years old and was widely distributed

16

throughout the Roman Empire both in Hebrew and Greek translations, making it difficult
to insert changes, "corrections," or adjustments" (Bloom, 178). With such a wide
distribution and history behind the document, it would be virtually impossible to fabricate
the outcome of the prediction.
Frank Harber notes a specific prophetic fulfillment in Isaiah.
The Bible records many instances of specific, detailed prophecies, which were
given hundreds of years in advance of the fulfillment. One example is Isaiah
predicting that a man named Cyrus would rebuild the temple (which was still
standing in his day!) in Jerusalem (Isa. 44:28). Cyrus, the Persian king, was born
150 years later. He released the Jews from their 70 year captivity in order that
they might return to their homeland for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the
temple" (Harber, 55).
We need to remember that Isaiah is one of the books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
making it one of the most accurate of the archeological finds to date. Also one of the
signs of a prophet of God was 100% accuracy.
Bloom gave a historical fulfillment of prophecies concerning the cities of
Memphis and Thebes. It is a rather lengthly quote, but one well worth including in this
paper.
The prophet Ezekiel wrote: "Thus says the Lord God, 'I will also destroy the idols
and make the images cease from Memphis'" (Ezekiel 30:13, NASB). It is a
prediction of the end of the religious idolatry in Memphis, which was a northern
center for many of Egypts religious groups. The big question is: did this
prediction come true? Yes it did, about the seventh century AD, several hundred
years after its prediction. It was destroyed by the followers of Muhammad. The
idols and images of Memphis were used to build the city of Cairo. The prophecy
came true exactly.
Of Thebes, the Bible says, "And I will...execute judgments on Thebes.
And I will...also cut off the multitude of Thebes. ...Thebes will be breached"
(Ezekiel 31:14-16, NASB). This city was attacked, captured and burned on at
least three occasions after the prophecy was made but not totally destroyed.
Nebuchadnezzar was the first. In 92 BC Thebes withstood a three-year siege
before Ptolomy Lathyrus (the grandfather of Cleopatra) sacked and burned the
city in anger. The city recoved to some measure, but was finally destroyed by
Cornelius Gallus during the reign of Augustus for rebellion against taxes. Thus it
was not until about two hundred years after the latest liberal date for this prophecy
that the 'hordes of Thebes' were reduced to only a small collection of villages.
This area has never regained its stature as a city and its ruins still stand. We have
seen two cases of predictions made centuries before the fulfillments occurred. The
predictions were concise, rather than so vague that they could be applied to any
ancient city. No zealous band of followers assisted the fulfillment of these
prophecies. Note how the prediction concerning one city is in effect a control for
the other: If Ezekiel had merely reversed the city names in his prophecies, both
would have been wrong. It appears then that these are genuine prophecies which
were given by the God of the Bible to substantiate His claim that He can be
trusted (Bloom, 180-81).
From history we know that all of these things happened to these two cities of Memphis

17

and Thebes.
Isaiah was not the only prophet of God to give ample predictive prophecy
concerning cities. Ezekiel also testified to the fact of the sovereignty of God in history.
"In Ezekiel 26, which was written in 587 B.C., Ezekiel prophesies that the mighty
city of Tyre would be destroyed. Tyre was made up of two parts, a mainland port
city and an island city half a mile off shore. Ezekiel predicted mainland Tyre
would be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, many nations would fight against her, the
debris of the city would be thrown into the ocean, the city would never be found
again, and fishermen would come there to lay their nets. In 573 BC,
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre. Many of the refugees of the
city sailed to the island and the island city of Tyre remained a powerful city. In
333 BC, however, Alexander the Great laid siege to Tyre. Using the rubble of
mainland Tyre, he built a causeway to the island city of Tyre. He then captured
and completely destroyed the city. Today, Tyre is a small fishing town where
fishing boats come to rest and fisherman spread their nets. The great ancient city
of Tyre to this day lies buried in ruins exactly as prophesied. If we were to
calculate the odds of this event happening by chance, the figures would be
astronomical. No, it was not by coincidence (Zukeran).
The fulfilled predictions concerning the cities of Memphis, Thebes, and Tyre give great
credence to the reliability of the Bible, but more than reliability to the past. This
reliability can be translated to the future. This shows that the Bible is more that just a
reliable book. It is a supernatural book.
The last example of predictive prophecy is not found to be a place, but a person.
There are over three hundred prophecies made of Jesus in the Old Testament.
Prophecies such as His place of birth, how he would die, His rejection by the
nation of Israel, and so on. All these prophecies were made hundreds of years
before Jesus ever came to earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many
skeptics have believed that they must have been written after 70 AD--after the
birth and death of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby tried
to deny that they are even prophecies. However, in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls
were discovered. These scrolls contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic
books. When dated, they were found to be written from 120 to 100 BC, well
before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible accomplishment for Jesus
to have fulfilled all three hundred prophecies. Some say these prophecies were
fulfilled by chance, but the odds for this would be exceptionally large. It would
take more faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is
God and these prophecies are divinely inspired (Zukeran).
Archeology and bibliography both played a part in the verification of this prophecy. More
than anything else, predictive prophecy points way beyond reliability to supernatural
origin of the scriptures.
In summation, with the wealth of bibliographic material, archeology and secular
sources outside of the scriptures, there should be no doubt as to the veracity of both the
New Testament and the Old Testament as reliable documents. When fulfillment of
specific, predictive prophecy concerning places and people is added, the Bible moves
from being just reliable to supernatural in origin and transmission.

18

Works Cited
Bierle, Don. Surprised by Faith. Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1992.
Blomberg, Craig L.. "11 Reasons We Can Trust the Gospels." Decision Vol. 40, No. 11,
November 1999. November 1999. 13-14.
Bloom, John A.. "Truth Via Prophecy." Evidence for Faith.
Eusebius. "The Church History of Eusebius" The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Vol. 1. 196.:CD-Rom, Ages Software, 1998..
Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclop0edia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1999.
Hanegraaff, Hank. The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville:
Word, 1998.
Harber, Frank. Reasons for Believing. Green Forrest, AR: New Leaf, 1998.
Inch, Morris. A Case for Christianity. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1997.
Irenaeus. "Against Heresies." The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I: CD-Rom, Ages Software
1998..
Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews. 1998 Ages Software, Albany, OR. .
Kennedy, D. James. Evangelism Explosion III Level III Leaders Notebook. Ft.
Lauderdale: Evangelism Explosion International, 1991.
Little, Paul E.. Paul Little's Why and What Book. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1980.
McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Ed. Bill Wilson.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.
Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1968, second edition.
Nelson's Electronic Bible Reference Library. "The Holy Bible, NKJV (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1984..
Ropp, Harry L.. The Mormon Papers. Madison, WI: InterVarsity Press, 1978.
Sproul, R.C.. "The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis." God's Inerrant
Word:An International Symposium.....

19

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Tacitus, Cornelius. Annals. In "Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Robert Maynard
Hutchins. Chicago: William Benton, 1952.
The Holy Bible, NKJV. Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1982.
The New American Webster Dictionary. New York: Signet, 1972..
Zacharias, Ravi. Can Man Live Without God?. Dallas: Word, 1994.
Zukeran, Patrick. "Authority of the Bible." 1 June 1999. www.probe.org/authorityof the
bible.htm.

20