Difference between revisions of "Biblical accuracy"
m (→Bibliography: Wikilink and spelling) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→Bibliography: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Although '''biblical accuracy''' is often questioned and dismissed by sceptics, there is much evidence of | + | {{Bible}} |
| + | Although '''biblical accuracy''' is often questioned and dismissed by sceptics, there is much evidence of the [[Bible]] being a very accurate document. | ||
Much of this accuracy is in the myriad of historical references that have been shown by [[archaeology]] to be correct, although other indications of its accuracy are its fulfilled [[prophecy|prophecies]] and general explanations of humanity. | Much of this accuracy is in the myriad of historical references that have been shown by [[archaeology]] to be correct, although other indications of its accuracy are its fulfilled [[prophecy|prophecies]] and general explanations of humanity. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
Luke also provides the titles of numerous officials, and in many cases scholars in the past have believed that he got these wrong, but subsequent discoveries have proved him to be right. | Luke also provides the titles of numerous officials, and in many cases scholars in the past have believed that he got these wrong, but subsequent discoveries have proved him to be right. | ||
| − | For example, Luke referred to the officials in [[Thessalonica]] as ''politarchs'', a term not used in any other ancient literature, and which | + | For example, Luke referred to the officials in [[Thessalonica]] as ''politarchs'', a term not used in any other ancient literature, and which caused many to believe that Luke was mistaken. |
| − | But inscriptions have since been found that show that this term was used in the area, specifically including | + | But inscriptions have since been found that show that this term was used in the area, specifically including Thessalonica.<ref>Bruce, 1943, ch. VII; Hawkins, 1998</ref> |
== Bibliography == | == Bibliography == | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
** [http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm Chapter VII, the writings of Luke] | ** [http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc07.htm Chapter VII, the writings of Luke] | ||
* Geisler, Norman, ''Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics'', Baker Books, 1999. | * Geisler, Norman, ''Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics'', Baker Books, 1999. | ||
| − | * Hawkins, Craig S., [http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html The Book of Acts and Archaeology], | + | * Hawkins, Craig S., [http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/actsarcheology.html The Book of Acts and Archaeology], 22 October 1998. |
* Miller, W.R., [http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades] | * Miller, W.R., [http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades] | ||
* [[William Mitchell Ramsay|Ramsay, Sir William M.]], ''The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament'', Hodder & Stoughton, 1915. | * [[William Mitchell Ramsay|Ramsay, Sir William M.]], ''The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament'', Hodder & Stoughton, 1915. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:12, July 13, 2016
| |
| Bible | |
|
Sections About Concepts See also | |
Although biblical accuracy is often questioned and dismissed by sceptics, there is much evidence of the Bible being a very accurate document.
Much of this accuracy is in the myriad of historical references that have been shown by archaeology to be correct, although other indications of its accuracy are its fulfilled prophecies and general explanations of humanity.
William F. Albright said:
The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.[1]
Luke
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.[2]
Luke, the author of the book bearing his name and the book of Acts, includes numerous details that, together, would only be known to someone who was actually there at the time, given that names and titles frequently changed in his era. In fact, Luke names nine islands, 32 countries, and 54 cities, and gets every one right.[3]
Luke also provides the titles of numerous officials, and in many cases scholars in the past have believed that he got these wrong, but subsequent discoveries have proved him to be right. For example, Luke referred to the officials in Thessalonica as politarchs, a term not used in any other ancient literature, and which caused many to believe that Luke was mistaken. But inscriptions have since been found that show that this term was used in the area, specifically including Thessalonica.[4]
Bibliography
- Albright, William F., The Archaeology of Palestine, rev. edition. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960.
- Bruce, F.F., The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?, 1943
- Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999.
- Hawkins, Craig S., The Book of Acts and Archaeology, 22 October 1998.
- Miller, W.R., Archaeologists of the Christian Faith: Ancient Evidence for the Bible … in Spades
- Ramsay, Sir William M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.