11,153
edits
Is the New Testament historically reliable?: Difference between revisions
Is the New Testament historically reliable? (view source)
Revision as of 19:36, 16 August 2018
, 6 years ago→Summary
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
1. There are no valid reasons that the New Testament should not be accepted as a reliable historical document. This would include: | 1. There are no valid reasons that the New Testament should not be accepted as a reliable historical document. This would include: | ||
a. The accounts in the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses within forty years of the events that are described therein. The accounts are credible and trustworthy. | :a. The accounts in the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses within forty years of the events that are described therein. The accounts are credible and trustworthy. | ||
b. The accounts in the New Testament are from numerous independent authors. | :b. The accounts in the New Testament are from numerous independent authors. | ||
c. The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries. | :c. The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries. | ||
2. Archeology confirms the historicity of the Bible and there is not a single archeological discovery that has disproved any biblical reference. | 2. Archeology confirms the historicity of the Bible and there is not a single archeological discovery that has disproved any biblical reference. | ||
3. | 3. While there are real problems in the Bible, there are also real answers to those difficult passages. | ||
=Are the Gospel accounts historically accurate and trustworthy?= | =Are the Gospel accounts historically accurate and trustworthy?= | ||