Is the New Testament historically reliable?: Difference between revisions

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 There are no valid reasons that the New Testament should not be accepted as a reliable historical document.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 There are no valid reasons that the New Testament should not be accepted as a reliable historical document.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c. The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries.
:c. The historical references contained in the New Testament are in agreement with secular and Jewish historians from the first and second centuries.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. There are real problems in the Bible, but there are also real answers to those difficult passages.  
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?=