As a student of the bible, I love to hear about the discoveries that have over the years only given much credence to this book. There have been many stories of brilliant minds that have attempted to disprove the scriptures only to succumb to the realization that the bible is truly a magnificant piece of literature unlike any other.
William Albright, known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists, said: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."
He also said: "The exessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th & 19th centuires, 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 recognititon to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
Millar Burrows of Yale observes: "Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. it has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artifical schemes of historical development."
He also exposes the cause of much unbelief: "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
This is still true today. How many of us are coming to the table with our predisposed beliefs based on what we've just picked up along the way? I hear alot of repititon from those that have no idea where they've heard such and such. It's like gossip. They are picking up and passing on what they have had whispered in their ears. I did this myself for a while until I realized I really had nothing to back myself up on other than what I heard from another.
He adds: "On the whole, archaelogical work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine". :
Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived. He was a student in the German historical school of the mid 19th century. He believed the Book of Acts was a product of the mid 2nd century AD. He was very convinced of this belief. In his research to make a topographical study of Asia Minor he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke, the physician. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He said this about his change of mind:
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. it did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recenly I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topgraphy , antiquities and socieity of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a 2nd century composition and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."
Ramsay concluded after 30 years of study that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy......."this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Ramsay also says: "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."
To even consider this book coming from an all powerful God it MUST meet certain requirements. It has to be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so we have exactly what God wanted us to have. Next it must be correct when it deal with dates, events and places. A book that has these things mixed up has no right to claim it comes from an infallible God.
If you test the NT documents with the same standard of tests applied to any of the Greek classics, the evidence overwhelmingly favors the NT. If someone states that we have a reliable text of classics, then that same person would be forced to admit that the NT is also just as reliable.
Actually many don't realize that the original NT copies were in better textual shape than the 37 plays of Shakespeare written in the 17th century, after the invention of printing. In every one of his plays there are gaps in the printed text where we have no idea what originally was said. Textual scholars were forced to make good guesses to fill in the blanks. With the abundance of existing manuscripts of the NT we know nothing has been lost through the transmission of the text.
Those who contend that the Bible is unreliable historically are not historians or archeologists. While I can't prove the bible is inspired or written by the very hand of God, (although I believe it to be true,) I do believe the evidence supports the claim the Bible certainly is the very word of God.
"