Web Results


During his presentation, McDowell revealed the extensive techniques used by scribes to make sure the Bible we hold in our hands today is the most historically accurate document in history. While many assume the Bible is full of copying errors because of the proverbial "telephone game," the historic reality is quite the opposite.


by Matt Slick 11/22/08. Many people do not believe that the Bible is a reliable document of history. But, the fact is the Bible is very trustworthy as a historical document. If we were to look at a chart that compared the biblical documents with other ancient documents, we would see that the Bible is in a class by itself regarding the number of ancient copies and their reliability.


Genesis Is Historically True. The most controversial book of the Bible is Genesis, especially the first eleven chapters. Those chapters speak of the creation of the universe, the fall of man into sin, the world-wide flood of Noah, and the language-altering event at Babel. There is much evidence that these events are historically accurate. More...


For some reason I decided to debate religion over game chat (I know, Stupid). This kid was insistant that scientists have decided that it is the most historically accurate document in existance. I told him that was not true but he insisted. I googled it and could not find sites that confirmed this that weren't obviously religious in affiliation.


The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history". This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age.. Many fields of study span the Bible and history; such fields range from archeology and cultural anthropology to historical linguistics and comparative literat...


The Bible is generally very historically accurate, A common charge leveled against the Bible by atheists and others is that the Bible is not historically accurate and is simply a collection of myths and stories. This is not the case. Modern archaeology and history have shown that the Bible is generally very historically accurate.


The Bible—“It’s Not Historical” ... On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.


"The Bible has proven itself to be a historically accurate document" No it hasn't. It is known to be full of errors. The people who wrote it are also known not to have lived during (and certainly didn't witness) the events they described. The Bible is not a reliable contemporary historical account by any means.


They don’t want Him back! To admit that the Bible is accurate historically would mean accepting that God does exist—and that His Word holds authority over the lives of all men. The brightest minds know that if the Bible is exact in its history, then its commands are in full force. You cannot separate Bible history from Bible law!


Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates ...