Is the Bible reliable?

Introduction
Before we address whether or not the Bible is reliable, we must consider why this is an important issue in the first place. The Bible is the source of our doctrine (beliefs) as a Christian. God is beyond our ability to comprehend or to even puzzle out on our own. Knowing that, He has revealed Himself to us in a few ways. First, there is a general revelation through His creation. Even fallen, cursed creation presents us with an understanding that there is a Creator. Second, there is specific revelation through the prophets of the Old Testament. They spoke and wrote the words from God that explain His nature and ours. Without this, our understanding of the Creator is vague and subject to err. Finally, and most completely, He revealed Himself through Jesus Christ.¹ The teachings of Jesus and his apostles are the foundation of clearly understanding God, man, and the relationship between the two. These teachings compose correct doctrine, so long as they are taken as a whole.

I must emphasize that we are not saved by correct doctrine - we are saved only by faith in Jesus Christ. The idea that we are saved by correct theology is the message of Jehovah Witnesses. You can be theologically incorrect to a large extent and still be saved. But you won't be living a victorious life if you misunderstand the reality of who God is, who humans are, and who believers in Christ are. Doctrines about all of these things come from the Bible. Consistent study of the Bible, in humility, is required to learn correct doctrine.

Some might ask "how do know which doctrine is correct among all the competing doctrines out there?" The only way to know is to be deeply familiar with the Bible. A lot of doctrines are the result of incorrect interpretation of the Bible or by the picking and choosing of particular passages. See my earlier article on Bible interpretation. Good interpretation practices and familiarity with the whole of scripture is how we learn good doctrine. The humility to be corrected in that understanding, by the Bible and by others, is essential because none of us has 100% correct doctrine on every issue. But one has to have a working knowledge of scripture or one can be misled rather than corrected.

As discussed in the past, we must take the Bible literally, except where it is clear that it is symbolic. Otherwise, if we consider everything to be symbolic, we can make the text say anything we want it to. That is not an interpretational approach - it is a complete lack of an approach to interpretation. It is not showing respect for the text. One might as well take a modern novel and try to derive spiritual truths by interpreting it any which way we choose.

We must also distinguish between essential (or primary) doctrines, secondary doctrines, and tertiary beliefs. Again, we are not saved by correct doctrine, but certain beliefs are essential before one can be saved.

1. We must recognize that we are sinners, in need of God's salvation.² If we don't believe this, why would we even seek or accept salvation?
2. We must realize that Jesus is the only way to salvation.³ If we don't believe this, we will seek salvation through some other means.
3. We must understand that we cannot earn salvation by adding to what Jesus has done.⁴ We are saved only by faith in Jesus. Period.

If you hold to these three doctrines, you can be saved. If you disbelieve any of them, you will not have saving faith in Jesus. It isn't the doctrines that save us, but these understandings are essential prerequisites.

Secondary doctrines are the beliefs that are not essential for salvation but which enable a victorious life. There are too many to list here, but a very important doctrine is that the Bible is the ultimate source of correct information about who God is, who we are, and what is a proper perspective on things. It is the measure against what all other claims of truth must be measured. Believing otherwise will allow us to be misled by the lies of the Enemy. Secondary doctrines may not be necessary for salvation, but that doesn't mean they aren't terribly important. If they weren't, Jesus and the apostles wouldn't have spent so much time teaching them.

The tertiary beliefs are those which believers can disagree on, which aren't terribly important. An example is the disagreement between beliefs of pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, or mid-tribulation rapture. There is nothing wrong about having an opinion on such matters, or discussing the relative merits. But your belief in such a thing shouldn't have any affect on how you live your life. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with essential doctrine.

There are some who think that having the essential doctrines is all that is needed. Salvation is merely "fire insurance". But a lack of interest in better understanding God, and our position in Christ, indicates something seriously amiss. One might even question whether such a one's faith is real. On the other hand, merely being familiar with the Bible's teachings may do nothing more than put us in the unsaved position of simply being moral, leading us to conclude that we have no need of salvation through faith alone. The Christian life is one of growing relationship with Jesus. It means you are making progress in becoming more and more like Christ in your relationships with your spouse, your family, your co-workers, and your neighbors. That is empowered by the Spirit, but knowing the Bible is an essential part of the equation. Those who do not know the Bible do not experience the empowering of the Spirit.

Biblical illiteracy also makes one subject to the misuse of scripture by the enemy of our souls. Numerous popular (and less popular) movies - as diverse as Ghostbusters and The Da Vinci Code - have used Biblical imagery and out-of-context quotes, along with entirely invented language to claim that the Bible says things that it does not. Being familiar with the scripture is the only way to guard against heretical views. Make sure that you don't reject the teachings of the Bible based on the many misrepresentations of it that float around us like a toxic fog.

Next let us address those who dismiss the Bible, in whole or in part. This is done by both those who are hostile to it and also some who are generally accepting of it. The important point here is that if you dismiss the Bible, you also dismiss all that it says - including the salvation only found in Jesus. There are those who do not ask authentic questions, who have made up their minds not to believe it and only question it to provide an excuse to dismiss it. But for those who have not already made up their minds, it is perfectly reasonable to consider if the Bible is reliable.

Those who want to discredit the Bible attack it in three primary ways. They use logic, history/archaeology, and science. The reason they attack it is because they don't want to acknowledge that there is a God who demands an account of our behavior and attitudes. They grasp at any excuse, no matter how faulty, to convince themselves that they have no need to listen to what it says. If you can prove the Bible to be wrong in some way, you can dismiss it as nothing more than mythology or religious propaganda. But God is not mocked. In the end, all of the excuses to dismiss the Bible will be revealed to be groundless and based on a desire to go our own way rather than obey God.

Inerrancy
The idea that the Bible is 100% accurate and reliable is called the doctrine of Biblical "inerrancy" - literally "lack of errors". If you believe there are any errors in it, then none of it is reliable. If you believe the gospels, but dismiss the Old Testament, you immediately have a problem because Jesus makes numerous references to the Old Testament. If you believe what Jesus said, Who treated the Old Testament as true, then to dismiss the Old Testament is to dismiss Jesus Himself. You have a serious logical problem with your thinking and beliefs. If you dismiss the writings of the apostles, Jesus' chosen followers, how can you believe what Jesus said, since those apostles (and Luke, a close associate of apostles) are the only source we have of what Jesus said? If any of what they said is wrong, then what they recorded about Jesus is also unreliable. If you dismiss Paul's writings, then you dismiss the apostle Peter who called Paul's writings "scripture", and you call the rest of the apostles into question as well. Despite being written by multiple authors over thousands of years, the Bible is so interwoven by fulfilled prophecy and references between the various authors, that dismissing parts of it causes the whole to crumble like a building whose supporting structures are removed. The enemy knows this and that is why he attacks the Bible's reliability. He knows better than most just how true the Bible is, but he authors lie after lie about it for the consumption of gullable humans.

Some say that although one cannot believe the historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible, they can still believe the spiritual message. I fail to see how one could consider the spiritual lessons to be valid when the rest of it isn't. The whole reason Jesus came and died for us is because of sin, which stems from the events at the beginning of the book of Genesis. If Adam and Eve did not literally exist, then the explanation for the origin of sin and the fall is eradicated. And if there was no fall or original sin, where is the validity of God's wrath against sin? And if there is no reason for God's wrath, why is there a need for a Savior? If there was no original Adam, how can Jesus be the "Second Adam"?⁵ The whole Bible stands or falls based on the reliability of every part of it. Thus if you dismiss parts of it, you have no logical grounds for accepting any of it. As Jesus said, "If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?"⁶

Even if you could find some logical way to dismiss parts of the Bible, there is a serious problem with treating it like a smorgasbord, where one ignores the unpalatable parts, while accepting what one likes. This approach leaves it entirely up to each person to decide what parts to pay attention to and which parts to ignore. How is this any difference than accepting a popular book on philosophy, where one can pick and choose what they want to believe? Or how is it different than reading propaganda of ancient Kings who mix actual events with false narratives that exalt themselves? Those who take this approach to the Bible set themselves in judgment above God who inspired the entire thing.⁷

Believing that the Bible isn't entirely true means that we are left to ourselves to determine what we want to believe. Why believe the atonement other than that you want to? Why believe in heaven except that you like it? The natural result is that we will exclude the parts that we find unpalatable, which are likely the parts we most need to heed. I've noticed that those who do this tend to become extremely legalistic about the parts they consider valid - almost as if they could make up for what they ignore by doubling down on the other parts.

As an example, there are those, such as "Torah-observant" believers that legalistically follow the Mosaic laws, insisting that they are just following the Bible. The problem is that they are only following part of the Bible - the Torah. They ignore the context that the Mosaic law was given to the Jewish people, who entered into it voluntarily. These believers aren't the descendants of those who entered into the covenant. They supposedly came to faith via the new covenant of Christ's blood, yet they ignore Paul's words - especially to the Galatians. We need to take the whole of scripture, not just the parts that appeal to us.

Besides Torah-observant believers, certain other heretical belief systems (Mormonism is but one example) emphasize the Old Testament - sometimes to the point of virtually ignoring the New Testament. The problem with this is that until Christ was revealed in the New Testament, the nature of the Messiah was a mystery. Paul points out that what was a mystery has now been revealed through Jesus.⁸ Though the Old Testament is true and accurate, it is somewhat vague in ways that only the New Testament clarifies. To ignore, or denigrate, the New Testament is to see reality through a veil that obscures important details.⁹

Some of "super-spiritual" people hide behind religious language. They insist that by following the Spirit, they have no need of the Bible. It is true that if we follow the Spirit, we will be in accord with what the Bible teaches. But we don't always all follow the Spirit. Consider the number of letters that Paul had to write to Christians (who have the Spirit, by definition) to correct their theological misconceptions, heresy, and bad behavior. Even his protege, Timothy, needed instruction from Paul, though he was mature enough to oversee several churches. It takes a lot of nerve to think one is better at following the Spirit's lead than such Godly men.

Paul wrote more words about correct theology than about how to live. That isn't because how we live is unimportant. It is because we act out of our beliefs. Without scripture, our theology becomes tainted by our flesh on the inside and the world on the outside - just like the Galatians and Corinthians. Paul himself spent over a year teaching the Corinthians, and yet they quickly departed from sound theology when he left, hence his letters to them. On the opposite extreme, we have the Pharisees which knew the scriptures better than most Christians today, yet were not saved. Knowing proper theology is worthless without faith and the indwelling power of the Spirit. So, we see that we need both correct theology from scripture, and the leading of the Spirit that helps us apply what is written therein. We also need to be surrounded by other believers who can correct and encourage us where we have blind spots. And we all have blind spots.

We cannot disregard scripture, especially the parts that make us uncomfortable. Nor can we follow the Spirit if we do not have sound theology. There are a great number of cults in Africa among those who have received the gospel but have no scripture in their language. They are theologically impoverished. They may have the Spirit and be saved, but their behavior is adversely affected by their incorrect theology. Consider the number of heresies over the centuries that have been followed by believers who did have the scriptures. Nearly all of these were the result of not taking the whole counsel of God - they ignored some passages in order to fixate on others.

What good is having the scripture, if one isn't familiar with it? This may have been a contributing factor to heresies over the years, but it seems a more serious problem these days. There are people who rarely read the Bible themselves, instead relying almost entirely on Sunday morning sermons or podcasts. Even if such were sufficient (and eating only once a week is not), without familiarity with the Bible, how can one be sure that what one is being taught is in line with the whole of scripture? I know people that have abandoned the faith because their only inputs were from people who focused exclusively on a small set of favored passages. They eventually found such teaching to be unsatisfying and went elsewhere. It is no wonder since they were being fed a diet of warped theology and they had little personal knowledge of the Bible to counteract that.

This is why it is important to read the whole Bible regularly. Even if you only read a single chapter each day, you'd read through the entire Bible every four years. But reading it is insufficient if you simply disregard what you don't like rather than asking God to reveal to you whether you don't like it because you have an ungodly attitude or are misinterpreting the passage. I don't think that merely reading the Bible is sufficient in itself (though it is far more than what many "believers" do). One must study it. Find out how your problem passage fits with the whole of the rest of the Bible. Give it serious consideration. Let the entirety of scripture correct your incorrect interpretation of your favorite passages. Take it all to heart, but be sure you understand it in context and be humble enough to be willing to change when you find out your theology was wrong.

If the scripture has errors or isn't inspired then why are we told "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"?¹⁰ Notice the "ALL" in "all scripture" - you cannot pick and choose. Some will argue that at that time the "scriptures" only applied to the Old Testament. But we know that the early church considered the writings which constitute our New Testament as scripture from the earliest times. Even the apostle Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture.¹¹ Jesus gave His apostles His seal of approval, doctrinally, when He told them that "anyone who believes me will also believe you"¹². He thus equated what they would teach with what He, Himself, taught. Since He knows all things, He knew that the apostles would accurately communicate His truth and we can trust their writings. Jesus thus validated the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles. The apostle Peter later affirmed that Paul's writings were scripture as well. In the New Testament, that only leaves the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts without direct approval by Jesus and/or the apostles. But these were written by Luke, a companion of Paul and neither the apostles or the early church fathers rejected his books - and they are in the earliest lists of the church's accepted writings.

Nor can we, as participants in New Covenant, ignore the Old Testament. Why do we even need a Savior? That is explained in Genesis. Nearly every book in the New Testament has multiple references to the Old Testament. Paul says that the Old Testament was given to us as examples.¹³ You cannot ignore either testament, or disregard parts of any of it, if you want to be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Consider this: who dictated the first five books of the Bible to Moses? It was God. Who gave messages through the Old Testament prophets? It was the Spirit of God.¹⁴ Now we know that Jesus is the Creator¹⁵ and He and the Father are One.¹⁶ So, Who is speaking through the Old Testament? Jesus! He speaks as much through the Old Testament as He does through His parables in the gospels. Frankly, the entire Bible ought to be red in the red letter editions.

Where Did the Bible Come From?
"Okay, fine," you say, but how do we know that what we have today is what the original church believed? Weren't a lot of gospels excluded later on by various Catholic councils? Let's talk a bit about the canon (the approved books) of the Bible. As an example, I will use the doctrine of Christ's divinity to illustrate some points - though it is hardly the only doctrine that some people try to disregard by calling the Bible into question.

The Old Testament is the Hebrew canon, which was defined by the traditions of Judaism from antiquity. The Catholic and Orthodox churches also accept the apocryphal books as part of the canon, but Protestants only consider as canon the Old Testament books accepted as canon by traditional Judaism. Though Catholics include some extra books, Protestants, Catholics, the Orthodox Church, and Orthodox Jews all have the same 39 books of the Old Testament in common.

When it comes to the New Testament canon, there is a tendency among some, even believers, to think in terms of conspiracy when they hear about the New Testament canon. This was never the way anyone in the scholarly field looked at it. Instead, the concept appears to be solely because of the writings of Dan Brown, author of "The Di Vinci Code". This is entirely a work of fiction by a non-scholar (not even an amateur scholar) who wants to deny that Jesus was God incarnate, by insisting that there were writings suppressed by the early church that proved his point. He claims there were 80 gospels written (not true), that more than the four gospels in our Bible were considered canon by the early church fathers (also not true), and the later councils in the 4th century excluded all these other writings (also, no surprise, not true).

The truth is that the New Testament canon developed largely by tradition until it was acknowledged by various councils in the 4th and 5th centuries. None of the ancient Greek texts excluded from the canon were widely considered to be divinely inspired at any point in history. In the end, those accepted as canon were the surviving writings of the apostles or their close associates (such as Luke). Books such as the Gospel of Thomas (not written by Thomas the apostle) were neither widely accepted nor written by the apostles or their associates. Hence, nothing written since 100 AD is considered canon. And what we recognize as the New Testament today would have been recognized as the accepted scriptures by the early church. As early as 180 AD Iraeanus confirms this with a list of the writings considered to be authoritative.

There are a couple extra books that are only recognized by certain very small segments of the modern church. For instance, the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Supposedly this was written by Paul, but appears to be an amateurish mishmash of greetings from Paul's other letters. Paul does make mention of a letter he wrote to the Laodiceans, but the genuine article seems to have been lost. In any case, nearly every church, sect, leader, and teacher throughout the last two thousand years are in agreement on what constitutes the authentic New Testament.

This isn't to say that there aren't valuable writings since then - only that any such writings are not considered inerrantly divinely inspired. All such writings must conform to the writings in the canon or be rejected as heretical. This is one of the problems that I (and others) have with the book of Mormon. It was not written by any of the original apostles or their associates - but Mormons consider it canonical and thus interpret the Bible through the lens of the Book of Mormon instead of the other way around. This not only adds questionable material, but results in the reinterpretation of several important Biblical teachings.

In other words, the New Testament that we have today is identical in composition to what the early church considered canon. The order of the books wasn't settled until the canon was recognized by the Catholic church, and the verse numbers were added, apparently, in the 13th century. But verse numbers don't change the meaning and neither does the order of the books.

How do we know that the text of the Bible wasn't modified since it was originally written? This is a valid question and I'm happy to say that we have many manuscripts that are quite old that are used to make modern translations. There are some minor differences between the manuscripts (such as alternate spellings for proper names, updated punctuation and grammar, and so forth), but absolutely nothing that changes theological meaning. Part of the reason for this remarkable consistency throughout the centuries is that the scribes who copied the manuscripts generally held to a very high standard of professionalism and respect for the material. It wasn't unknown for a scribal mistake to result in the burning of the marred copy so that errors would not be introduced and propagated. In fact, the word "scribe" comes from a verb meaning "to count". When a scribe finished copying a manuscript, the number of letters was counted and if there was a difference from the original, the scribe had to go back and find the error(s). It was exacting work.

Time and space do not allow for a detailed description of all the ancient manuscripts that we have. But I will mention that there are some ancient manuscripts that are like modern commentaries, interweaving scripture with commentary. And some manuscripts are equivalent to pamphlets or sermons that juxtapose different verses to make doctrinal points. Some critics insist that these are examples of changes in the text over the millenia. But that would be like saying that a modern commentary or sermon is proof that the Bible is being changed today. It is clear whether a book is the Bible or a commentary. This is the same with ancient manuscripts. The only way this could be confusing is if someone assumed that every ancient Hebrew manuscript is a (faulty) copy of the Bible.

As an example of how faithfully the copying was, consider that up until the 1950s, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 1000 AD (the Masoretic text). Then the Dead Sea scrolls were found, which included several portions of the Old Testament - including the entire text of Isaiah. These dated from 100 BC - over a millennia before the previous oldest texts - and there were no copying mistakes between the two!

It must also be understood that books were uncommon in ancient times and original manuscripts were preserved, literally, for centuries. Thus, original manuscripts written by Peter, Paul, Luke, John, and James were still extant and studied up through the third, fourth, or even fifth century. They also served as a way to check the validity of copies. In addition there were very early translations into other languages, such as Coptic. These can be compared to later Greek manuscripts to discover that there have been no major alterations over the years.

How do we know that what the early church fathers knew as scripture is what we have today, and not some faithfully copied, but intentionally modified, text? For instance, there are some that claim that Jesus was only a man that the church later made into the Son of God. First, it is only logical that anyone familiar with the original writings would have immediately noticed any changed versions that started circulating and there would have been a controversy (perhaps a schism) that resulted from that. There is not even a hint of this happening. The schisms that did happen came from differing interpretations of the same text - not two different versions of a text. Second, we have the writings of the early church fathers who talk about the teachings of the texts, which confirms the general doctrines therein. Some of these early church fathers knew one or more of the apostles personally. John lived until 100 AD, so we have several well-known historical believers and writers that, well into the second century, had first-hand knowledge from the apostles and their authentic writings. Finally, we have bits and pieces of manuscripts dating all the way back to the first century that confirm (for many verses) that the texts have not been modified.

Specifically in regard to the divinity of Jesus, many references precede the Nicean creed. Here are some examples:
First century:

• The Pompeii Rotas Square inscription, c 79 AD has a reference to "The Alpha & Omega" - a reference to Rev 1:8.

• Papyrus 66 (175-200 AD) contains John 1:1, and 20:28
• NCE 156 inscription, prior to 200 AD talks about "glorifying the son"
• Papyrus 46 (AD 200) contains Romans 9:5 and Hebrews 1:8
• The 'Alexamenos' graffito from 200 AD shows Romans mocking the Christian worship of a crucified God (Jesus).

• Papyrus 75 (3rd century) contains John 1:1
• The Megiddo Church mosaic from early 3rd century ("Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour"), and dedication "The God-Loving Akeptous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ as a Memorial").
• The Dura Europos Church painting from early 3rd century showing Jesus rebuking the storm and a reference to God's power.
• Papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century) contains 2 Peter 1:1

So we see that there are many early examples of actual fragments of New Testament scripture as well as other witnesses (such as mosaics and graffiti) to well-known portions of the gospels and writings of the apostles. We have not found any early fragment of the New Testament that contradicts what we have today. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ goes back to the times of the Apostles. This can be said for other doctrinal issues as well.

Since the gospels were not written until after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended, could not the gospel writers have misremembered what Jesus said and mistakenly recorded something different? Since the gospels are the only eye-witness accounts of Jesus' words and actions, there is no alternate source we can go to. But, we do have four different gospels which have many of the same events described therein. They are often written from slightly different perspectives with varying degrees of detail, but there are no contradictions. Some differences, yes, contradictions no. That is the first indication that the recollections of the gospel writers are accurate. The second indication is that Jesus tells the disciples that the Spirit will remind them of what He told them.¹⁷ So we have the involvement of Almighty God in keeping the writers' remembrances true.

While it is reasonable, from a human perspective, to suspect that copies of copies of copies would inevitably lead to minor errors creeping in and that people might misremember what was said in the past, the Bible is different because God has shepherded the process over the centuries. If you consider God to be aloof, uncaring, or cruel, it makes sense to believe that today's Bible is inaccurate. But because He is loving and gracious, we can trust that He has ensured our Bible is trustworthy. This is not contradicted by the fact that there are fringe groups that mistranslate or otherwise mishandle the scripture. The accuracy of the Bible over the millennia is so well attested to that there is no reason to believe that what is widely accepted as the Bible today has been corrupted through mistake or on purpose.

Archaeology
This introduces us to the historical record and whether or not it is consistent with what we read in the Bible. According to "Views of the Bible", from Biblical Archaeology Review 26:2 (March/April 2000), there are three views of Bible text from a historical perspective:
Minimalist. Critical and Liberal scholars see little correspondence between the Bible and archaeological data.
Maximalist. Traditional scholars seek correspondence between the Bible and archaeological record which give sufficient evidence to believe in the Bible's reliability.
Unconcerned. The Bible is a story, not history; but is important as a story. Herein, I will lump this category in with the Minimalist camp.

The minimalists have made up their minds that the Bible is mythological and ignore it as unhistorical and publicly attack it as such. The problem is that their attacks are almost never from the standpoint of having found something that seems to contradict scripture, but go along the lines of "The Bible mentions such and such a city, but we have no evidence that such and such a city ever existed." This is an argument from ignorance. A lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of a lack. Inevitably, as archaeology progresses, many of these supposedly non-existent cities are unearthed. Even when they think they've found something that contradicts scripture, it eventually comes to light that they were wrong about it.

One might wonder why it takes so long to debunk the attacks of the minimalists or why they seem to have an endless list of non-evidences to use in their attacks. The fact is that, despite 200 years of archaeological digs and discoveries, only a very small percentage of even known sites have been explored, and new ones are being discovered all the time. Combine this with occasionally political tensions in the Middle East, and the fact that there are people with a vested interest in not discovering more about the past in this area, perhaps one can understand how the work progresses slowly.

And every time one minimalist argument is knocked down, they come up with a new one. This gives the impression that there have been a continuous stream of discoveries that disprove the Bible. The fact is that actual discoveries prove the Bible and it is the lack of discoveries that is being used to attack its credibility. For instance, for years many skeptics insisted that there was no King David because we had unearthed no historical proof of him. To them, he was merely a mythological figure. That was the case until ancient references to King David were discovered. In fact, the references were unearthed decades ago, but it was only recently that the text was translated and we now have references to kings who were in the lineage of King David. Then their strategy changed. "Fine, there was a Kind David, but he was some minor warlord living in a hovel and not a King that held sway over the entire area." But now advanced buildings from David's time have been discovered - indicating a highly structured and widespread royal administration in Israel. One won't have to wonder long what the skeptics will come up with next, because they will create new arguments.

Let me be clear: these attempts to disprove and dismiss the Bible are lies from the Enemy. Coming up with a lie is easy. Doing the research to counteract the lies with truth can take a very long time. I recall seeing one glib comment on social media that asserted something that seemed questionable to me. It took the person about 30 seconds to make the post (and he probably just copied someone else). It took me over an hour to look into it deeply enough to discover that the statement was completely wrong. When you understand that lies can be invented in minutes, but research to debunk them can take hours or days, you can start to see the problem. So, though many of the lies about the Bible have been knocked down by evidence, new ones are quickly invented so as to keep up the impression that the Bible is unreliable. As Jonathan Swift said in 1710:

Few lies carry the inventor's mark, and the most prostitute enemy to truth, may spread a thousand without being known for the author: besides, as the vilest writer has his readers, so the greatest liar has his believers: and it often happens, that if a lie be believed only for an hour, it has done its work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it; so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect: like a man, who has thought of a good repartee, when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who has found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.

or, in a more simple form, the proverb (dating at least as far back as 1820):

Falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on.

In the end, you will have to decide at which point enough lies about the Bible have been discredited to cause you to consider it trustworthy.

Science
Finally, science is used as a means to try to discredit the Bible. Primarily this is done through the teaching of evolution. I talked extensively about this in previous articles and won't address it here. However, I think it is important to recognize that the same willful disregard of scripture used by archaeological minimalists is displayed by those who try to disprove the Bible because of evolution. As with the minimalists, new scientific discoveries support the Bible in ever increasing amounts. Many claims of evolutionists have been discredited over the years, but the fertile ground of imagination has no trouble coming up with new "proofs" that keep the idea alive until a new proof is invented when the previous one is debunked.

As you might gather from the above text describing the support for the deity of Christ, it can take a lot of effort to discuss the support for any given issue. If I were to take even that minimal amount of text for each argument offered by skeptics, this article would balloon into several books. This defense of the Bible is called "apologetics". For more apologetic support, there are many books available. Two of the most easy-to-access and modern of these books are "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and "More Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. I recommend them as an introduction to the many rebuttals of the lies about the Bible.

In all of these cases, we have those who question the Bible because of their ignorance and what the experts tell them on one hand, and those who have made up their minds on the other. Not everyone can be an expert in science or archaeology, so it is understandable that many people are misled by the experts. Some aren't even aware that there are reasonable and contrary viewpoints. But among the (at least minimally) informed, there is a choice to be made: one can be open-minded or one can make up one's mind ahead of time - despite any evidence to the contrary. People choose what they want believe. God knows this and therefore no one will be excused on judgment day.

From my perspective over a period of many decades of observing attacks on the Bible, and the eventual defense of it, I am thoroughly convinced that it is without error of any kind and must be taken as a whole. Any idea that arises against the Bible will eventually fall as all previous ones have. The supposedly moderate idea that one can believe the essentials of the faith but ignore other parts of scripture is an untenable position. And if we do consider it true, we had better make every effort to be sure to interpret it correctly and apply it to our lives.

1 Hebrews 1:2
2 Romans 3:23
3 Acts 4:12
4 Romans 11:6, etc.
5 1 Corinthians 15:45-47
6 John 3:12
7 2 Timothy 3:16-17
8 Colossians 1:26
9 2 Corinthians 3:14
10 2 Timothy 3:16
11 2 Peter 3:16
12 John 15:20
13 1 Corinthians 10:11
14 2 Peter 1:21
15 John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17
16 John 10:30-38
17 John 14:26