The Bible:
A Relic or Reliable Revelation?
(This is the fifth part of The Bible: A Relic or Reliable Revelation? I've broken the whole talk up into smaller sections, the rest of which can be found through the links on the Bible Section page. For online reading I recommend reading the shorter sections successively. To view the document with the whole talk in it Click Here. To view the rest of the parts of the talk Click Here. It does not contain numbered endnotes but you can find a list of references used at the end.)
The Written Tradition is a reliable record, (continued)
Affirmed by archaeology
Now what about the archaeological evidence? That is an important part of the External Corraboration Test. Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has boldly asserted,
It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.
Sir William Ramsey is regarded as one of the great NT archaeologists of the past century. At first he was convinced that the book of Acts, written by Luke, was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (around 50 AD), and therefore, it was unworthy of consideration by a historian. He quite naturally thought this because that is what his professors taught him. However, after 30 years of his own research about Asia Minor, Ramsey changed his mind. He concluded,
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 historians.
Click here to go to the next section.
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
