3 Reasons the Bible Accurately Represents History

A long time ago, I re-blogged John Shelby Spong’s article on the three biggest misconceptions about the Bible. This is the first of my promised responses.

Shelby contends that the every Biblical scholar agrees that the Bible does not accurately represent history. I know one who does. She taught my Sunday school class last week. A better known person would be F.F. Bruce. He is quoted as saying:

“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament than have many theologians.”[1]

I’m not going to quote historians to establish the Bible’s historical accuracy. Rather, I’ll quote their findings.

Firstly, the Bible accurately reflect history because Archeology confirms it.

Lots of archaeological discoveries have confirmed the Bible and I know of none that contradict it. The Ebla tablet, the Nebo-Sarsekim tablet, the Temech Seal and Nehemiah’s wall are just a few examples. There is also the walls of Jericho and the discovery of the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Someone summarized it thus,

“I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.”[2]

Secondly, the Bible accurately reflects history because non-Christian historical writings agree with it.

Lots of extra-biblical writings confirm historical events in the Bible. Perhaps the most commonly known is the writings which confirm the great flood. Accounts of the flood are found in almost all nations and tribes. Remarkably, the Sumerian king List lists kings who ruled before and after the flood. The Kings before the flood reigned for extremely long periods of time while those after the flood ruled for increasingly shorter periods – the same pattern found in the Bible.

There is also the writings of people  like Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Thallus and Celsus which confirm the new testament. A quote from Josephus confirming the existence of both Jesus and his brother James is as follows:

“So [Ananus] assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.” Antiquities XX 9:1

Josephus also confirms the existence of John the Baptist. Josephus’ writings are regarded very highly by historians.

Thirdly, the Bible accurately reflects history because it demonstrates the characteristics of a good eyewitness account.

The accounts give lots of details about people, places and events which like I pointed out, have been confirmed both in writing and otherwise. Dr Peter Williams has a very interesting talk on the subject

For Brevity’s sake, I have kept this as short as I could. More information and documentation can be found in the following places:


[1] Bruce, F. F. 1960. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

[2] Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004)


Published by


I’m Tracy

2 thoughts on “3 Reasons the Bible Accurately Represents History”

What did you think of my post?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s