Is a tabloid newspaper reliable

Answer 1

Look at this tiny smattering of evidence (althugh it seems huge it is the tip of the iceberg):

In fact, the Bible is the most confirmed ancient text, both Archaeologically as well as Historiographically. There is so much evidence, that I will not be able to more than scrape the surface here, but it should give you enough of an inspiration to go forward on your own.

World renowned Archaeologist Sir William Ramsey was a devout atheist. Ramsey was once given a challenge by a curious student who questioned the fact that his assumptions about the Bible were not a result of actual scientific investigation. Forming conclusions based on the actual available and demonstrable data was the very rule he himself had always insisted on. Regarding the Bible he had failed to do this. So he and a fellow decided they would once and for all put an end to this myth called the Bible and set out using Luke-Acts as their guidebook. After 10 years of research into every aspect of the book's claims all he had found were confirmations, so they went back over the evidences again and again. Needless to say not only did Ramsey finally conclude the Bible is true and historically accurate (and that Luke was an excellent historian), but he also realized by all this that all this could only be true if Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah. He immediately had a revelation that not only spurred decades of documentation of evidences but his findings literally rocked the materialistic critical world of the critics. See here some of the conclusions of the world's most profound Archaeologists:

"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." Dr. William F. Albright, one the world's greatest Archaeologists

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known 'facts'." Dr. Joseph Free

"The interval between the date of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." Dr. Kathleen Kenyon

"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." Sir William Ramsey, A Professor at Cambridge and Oxford Universities, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists to ever live

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Dr William Ramsey

"On the whole, however, archaeological 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.... 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, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."

Millar Burrows, Professor Of Archaeology At Yale University

"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest - that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge." Sir Frederic Kenyon

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." Dr. William F. Albright,

"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." Millar Burrow Of Yale University.

"Historical confirmation of the Old Testament has come from all over the biblical world. Persons, places and events have been substantiated: from the Patriarchs to Israel in Egypt, to the conquest of Canaan, to the kingdom under Solomon, to the deportations of Israel and Judah to Assyria and Babylonia respectively. In the field of New Testament studies, the evidence has also been abundant. Even a casual survey of any good book on New Testament archeology will indicate that the accuracy of details in the events of Christ's life has been confirmed from the ruins of Palestine, as has been the case with the details about the journeys of the Apostle Paul." Dr. Norman Geisler, Introduction to the Bible, p.122.

"Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds." Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1954), p. 15.

"The great value of archaeology has been to show, over and over again, that the geography, technology, political and military movements, cultures, religious practices, social institutions, languages, customs, and other aspects of everyday life of Israel and other nations of antiquity were exactly as described in the Bible." Henry M. Morris, Many Infallible Proofs (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1974), p. 301.

"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...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society 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 second 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." Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951), pp. 7-8.

"We are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the hands of Christ and the apostles." A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, NY, Harper and Brothers, leading linguistic critic, Dr. R. D. Wilson

The continuous influx of confirming samples was so great by the middle of the 20th century that Archaeology Magazine gave this study it's own specialty and periodicals. The one aspect of Christianity Archaeologists as scientists cannot prove is that Jesus Christ is Deity, or even absolutely the Messiah, but it can and has proved that the early Christian community from as early as 42 A.D. left inscriptions on their 1st century Jerusalem sepulchres and gravesites, that not only were these early Jewish followers convinced of both of these descriptions, but attested to the fact of His resurrection from the dead (alive at the time witnesses, only a decade after the events). They have also found the gravesites of many key players, i.e, Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Simeon, Ciaphas, etc.!

Here are some great books on the subject, and do not forget to have fun on the Web:

The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, Vol. 1 and 2, Freedman and Campbell, Scholars Press

Biblical Archaeology, G. Ernst Wright, Westminster Press

The Bible as History, Werner Keller, Wm. Morrow & Co.

Now as for the science of Historiography:

The Biographical Evidence

The first test, the Biographical, concerns itself primarily with the documentary evidence, i.e., the number of copies, and the distance in time away from the supposed originals or autographs! The second test, or Internal Evidence test, deals with alleged integrity of authorship, and the content's congruency with actual people, places, and events. The third test, which is the External Evidence test, concentrates on validation or confirmation of shared facts, mostly from outside sources like other historians, the testimony of what is called indirect witness, and the unintentional confirmations of hostile sources that usually occur by accident, etc!

The New Testament documents, and thus the central events they describe therein, can be tested by all three of these tests, and in fact, they have been tested by a number of prominent scholars! As you will see, the accounts of this person, Y'shua of Natzaret, actually have passed all these tests, as well as others. Once you have been shown this, each reader must then decide for themselves just what this will actually mean for them in their lives! For some, it will awaken them! They will realize that they have been taught many lies, like that the "the gospels are plagiarized evolved fictions written centuries later"! How each will choose to assimilate this reality is up to them. Some will realize that Y'shua/Jesus is actually God's Messiah, and will either accept, or reject, God's gracious free gift. Some will be incited to rage, having the shiny, film-like veneer of their fortress of delusion challenged and bruised (hopefully destroyed for their sake), and shake their heads in denial.

In any event, real intellectual integrity demands the examination and application of actual evidence and proof in the formation of any valid conclusion. Any conclusion formed out of pride, or ignorance, which denies such consideration, or conveniently discards such consideration, is not a valid derivation upon which one should make further inquiry, for it is nothing more than mere unfounded opinion. Even a seemingly valid conclusion can be amiss when incompleteness of necessary evidence becomes combined with our faculty for self-justification, but at least in these cases the available evidence has been considered, and taken into account, even if the interpretation of that evidence is personally filtered by one's philosophical pre-suppositions. No one is beyond such a possibility. After all, as one great thinker put it, "history is written by the victor"!

Now the first test is always the Biographical Test. If any document fails here, the rest is an exercise in futility. For if the credibility of the documentary evidence is proved to be unreliable, the document gets classified as fiction, myth, or something other, and may be quite interesting reading, but the events such a document describes is in no wise held up to be historically valid, and therefore as accurate.

By this test we try to determine the reliability of the copies that we actually possess as they reflect the original autographs, which we may or may not possess. In time, Archaeology has proved to be the needed assistant of Historiography's Biographical analysis. Especially in Biblical studies, as you will soon see. In the area of the New Testament's documentary evidence, it has been an essential partner. The most obvious way in which this has been true, is in the discovery of many better, and much older manuscripts and fragments (better not necessarily being a function of older). When performing this test, we need to look at four main aspects of documentation:

a) How many copies, fragments, etc., do we actually have?

b) How do they compare one to another?

c) How much time has elapsed since the alleged events described?

d) How do these data stack up against other established works?

The first three questions will be answered, the facts having been determined, in the context of our comparative data to follow. For the purpose of demonstrating the unquestionable reliability of the New Testament, and it's central historical focus, I chose to compare our present data regarding these Scriptures, with another book pretty much validated by the clear majority of textual critics in this field. Within this context, we will take a broader comparative look among a number of the greatest extant works of antiquity, to see just how well the Scriptures stack up. The main text, I have chosen, for the direct comparison, is truly antiquity's second most validated text, and that is The Illiad, of Homer.

Inferences taken from other ancient Greek writers, and Historians, have illuminated many modern researchers to the realization, that The Illiad, of Homer, was not just another fanciful play, or another exaggerated myth, or even a mere fable, but in fact, was considered to be the sacred History of a past era, much the same as Plato's references to Atlantis, that great continental civilization that once existed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, beyond the Gates of Hercules, that we now know as the Straits of Gibraltar. Once a long narrow passageway surrounded by high cliffs, that now is hundreds of miles wide from the movement of massive shifting platelets, continental drift, and erosion. You see myths often contain a seed of truth, just as fables are meant to teach us a lesson! But History is said to present the actual facts, at least from one or more person's perspective, usually from the time of, or near to, the actual occurrence.

As for the Historicity of The Illiad, there never seemed to be much question until the past couple hundred years or so. For almost the entire last one and a half centuries, modern "critical scholars", have tried to insist that it was purely mythos. That Homer in fact was probably not it's author, but rather that centuries later a group of redactors probably gathered the history and legends and blended them into the vary story that we now have. Then these redactors penned Homer's name on them to sound authoritative. Sound familiar? More recently, however, the Archaeologist spade has revealed over one hundred details regarding the actual people, places, and events! Today we no longer have any legitimate reason to doubt about 75% of the book's historicity. As usual, with insight comes enlightenment! Again as for the role that the gods and fates play, I will leave that up to your personal faith and interpretation, but as to the history of a series of actual events that transpired there, there is no longer any doubt. Aside from the adamant membership of the critical school, there is almost no scholar worth his salt, in our time, that doubts Homer's authorship any longer. However, to be fair, we may never attain 100% validation. Yet it stands out historically speaking, as a very reliable text. So how come public High Schools and may colleges still teach the exploded critical view to unsuspecting students as if it is the established fact? Hmmm!

The literary critical scholars still continue to wear out the same old patterns wherever they delve. First, Troy itself, and other geo-political details, were all allegedly myths, and then we found them! Then it was conjectured that this wasn't a near the time history, but was allegedly "written centuries later". And course Homer wasn't the real Homer, these later redactor(s) joined together a conglomerate of evolved oral traditions into what we now have, and then, penned his name on the documents, to give them the appearance of authority. At each juncture, they defend their errors even after being shamelessly exposed for the intentional frauds that they are, and what is worse is that when proven false, rather than honestly admitting their errors and correcting the record, they simply make up a new tale, or cut and paste by style or genre, or run to the few % of still undemonstrated material making a major issue of minor variances found in later copies! Well it turns out, that on this one, they have at least three strikes. So as far as this author is concerned they are O-U-T! Never the less let us see if we can't hit a Homer!

The Illiad places itself at 1200 BC, but the literary scholars of the critical school insist on the much later date, and even though they have been proven to be incorrect in this timing regard so many times before, I have chosen to use theirdating of 800 B.C. as a basis for this comparative study. So now, even if we are working with their perspective reagrding the time of the writing, we see the following Biographical evidence present itself:

a) The original would be from 800 B.C.

b) The only complete manuscript of antiquity is from around 1300 A.D. (a

gap of 21centuries from the original people, places, and events)

d) The earliest fragmentary copies we have found are from around 400 B.C., which still is a gap of 4 centuries from the original people, places, and events.

Now let us compare this with the known facts of the New Testament writings:

a) Written in parts, by a number of different authors, between 40 A.D., and 100 A.D. (a gap of mere decades, historically comparable for us would be the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination)

b) The earliest copies and fragments date well within the first century (only about a 25 year gap)

c) Some of Paul's letter's were in fact circulating only 20 years after the original people, places and events

d) There are about 5000 manuscripts, some of which go back to the early 2nd century (around a mere 150 year gap)

e) Plus, there are 100's of times more copies from antiquity, than for any other book ever written in the history of the world (over 20,000 references, fragments, Papri, and manuscripts)

f) The earliest full compilation found so far is from the 4th century, less than 4 centuries compared to the 21 centuries for The Illiad, duiring which we have a continuous trail of ample quotes from the early church fathers and those who were the disciples of the Apostles themselves, going all the way back, not to speak pieces like the Rylande Fragments in England, and the section of Mark at the Pontifical Institute of Rome that dates to 68 A.D.! Again, altogether, the total examples of New Testament writings number over 20,000 extant examples! This is incredible, and speaks to the level of effort that was exercised in preserving these materials.

Now, just for perspective, I will speak of some previously validated books that are accepted as historically reliable, and accepted as being written by the author supposed, but as you can see from the above comparison, and the one made here below, with the New Testament writings, we have many more materials to work with, and they actually go all the way back, much nearer to the time of the actual events. At any rate here are some of the more generally accepted texts:

Caesar's, Gallic Wars was allegedly written in 75 B.C., with our earliest copy from around 900 A.D.! This is a gap of 1000 years, and all we have in our possession is 10 extant copies. Yet no one worth his salt has one shred of doubt as to the events relayed therein, or regarding who the author was. Demosthenes' version of The Gallic Wars, is from 300 B.C., and our earliest example is from 1100 A.D., which is a difference of 1400 years. For Demosthenes' we only have 200 examples. Finally, even Plato's, The Republic, absolutely thought to have been written by Plato in the time assumed by the author, was composed around 400 B.C. which has a 1300 year gap between the alleged original and our earliest 900 A.D. copy! Only 8 ancient copies The Republic have been found. Yet who doubts that Plato wrote this? No one doubts it that's who!

The examples could continue, but this should suffice to demonstrate that when we are dealing with a set of books such as the Bible, we are way beyond the realm of statistical probabilities as far as Historiography is concerned, and into something curiously much more. In fact, this amazing onslaught of overwhelmingly agreeable documentary evidence is precisely the reason some of the critics give for questioning of the New Testament's integrity (now there's a twist for you)!

Okay! Enough for the biographical test. So next the Historiographer takes the available copies, and compares them one to another. The science of statistical probabilities tells us that we must logically expect that the greater the number of copies, plus the greater the distance we pass in time from the originals, the greater are the odds that there will be errors or variances. Now don't get me wrong, this has proved true in almost every instance, and is certainly the case with all the accepted examples from our "accepted" list given above. However, in the New Testament writings oddly enough, this is not the case at all. Those documents describing the Jesus events show a level of 'true variance' that is inhumanly below the statistical norm. So much so, that such purity of conservation is literally unheard of in any other book, or set of congruent texts, in the entire world, save those of only one other set of source documents and that is the Old Testament. Statistically, this level of purity, and consistency, should not even be possible. The actual margin of variance being only a few percent out of 20,000 plus examples! Wow! Obviously, it was of utmost importance to the majority of scribes, and local early Church Bishops, to preserve the actual wording as much as was possible, allowing for the conveyance of the appropriate "sense" into various tongues where a literal 'word for word' translation would render them incomprehensible.

The Internal Evidence Test

Now let us take a look at some of the Internal Evidence for the credibility of the New Testament's historicity. For example, how close were the authors to the actual places, persons, and events? Do these writings accurately portray the geo-political atmosphere of the time period? A quick look back at the small comparative chart lets us know that with almost all of the ancient documents we have found, the numbers of available copies are few, and the time gap is great. Add this to the fact that for the most part, the margin of error is consistent with the probabilities. It is apparent that when dealing with ancient documents, it is difficult to determine Internal Evidences. An example of that mentioned earlier from The Illiad is, that Heinrich Schliemann's Archaeological team, finally discovered the ancient city of Troy by following it's precise descriptions as found only in the book itself. When this occurred, at the end of the nineteenth century, the initial digs yielded 50 additional details described only from within the book. Some of these details could only have been known by a person familiar with the city from the very time itself. As for the dating, the city was apparently destroyed before the 800 BCE date given by the critical school for authorship, so you must draw your own conclusions! I have shared my own!

Again, regarding the New Testament, we are in a whole different category! These were more than one writer, and all of them, except Saint Luke, were 1rst century Palestinian Jews. They were contemporaries with, or actual disciples of the central character of these texts. Thus, we are dealing almost entirely, with eyewitnesses of the person, and central events, writing shortly after the events themselves had occurred. As for Mark, and Luke, each of them were writing down the history and actual teachings of Rabbi Y'shua (Jesus), under the direction of one of His own chosen Apostles. Not least in significance to a history, is that all these frightened seemingly lost and despairing men and women who had followed Jesus while He was here on Earth, were suddenly going about spreading the message of these miraculous events, and about how God had raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, as a proof that He was the Anointed One referred to by King David centuries before. To many this was more than sufficient proof that He was the Messiah for whom they were waiting. They did this while a generation of peoples that either did or did not witness these events, was still alive. Let us not forget that hostile elements in the society were waiting to pounce on them for the slightest reason, in hopes of squelching the movement. Groups like the puppet appointees of Rome in the Temple (Ciaphas and Annas), and the semi-Idumean Herodians put into power over the civil realm (Herod Antipas), and don't forget the wealthy intellectual Sadducees (the Nobles who were protecting their property allowance), as well as the Roman Occupation Government itself, would have all loved a justifiable reason to disband them. Many of the very Sanhedrin were continuously scrutinizing them for the slightest violation of the Law. To be walking around boasting a false witness would have meant jail, or stoning, and maybe even death. Such a claim for any Jew of the period could have been the basis for a swift and just rebuttal. But alas, none seemingly denied the events! Some tried to offer alternate explanations. Perhaps these groups thought very differently about the meaning of these events, but in no wise were there any rebuttals as to the events themselves!?! Not even from Ciaphas, and the others Roman sympathizers who engineered the crucifixion! I would think that if they were alive today they would have inundated the press and the media with all kinds of false claims. If these Gospel stories were obvious malarkey, they would have had the unquestionable support of the masses in prosecuting these liars. As Jesus proved in the Mary Magdelene story, even the guilty themselves love to watch a good stoning! Guess we haven't changed much in 2000 years!

The extreme closeness of these apostolic writers in time, as well as geo-political location, to the actual events, is a great assurance of accuracy, and negates the possibility of the need for the development of a myth. As an example from modern times consider the assassination of President John F. Kennedy! The public eye was always on him. Literally, 1,000's were watching the current event, and then…BANG! BANG! BANG! He was shot! Panic struck all over the crowd. The Police and special agents were frenetically all over the scene within moments. News Reporters were everywhere. The President of the United States of America had been shot and killed! Many people were there at the time, and wrote about it! Detailed investigations from many angles took place shortly thereafter. People who were there at the time were talking about it daily. As a contemporary of the event, I can actually recall it. It was awe inspiring! Fear literally gripped the hearts of multitudes. I was in grade school and we were all watching him on television as the motorcade rolled down the street. It was a magnificent parade. No one, no, not anyone, can ever tell me, that it did not happen. It was not a hoax. The reports were not contrived or embellished. Now there have been those who, as time passed (this happened decades ago), that have made up all sorts of substitute fictions, from conspiracy theories to alien abductions.

Now the reasons for the event, or their geo-political significance, or their effect on the future, all may be subject to opinion and debate, but the historical reality of these events may not be denied by any truly rational person. This author feels convinced, that to deny such a well established history, and live with the lie as if it is the truth, is a type of social disease that has an abusive effect and serious repercussions on those that that individual influences, especially if that person has assumed a position of authority, or power, in any influential sphere, be it political, familial, or educationally, etc! I believe this sickness has reached epidemic proportions in out time. A myth? A hoax? No, I'm sorry, J.F.K. is not alive in Argentina, nor in the hollow recesses of Mars. He died that day, and if he lives, it is in the eternal realm by the grace of our Creator's love for His creatures, and nothing less. How can I be sure? I was alive at the time, and saw the pictures, and heard the eyewitness testimonies. Such it is with the immediate reports following the death, burial, and resurrection of Y'shua/Jesus, even those of the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John!

Now know this beloved, a replacement myth only becomes the delusional reality for those who successfully introject the presumptuous propaganda of it's perpetrators, and are thus brainwashed by it. The brainwashed are always used to serve and support the ends of the perpetrators, often for no other reason than to support their demented need for power somewhere. But the bottom line is, that in reality, the perpetrators know these truths, but they plat out the programmed scenario. In the case of these critics, they know full well that they are deceiving you! They know they are presenting to you what appears to be a reasonable alternative, in order to intentionally persuade you away from the Biblical, historical Jesus. Even if publicly they declare in their rhetoric and propaganda that they are telling you the truth, and would even give their life for the cause, and so they shall, for there is that Day which shall come upon them as a thief in the night, a Day of reckoning soon to be dawned, perhaps even after their deaths. It is given unto man once to die and then the judgment. Now then, false witnesses always hurt the truth, and the end thereof is always some degree of corruption, disruption, and destruction of the common good.

With the Apostles of Christ, and their story, the scenario is very different. At the very time itself, immediately following the central events, the Apostles were preaching in the streets, teaching in the synagogue, and starting house churches. Many of the multitudes themselves were witnesses to the events being spoken of. Many of them saw the crucifixion, and many saw the resurrected Savior! Altogether there were over 500 witnesses, one here another there, a group here another there…! Where is there an indication of a rebuttal of these things from the history of the people at the time? Where is the outrage to rightfully accuse these liars, that is, if they were liars! After many digs, has the spade of the Archaeologist produced even a single fragment of contradictory record from this time period? No! Not even one. Thousands of digs have been done all over that area, and all we find are confirmation after conformation. People right from the very time itself, some of whom are even mentioned by name in the accounts, bearing witness that Y'shua was both Messiah and Lord, and that He physically rose from the dead on the third day, just as it was written. Again, if the critical school is correct, then tell me why history doesn't show the multitudes dragging these legend building forging plagiarizing frauds through the streets, and tossing them outside the gates for a good stoning. Surely they would have jumped all over Peter as soon as he spoke (Acts 2) on the Day of Shavuot (Pentecost)? The Sanhedrin itself had become split. Many believed the claims of Y'shua, and others followed a path that led into the modern Rabbinical movement, directed not by the Torah, but rather by the arguments of the Rabbis recorded in the Talmud. But these are all debates from men that often contradicted one another, creating endless "pilpul" or argument and debate, even up until our time. This led to and encouraged 150 years of relentless persecution both physically and legally against the Messianic wing of Judaism by both the non-believing element in the Jewish leadership and from Rome.

So once again I ask, do we see the masses crying out accusations of fraud, and actively squashing this blasphemous sect? No! Instead we see the alleged supernatural fulfillment of age old prophecy, and literally thousands admitting that we had crucified the Son of the Living God, and being converted! See Acts 2:22, and 26:24-26 and note that the Apostles are declaring the events as fact in a casual sort of way. The audience is comprised of people who were alive at the time of the events, the majority of whom lived right there. Surely some of the people would be aware of the Commandments of YHVH regarding false witness! If these very things being spoken of didn't happen exactly as declared, then why wasn't Ciaphas and the others who were in power under the good grace of their Roman mentors already accusing them with cheers of support from the outraged masses? Surely he would have had them right where he wanted them! Or did it really happen just as it is depicted? These are really the only two alternatives that make any sense!

In both above references from the history of Book of Acts, there are lots of hostile elements around. In fact, in the second reference, the audience as a whole is generally a hostile crowd. Certainly you must agree, it is highly unlikely that fraudulent forgers trying to legendize a dead hero, could by such a method hope to forge their myth successfully in the face of their enemies if it weren't indisputable!

Another fact that has been noted by many researchers is that the four gospel accounts contain too much counter productive material to be the tools of legend builders, i.e., Christ's cry from the cross, the profiles of their own sense of loss and despair, their subsequent fearfulness for their lives prior to the resurrection, etc. For despite Christ's clear and repeated teachings that He was to be killed and that He would rise again, they still didn't really understand, some clearly didn't really believe, that is, actually trust in, rely on, and cleave to what He had said, as if it were from God Himself. Their previous doubt, fear, and lack of understanding as to His actual physical resurrection, is apparent right up until their actual witnessing of the risen Messiah! Mythological renditions like the bastardization falsely called The Gospel of Peter, written well after the last Apostle's death, shows things like a talking cross, and other such mythological nonsense! These types of imageries are simply not a part of the four Gospels that were always, and only, held as Canonical by the Ecclesia of God. And then suddenly, the sudden death defying change of attitude and character of all those men, women, and children? My oh my, something radical happened, and if not this, then what?

Likewise, there is a noteworthy peculiarity missing in this time period from all mythical and apocryphal stories that is surprisingly present in the Gospels, and that is the inclusion of the testimony of women. This is an incredible piece of Internal Evidence to the trained scholar of that time period and culture. In fact, it is more likely in that time and culture, that the inclusion of such testimony could only hurt one's ability to convince others, even if it was the truth! The testimony of women was simply disregarded as foolishness by most men in Middle Eastern culture, and still is in fundamentalist Islam today! The Gospel account, in stark contradiction to sensible cultural context however, boldly puts Mary Magdelene's testimony first! HELLO-O! Mary Magdelene? The repentant adulterous? Unless this testimony were absolutely true, and able to be confirmed by those who witnessed these events, these writers were risking a whole lot, wouldn't you think? Especially if they were trying to get people to believe in an engineered, not yet fully evolved hoax? Read the accounts! At first, even the hiding anxious Apostles themselves chalk off Mary's testimony as nothing but a bunch of "idle talk", i.e., the ravings of a silly grieving woman!!! Clearly to include such a testimony, being preached or taught to any of the Jewish leaders, the Romans, or even the Greeks, was nothing less than anti-testimony, unless it were an indisputable or verifiable fact known to the multitudes. You have to understand, if one were trying to invent a hero, and legendize a hoax, they would never have even thought this up! It just would not have been a motif in their worldview, and if they fell upon such a notion by accident, they would have immediately excluded it on purpose! So why does the New Testament so boldly record it? It has to be because it was the truth, and because it actually happened that way! The Gospels are the Theopneustos Graphae of the Holy Spirit! He who has an ear let them hear!

Finally, as pointed out by many scholars like Professor Edwin Yamauchi, and others, what is clearly lacking in the Scriptures is the evolution of a mythological symbolism. The quotes and fragments reflecting the late 1rst, and early 2nd, century Christianity, are in full agreement with the texts that we now enjoy! The grammatical allusions drawn were in appropriate rabbinical form, and even the apocalyptic materials, is exactly in line with these thoughts among the children of Israel for centuries, and in line with their prophetic visions of future History. That means there is an inhuman consistency internally, since the originals were first penned, all the way up into our time. No other text has been so preserved. It's just unheard of anywhere else in the science of textual criticism. The entire infra-structure of the Bible is beyond probability! Many of the people, places, and historically indicated events, have been validated. The math has been done! The case of a mere hoax or orchestrated fable is closed.

Some Eternal Evidences

As for the External indicators, we have to look at outside sources that exist, if indeed there are any at all, that reflect a document's historicity pro or con. This is done to reflect consistency and accuracy of a document's testimony about people or events, or else otherwise refute it. To be honest, most of the time this search is conducted intending to find the 'cons', and to refute! All available facts, peoples named, places, events, must be checked out to the greatest extent possible. Special attention is paid to other writers and historians of the same epoch or immediately following. Most of the debate rises out of hostile sources of course. Then it is determined how much agreement there is available in the remaining civil accounts, records, or personal artifacts, of the peoples mentioned that have survived the period.

Obviously blatant differences would shed sincere doubt as to a document's credibility. Yet in this area as well, the New Testament gets an incredible score! Whether we are talking about Flavius Josephus, Pliny, Heroditus, Papias, Gaius, or others, or even the markings and inscriptions from 1rst century Jewish Palestinian gravesites, the Governors, the cities, the timing of festivities, etc., there are virtually no contradictions outside the arena of modern Higher Critical and Q-botic distortions of genuine scholarship. Theirs is apparently nothing more than a compilation of provisional interpretation and conjecture.

Another professed ex-skeptic, Dr. Clark Pinnoch, puts it this way…"there exists no documents from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision can be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historic credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational bias". (see 'Set Forth Your Case', Craig Press 1968)

For additional modern testimony in a more generalized context, we can look at Jewish Archaeologist, Nelson Gluek's book, Rivers in the Desert, (Farar, Straus, and Cidihy, 1959) who after years of combing through hundreds of pieces of evidence searching for rebuke concluded that it, "may be stated categorically that no Archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Bible reference. Scores of Archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail the historic statements of the Bible". Professor Gluek, like Sir William Ramsey, has since become convinced of God's personal inspiration of this amazing book, and as a result of his effort he has even converted to Christianity, and places all New Testament books within the period implied within them, that is, between 40 and 80 AD!

It turns out as well, that Gluek is in full agreement with the assessment made by yet another profound scholar of our day, W. F. Albright! Currently, a Professor at John Hopkins University. Dr. Albright, a world renowned Historian and Archaeologist in his own right concluded, "…there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after 80 A.D."! So much for the 'written hundreds of years later' evolution theory.

In light of the ever growing number of similar conclusions from so many profound Scholars, clearly the psycho-emotive antics of the ultra-liberal Q-bots and Higher Critics are absurdities. They not only continue to flood the marketplace with their slanderous fictional jealousies, but their dupes, their false shepherds, and false teachers, are actively spreading a gospel of doubt in many of today's mainstream churches, and directing God's baby lamb's right out of His kingdom on a daily basis. Those that are victims of the indoctrination process believe wholeheartedly that they are doing exactly what God would really want them to do, and that they have been told the truth, totally void of having actually examined the evidences or looked at the research for themselves! Yet according to Jesus, whom they call Lord with their lips, there is a Day coming, a Day of just recompense, and in that Day it shall have been better for this deceptive leadership to have had a millstone hung round their neck, and they'd been cast in the midst of the sea. What? That wasn't very Christlike? Well yes it was! It was Jesus himself who said it, regarding any who would bring harm to even one his baby lambs! Oh that's right, I can not say He really said it without casting my colored stones like John Crossan or Marcus Borg might do.

Also, in this regard, another great book, Archaeology and Biblical History, by Joseph Free, catalogues in story form, many of the finds, confirming people, places, and events, that were previously accused of being unhistorical and contrary to the facts. Well guess what? The facts weren't in, only biased opinions. Even if the gospel of doubt actually were the most popular scholarly opinion (which it is not), and was believed by a majority (which it never was), that does not automatically make it correct, true, or good. However, what I like best about the amazing reversal of opinion by so many Archaeologists and Scientists like Stephen Hawkins, is that they adjusted their theory to fit the actual evidence. That is respectable scholarship, that is intellectual integrity, even if some of us differ in our theologies and beliefs about what all this means.

Do you remember the Scripture about when the Scribes and Pharisees are trying to silence those who are testifying, and Jesus says to these alleged teachers of the Torah …if you silence these, my Father in heaven can make the very rocks will cry out? Now a time has come when the brainwashed, the naïve, and the adversaries of God, would love to silence the testimony of Jesus in the lives of the saints, and exclude even the mention of Him in the Public Square. They have attempted to censor Him out of society at every juncture possible, and lo' and behold, through the very science started to quell this New Testament madness, the rocks are indeed crying out, as testified to by a popular book by that very name. Amen! Thank you Lord Jesus! They meant it for evil, but God has used it for good. Blessed is the Name of the LORD! Our God truly is an awe inspiring God, all praise, thanks, glory, and honor, are His!

The same exact kind of thing happened regarding the Old Testament. A wonderful piece of External evidence of the Tanach (the Old Testament) was our discovery of the Hittite Empire. For the longest time it's only historic testimony was in the Bible. Naturally as with all things found only in the Bible the Hittites were immediately denied reality by the allegedly modern Seminarians. Their view of "if you can't prove it right now, then it never happened or existed" is another one of those erroneous, totally illogical, introjected presumptions, that closes the mind to the reception of truth. Some of these people had to have been brainwashed innocently with this malarkey. We know many of these master rhetoricians are not genuine Christians. They are actually wolves with sheepskins. They are often Marxists, Existentialists, and neo-Darwinian oriented Humanists (see Humanist Manifesto #1), and all three of these camps are mutually exclusive with genuine Christianity. Anyway the Hittite civilization was found to fit all the detail outlined in the Holy Scriptures. The point being, that when you find out the reality, by external evidence, that the internal information is correct, this solidifies the case for historic accuracy and truthfulness. Yes folks, the Bible actually is historically accurate, whether you believe in the God of Abraham, or not!

We also possess direct, and indirect, testimony supporting many aspects of the central events of the New Testament from no less than 18 either neutral or hostile external sources! So much for the "no evidence outside of the writings themselves" myth! This number, again, is unmatched and unheard of for any other work of this type from antiquity. In other words, if this were virtually any other book from antiquity, there would be absolutely no doubt as to it's historicity, but because it is the Bible, the bias is so strong, that even if there were 100 more confirmations uncovered, the Higher Critics and the Q-bots would still declare it's unreliability.

One of my favorite pieces of evidence from external literary sources are what is called "indirect evidence from disinterested sources". One in particular stands out in my mind because it addresses a barely noticed or talked about factor of the crucifixion story. This concerns the unexpected total darkness that allegedly consumed the Nations around Israel for about three hours while Jesus suffered the cross. The New Testament use to be the only known historical source for this phenomena, and of course that situation brought forth the accusation that these myth-makers were obviously using a dramatic addition, or perhaps these ignorant people didn't understand the natural lawfulness of eclipses, and read into it some element of spiritual significance…you know those ancients, and how easily a smart person could manipulate them with knowledge of such things. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Since then, however, we have acquired much new data, again much of it has been brought forth by the spade of the Archaeologist, and again these self-proclaimed "Higher" critics have contracted serious 'hoof in mouth' disease, yet they spew their rhetoric in carefully engineered presentations like PBS's "From Jesus to the Christ", and the ignorance of the masses continues to hold true as a valuable tool to propagandists! Take a look here at some of the Eternal Evidence for this one event alone.

Sometime between the years 50 and 100 A.D., a Historian named Thallus wrote a History of the World, it covered from the fall of Troy, to the mid-first century. He records the above mentioned phenomena 'matter of factly' believing it to be an eclipse of the Sun, without even remotely connecting it to the Jesus events. Here, we have the first external confirmation of this Biblically recorded phenomena from a totally disinterested source. Thallus, is drawing absolutely no connection to the crucifixion, yet records the occurrence. Years later, another Historian named Julius Africanus, in his 'History of the World' argues against an eclipse as the most probable explanation! This further attested to the sudden darkness as occurring, the 'what it was' being the issue that was debated. In the case of Thallus' history, he wrote neutrally concerning the facts during the lifetime of the men who engineered the crucifixion. But as far as Chrestos was concerned, after all, to a patriotic Roman citizen, what is one more crucified enemy of Rome? Now if as the critical school originally had claimed, that this strange darkness was merely the addition of a devise, at the time there would have been some dispute regarding Thallus' declaration, wouldn't you think? If Caesar knew it was a lie, what do you think would have happened to Thallus? Yet, again, nothing happened to him, and Rome accepted this History as a true accounting of the facts!

Last of all, there is Phlegon, another disinterested Roman Historian that was previously a slave who was set free by non-other than Tiberius Caesar only decades after the event. He records the event of the darkness as being exactly between the 6th and the 9th hour, during the full moon of the very month specified in the crucifixion account (same hours, same exact day?). Phlegon therefore, as a disinterested, and possibly hostile source, confirms the time, and the day, which was the Passover. The Scriptures say that this mysterious darkness occurred!!! So doesn't all the extant Historians we have found so far. Hence, void of any interest in perpetuating this movement in the eyes of Rome, Phlegon ties the event of the darkness to the very Passover recorded in the Gospels, without ever mentioning it's alleged relation to Y'shua/Jesus!

Historiography declares this to be confirmation par excellence! Why would this group, not at all interested in the Gospel, validate an apparently insignificant detail, if it weren't the truth? In other words, their concern was the peculiarity of the event, not the Christ message.

As it turns out, it is modern science that has spoken to the miraculous nature of this historically validated event, and proves that Africanus actually was correct, and that Thallus was not, because as every Jewish person and Messianic Christian knows, Passover is always on a full moon, and modern science absolutely proves that an eclipse of the Sun, has never occurred on a full moon, and neither can it. Hello! Let's repeat that one more time…AN ECLIPSE OF THE SUN CANNOT OCCUR ON A FULL MOON. Therefore, this sudden darkness that factually happened was not a natural occurrence! Just the facts folks, jus'the facts!

So that makes the testimony of Thallus and Phlegon contrasted by Julius's rebuttal even more significant in light of the Christ event. Why? Because something outside of known natural laws, most assuredly occurred on that day, during that exact time, and up until recently, the only indication of this fact was in the Gospel story. Hallelujah! So how come these revealed facts are always conveniently excluded from the presentations meant to feed the indoctrinated? Could they purposely be avoiding the truth for some reason? Hmmm! It has certainly been selectively excluded. Selah!

Next, there are ample references to the Jesus of the Gospels in other external sources such as Paterculus, Tactius, Flavius Josephus, the Talmud, and others. So the old claim by the so-called "Higher Critics", and revived in the study hall of the ultra-liberal Q-bots, that the only historic source of 'the Jesus traditions' are the New Testament writings, is either an error of presumption, or an intentionally imposed bias, or an entirely engineered lie on the part of these professional skeptics. You simply cannot have it both ways.

The tradition handed on from Jesus through the writings of the Apostles has been considered validated by eyewitness testimony, Historiography, the Archaeologists spade, and that over and over, and that doesn't even scratch the surface as to how far beyond statistical probabilities the mere phenomena of the presence of such a book is, let alone the man Himself. Just do a study on the 1000's of literally fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament alone! No other book ever, and no other religion ever, even comes close to this "beyond statistical probability" feature.

Jesus of Nazareth alone fulfilled over 100 messianic prophecies to the letter, and over 60 of those in just His birth, death, burial, and resurrection. The science of statistical probabilities tells us that if one single individual were to be the fulfillment of only eight of these predictions from centuries before their birth, the odds would be astronomical, but for this many to have seen fulfillment, and that not counting the many related details, is way beyond chance. One mathematician has stated that these odds are so improbable they reach into what must be called the "miraculous"! Astronomer/Mathematician, Dr. Hugh Ross, after examining these probabilities, says it would be "more probable for your blood to freeze on a hot day"! The point is, we are clearly not dealing with chance coincidence! This many fulfilled prophecies were not the accidental production of random chemical interactions. The Math is indicating, that something that actually was, technically, should never have occurred. Yet, it did!!!

So what do we do with this Y'shua, and His world changing influence? He clearly stands as an enigma to human understanding, and each and every person, from lawyers to scientists, and even to the most uneducated aboriginal peoples (in the sense that western moderns would define an education), no matter how skeptical, when they engage the evidences objectively, with no preconceived, or as Yamauchi called it, "irrational bias", are changed by the life and teaching of this one man. Hmmm! Was He a mere man? Disinterested Historian Flavius Josephus in his famous, Jewish Antiquities, less than three decades after the central events, testifies to the person of Y'shua of Nazareth as being more than a mere man, and that he indeed did miraculous works (Pele', i.e., full of wonders, Isaiah 9:6), and that he was seen by many after his crucifixion, and much, much, more! Hmmm!

What does it profit a Historian for Rome, a non-Messianic Pharisee since birth, to 'matter of factly' record a reference to the miracles, and to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, as simple historical facts? Even if he thought him to be a master of illusion and a charlatan (which he in no wise indicates), the facts of the central events of the New Testament are being validated from a near in time, hostile source, only about 30 years after Jesus left this Earth. When Josephus was a small boy, and most probably a young man, eyewitnesses to these things were still alive, the parchment of public record was fresh and available. In fact, there were Apostles still alive in 60 AD, some of whom were probably still preaching and teaching these things right in Jerusalem. The Church had a solid base there, with thousands who believed that this very Jesus was the awaited ha'Moschiach, who would one day return as ha'Moschiach ben David, to rule as the victorious King of Israel. Did he live? Undoubtedly! Will He return? Well that you must decide for yourself as this case unfolds further.

Beloved, as you have seen, Historiography stands as a blatant refutation to the presuppositions of the critical school, and the modernist leanings of today's ultra-liberal Seminaries. The Internal and External evidences alone provided so far, though not nearly exhaustive, are sufficient enough to prove the historical accuracy of the book, let alone the miraculous documentary evidence in favor of this conclusion. Archaeology and statistical analysis have only been found to support the reliability of the New Testament. The many testimonies of some of the world's great minds in our times, who went from very hostile positions against the truthfulness of the scriptures, to becoming staunch supporters and defenders of "the faith once delivered for all". Lastly, the issue of fulfilled prophecy is so profound. How many today realize the numbers of prophecies being fulfilled in our own time? Not enough, that is for sure!

Finally there are the many scientific statements the Bible makes regarding things the ancients could not possibly had known about (not discluding the multitude of fulfilled prophecies, some centuries before they occurred, and the statistical probabilities of persons and events, the math has been done), and much, much more.

Do you know that Gallileo, a Bible believing Christian, against the efforts of the corrupt pseudo-Aristotelian hierarchical power structure of Rome in his time, found in the Bible that the world hung in space on nothing from the book of Job. This so inspired him, he went on to discover the Sun centered solar system we now know of so 'matter of factly'. A man inspired and persecuted for the truth of God has given us hope.

Then there is the story of Christopher Columbus, Christopher meaning Christ bearer, after having read of the 'khug' of the Earth (the sphericity or roundness, interpreted "circle" in the Latin and English) in the book of Isaiah, he set sail "in faith", when the whole world, and even many in the Hierarchical political and organized Church had since rejected God's word (John 17:17), and placed it on the list of forbidden books. They swore he was a mad man, and that everyone knew that the world was flat! But hallelujah, our God knew better, and if not for Isaiah 40 and God's inspiration of this man, there may have never been a U.S.A.!

The history claims that after 34 days at sea, his sailors were fed up. They told him they would mutiny and return if they did not find land in three days. He had no alternative but to pray. On exactly the third day, at the time the Sun was rising on the horizon, he was saved. They noticed a few branches of trees with leaves still on them floating near the ship, and far off in the distance they could make out the faint outline of what grew to become the most beautiful Island they had ever seen. Columbus named it "Holy Saviour" (San Salvadore), and off in the distance, another Island with three mountains which he immediately named "The Trinity" (Trinidad).

In his diary he wrote, "It was the Lord who put it into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me), the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures…I am a most noteworthy sinner, but I have cried out to the Lord for grace and mercy, and they have covered me completely. I have found the sweetest consolation since I made it my whole purpose to enjoy His marvelous Presence.

For the execution of the voyage to the Indies, I did not make use of intelligence, mathematics or maps. It is simply the fulfillment of what Isaiah had prophesied…

No one should fear to undertake any task in the name of our Savior, if it is just and if the intention is purely for His Holy service. The working out of all things has been assigned to each person by our Lord, but it all happens according to His sovereign will, even though He gives advice. Oh what a gracious Lord, who desires that people should perform for Him those things for which He holds Himself responsible! Day and Night moment by moment, everyone should express their most devoted gratitude to Him." (quotes from Columbus's diary adopted from the October 1971 issue of "The Presbyrterian Layman")

Matthew Maurey, the father of modern oceanography discovered the seas had paths and currents from reading Psalms 8, and set out and documented these paths. That one discovery and proof of the Bibles accuracy alone, saved months of travel time, and millions of lives, as well as dollars, and never since then has any sailor ever again got hung up in the doldrums, outside of an accident, or else by sheer ignorance. Why did this still continue for a while? Because there are few who believe our report! The Creator knew, and He told us, long before humans ever found out, that the unique interaction of wind and wave cause specific pathways through the seas, and mind you these are in no wise straight lines. This is why the modern shipping lanes are not straight. We know not only because of the faith based effort of Matthew Maurey, but later in the 1960's two researchers (Hollister, and Heezen) with the aid of sophisticated radiographic and photographic equipment actually filmed literal paths of rippled sand on the ocean floors that correspond to those currents now traveled in what has become known as the shipping lanes.

God even told us in the Book of Job 38:16, literally thousands of years before the fact was validated by science, about "springs", and even "recesses" (lit. trenches), that are in the bottom of the Ocean? Do you realize that this was not even discovered as a scientific fact until 1873, and only recently have we been able to actually get down deep enough into these trenches to film these springs (see Ballard's research)?

Brunnel, the grandaddy of modern shipping, got his model for maximizing cargo space by generalizing steamer hulls and barges according to the exact ratio of the Noah's Ark dimensions given in the book of Genesis (30 x 5 x 3). In doing so he unintentionally demonstrated two things about the Ark. First that it was the largest vessel ever built (at least up until Brunnel's time; 1858), and secondly, that because of it's unique dimensions ( dictated by God Himself ), it was the perfect cargo carrier. The Ark has been determined by Brunnel to have had 1.5 million cubic feet of space.

British Philosopher Herbert Spencer was unfortunately a Social Darwinist, and as for God, he more than likely didn't believe in such nonsense, however after more than 30 years of research and contemplation, Spencer concluded there to be five fundamentals of Science. These were: Time; Force; Action; Space; and Matter. How unfortunate for poor Spencer that he wasn't just a little more attentive to what the Scriptures had to say, because his conclusion was correct, only it had already been spelled out for him in the very first sentence about the creation, in the very first book of the Bible. Poor deluded Spencer could have saved so much time if he had only read the Bible!

In the beginning: (the time factor)

God : (the force factor)

created: (action)

the heavens and the earth: (space and matter)

Later, God tells us all these things that are made, are made of things that cannot be seen, hinting at the molecular, cellular, and atomic levels, thousands of years before we even had a microscope. Yeah, but YHVH is the potter and we are but the clay! Do you know what a macro-scope is? Neither do I, but apparently God has one! In Psalm 19 we hear of the Sun traveling on a circuit all its own. No, the Bible doesn't teach our Sun to be the static center of a heliocentric universe. Which of course we today know as a fact and take for granted, having proved it to be in its own orbital trajectory, flying through space at 600,000 miles per hour, literally from one end of the cosmos (heavens) to the other. Yet in that time, most of t

Answer 2

Tabloid newspapers are often known for sensationalizing news and prioritizing entertainment over accuracy. They may rely on rumors and speculation rather than verified facts. It's generally recommended to cross-check information from tabloids with more reputable sources to ensure accuracy.

Answer 3

Only from a credible paper. At least you can minimize bias. Some bias is always present irregardless but should not effect accuracy generally. Most newspapers are good but some tabloids are not.

Answer 4

"Tabloid" refers to the Size, not the Content.

Answer 5

Yes because cows aren't purple

Answer 6

yes

Answer 7

YES

Answer 8

no