Is the Bible Historically Reliable?

Let's start by giving away the answer...YES, the Bible is historically reliable!  But how do we know this?  And how do we help persuade others?  Below, I put together a few thoughts on this topic that I've used through the years.  I hope it's helpful to you.

Historical reliability is determined by investigating other ancient documents, exploring regions archaeologically, etc.

And when these standard tools of antiquity are employed, the Bible passes with flying colors. There is no requirement that we have the original copies of the Bible (the autographs). We don't have this for any ancient documents, and it's not required by scholars to determine if the documents are reliable.

First, let's establish that an absence of evidence doesn't mean that the account is false. For example, the Bible talks about Nehemiah rebuilding the walls around Jerusalem. Is there external evidence for this? Perhaps not (I honestly haven't looked into it). But if there is no external evidence, this doesn't mean the event didn't happen. That's not how historical inquiry works.

Second, let me address this nonsense comment about how Spiderman is set in New York City, so even if there are true things in the Bible this doesn't mean anything. That's also not how historical inquiry works. When you approach a set of ancient documents and ask if they are historically reliable, you test to see if they hold up to scrutiny using scholarly techniques and comparative archaeology, etc.

And when the Bible has those techniques applied against it, the Bible passes 100% of the time. Better than virtually any other ancient document.

Further, it should be noted that the atheists here like to talk out of both sides of their mouths. If there is no evidence to support a portion of the Biblical narrative, they like to scream "no evidence so it MUST NOT HAVE HAPPENED!". But then when we do produce evidence, the atheist response is "So...Spiderman lived in NYC". What this illustrates to me is that the typical atheist in groups like this is not interested in the truth. He is just interested in finding new and interesting ways to reject the Bible no matter what is being presented.

Having said that, is there reason to conclude that the Bible is historically reliable? As I've said before, when there is external evidence, it always corroborates the Biblical account. Always. Not only this, but when the evidence is found, it often utterly destroys the claims of the skeptics that "there is no external evidence so THE BIBLE MUST BE WRONG". And yet time and again, when the evidence surfaces, the Bible is proven right. Again and again...and again...and again.

So, what are some examples of this? Here's a partial list (a VERY abbreviated list):

The Exodus

I start with this because so many skeptics say there is no evidence for the Exodus. But there is. Everything from Semitic settlements that were vacated all at once.  If you doubt me, look up the excavated city of Avaris, an ancient Semitic city that used to exist in Egypt.  And read about the Hyksos Expulsion, an even that modern scholars admit sounds very much like the Israelites leaving Egypt after Pharoh threw them out.  Also read about an ancient Egyptian poem that discusses the plagues known as the Ipuwer Papyrus (this is an Egyptian poet writing, and what he writes is likely extra Biblical evidence of the plagues!).  Read about a tomb honoring a Semitic leader of ancient Egypt...he had a coat of many colors, apparently. And his bones are missing (in fact, the bones seemed to have been removed in a very reverent fashion, and not merely stolen by tomb raiders). This seems to be Joseph from the Genesis narrative (the Bible recounts that Joseph's bones were returned to Canaan when the Israelites left Egypt). There is also the Merneptah Stele which records that the nation of Israel existed well before skeptics previously indicated by modern skeptical scholarship.

David and Solomon

Skeptics once said that there were never any rulers of ancient Egypt named David or Solomon. But now coins and inscriptions have been found to prove that these men were real historical figures and rulers of ancient Israel.

The Hittites

Skeptics once said that the Hittites weren't a real people because they'd never been found outside the Bible. Until the Hittite culture was uncovered by archaeologists, fully supporting the Biblical account.

Jericho

Skeptics (Kathleen Kenyon mainly) said that Jericho didn't fall as is recorded in the book of Joshua. And yet if you date the history of that city properly, you find a period in which the walls of Jericho seemed to have exploded outward all at once. Kenyon's dating is wrong (and her reasoning for her altered dating is quite weak). Archaeology corroborates the Jericho account in the Bible.

Nazareth

Skeptics once said that Nazareth didn't exist in the early 1st century. But then archaeologists found Nazareth and it fully supported the Biblical account.  You can even visit the excavated ruins of 1st century Nazareth.  Imagine walking where Jesus likely walked and played as a young boy.

The Pool of Bethesda

Skeptics once said that the Biblical description of the Pool of Bethesda was wrong because it described 7 columns (other pools uncovered to that point only had 5). But then the Pool of Bethesda was discovered...and it had 7 columns, once again validating the Bible.

The Pilate Stone

Skeptics once said that Pilate did not rule in Jerusalem during Jesus' trial. But now we have the Pilate Stone which proves Pilate was indeed ruling in Jerusalem during Jesus' trial

Thallus and the Darkness at Noon (one of my favorite)

We have the words of Thallus, apparently a contemporary of Jesus' life, who tried to explain away the darkness that covered the earth while Jesus was crucified. He tried to discount it as an eclipse (Thallus was not a follower of Jesus and was trying to explain away the darkness). But Jesus was crucified during Passover and Passover always occurred during the full moon, when eclipses are impossible (read how Julius Africanus responded to Thallus. It's fascinating).

Bottom line, every time the Bible is tested, it passes the test with flying colors. And that gives us confidence that the other parts of the Bible (which may have not yet been corroborated through external evidence) are likewise credible and reliable.

So I'll say it again.

Yes!  The Bible is a Historically Reliable Set of Documents

There's simply no denying it.