Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the complete Old Testament was from A.D. These scrolls contained, among other writings, every book in the Old Testament (except Esther). The first year the Encyclopedia Britannica was published it contained so many mistakes regarding places in the United States that it had to be recalled.Ĭritics used to believe … the Old Testament simply could not be reliable because they felt that over a long period of time the Old Testament writings would have been changed, altered, edited or corrupted.īut then … in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Compare that with the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is amazing when we realize that in the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, nine Mediterranean islands and 95 people and he did not get one wrong. Sir Ramsay found no historical or geographical mistakes in the book of Acts. A man named Sir William Ramsay, who is well known to be one of the greatest historical scholars and archaeologists in history, decided to try to disprove the Bible as the inspired Word of God by showing that the book of Acts was not historically accurate.īut the … after 30 years of archaeological research in the Middle East, Ramsay came to the conclusion that “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.” He later wrote a book on the trustworthiness of the Bible based on his discoveries and converted to Christianity. This discovery also helped to clarify Daniel 5:29, which states that Daniel was elevated to the “third highest ruler in the kingdom.”Ĭritics used to believe … the book of Acts was not historically accurate. The Hittite civilization is mentioned approximately 40 times in the Old Testament, thus skeptics were convinced that this proved the Bible is a mythical creation of ancient Hebrew writers.īut then … in 1854, Henry Rawlinson discovered an inscription in Iraq that named Belshazzar as the oldest son and co-regent of King Nebonidus, who would often leave Belshazzar in charge of Babylon while he traveled. They pointed to the fact that there was no archaeological evidence that King David was an actual historical figure.īut then … in 1994, archaeologists discovered an ancient stone slab in northern Galilee that was inscribed with the references to King David and the "House of David."Ĭritics used to believe … the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence (outside of the Bible) that a group of people called the Hittites ever existed. Here are just a few examples:Ĭritics used to believe … the Bible was wrong because they felt that King David was a legendary, mythical character. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |