See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.


From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

The Bible is the book containing information that God has revealed to mankind. It comprises 66 books (73 in Catholicism, and more in Eastern churches) written by numerous human authors, all writing under the "inspiration" of God. These books were written over a period of at least 1,600 years, yet contain a consistent theme throughout.

The Bible has been translated into more languages than any other book, has sold more copies than any other book, and has been an inspiration to billions of people throughout history. It is the main holy book of the Christian religion, and parts of it are also accepted by adherents of other religions.



For more information, see Overview of the Bible.

The Bible contains two major divisions, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Old Testament comprises 39 books, and was written over a period of at least 1,500 years. It documents the Creation and the origins of mankind and the origins and history of the Israelites. It also contains books of poetry and song, prophecy, wisdom, and laws. The Old Testament is the scripture of Judaism, and can also be referred to as the Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament comprises 27 books, and was written in the latter part of the 1st Century AD. It contains the four Gospels, which document the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with many of His teachings. After the Gospels is an account of what Jesus' followers did immediately following His Ascension, as well as letters written by the apostles to individuals and early churches. The final book, Revelation, describes a vision of what will happen at the end of the world.


The overarching theme of the Bible has been described as The Kingdom of God, or God's relationship with His people. The Bible teaches that God created mankind and placed him in a perfect world that God also created, but man rejected God, and since then God has been providing for people to return to Him.

A major way He did this is to use a nation He selected, Old Testament Israel, as an example to all mankind. Despite Israel repeatedly turning away from God, he kept providing a way for them to return to Him, and showed His forgiveness when they did. He also instituted the practice of sacrificing animals, teaching His people that the punishment they deserved for rejecting Him could be transferred to a substitute, then came to Earth Himself as Jesus to provide a final, perfect, substitute for all mankind. The punishment having been carried out, every person who accepted this was able to be reconciled to God.

Man's relationship with God has been governed by various covenants God made with mankind.


Inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible contains no errors. Essentially all Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired and true word of God, but they do not always agree on exactly what this means. Even those who insist that every single word of the Bible ultimately comes from God often do not extend this belief to translations into modern languages or even to the copies we possess, but only to the original manuscripts. Ryrie, while propounding his own strict version of inerrancy, gives a sample of the range of beliefs that exist:[1]

Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.

In particular the last point, whether inerrancy is unlimited or is applicable only to questions of salvation, faith, and conduct, has become a major dividing line between Christian beliefs. Sometimes the latter version is called infallibility rather than inerrancy, but these terms are not distinguished from each other in a consistent way.[2]

A precise statement of inerrancy as it is held by many believers is found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This statement affirms the divine inspiration of the entire Bible, "down to the very words of the original", but that inspiration also "utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers". An important point is that inerrancy is attributed only to the original manuscripts. Mistakes may have been introduced during the copying of the manuscripts, but there are good reasons, also acknowledged by secular scholars, to believe that errors of transmission have been minor. This manifesto specifically applies inerrancy to the whole Bible, not limiting it, as some other positions do, to "spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes" or excluding "assertions in the fields of history and science". Some more specific observations are made in Article XIII:

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Those holding this position often consider it to be a necessary consequence of the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible nature of God.[3][4] To the extent that the Bible is the source of the belief that God has these characteristics, this is begging the question. There are, however, many arguments and much evidence that can be invoked in testimony to both the existence of God and warrant for the original inerrancy of the Scriptures.[5][6][7][8]

Conservative evangelical Protestant denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, generally hold a strict view on the inerrancy of the Bible.[9] One of the most extreme positions is held by the relatively small group who believe that the King James Bible translation itself (or equivalent translations in other modern languages[10]) is inspired. Members of mainline Protestant denominations hold the entire spectrum of views on inerrancy. The Catholic Church has historically taken a strict position on inerrancy, but in recent decades liberal voices have become more numerous.[11] In addition, the Catholic Church traditionally teaches that the Pope, appointed ultimately by Christ, and the body of Bishops led by the Pope, are guided by the Holy Spirit to provide infallible teachings on issues of faith and morals whose answers are found within the Word of God, comprised of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.[12]

It often seems that Christians that hold a strict view of inerrancy and those that hold a more liberal view are talking past each other. This lies not so much in giving different answers but in asking different questions. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong expressed it this way:[13]

The idea that any educated person would today try to defend the idea that the Bible is either perfect or infallible is difficult for me to imagine.
When I confront people quoting biblical texts literally and thus in defense of some theological agenda or prejudiced attitude, I tell them they are asking the wrong question of the Bible. The appropriate question is not, 'Is this literally true?' for the world of biblical scholarship settled that question years ago with a resounding 'no'. The proper question is rather, 'What does this story mean?'
Then I might inquire about 'What need in the life of the person making the literal claim does the presumed literal authority of scripture meet?' Religion has always been more about the search for security than it is the search for truth - people crave certainty. When there is no certainty or insufficient certainty, people will go to great lengths to create it. The more irrational the claim, the more the insecurity is apparent. There is nothing rational about claims for the inerrancy of the Bible, or for the infallibility of the Pope. There is nothing rational about religious anger, religious persecution, religious wars, religious inquisitions or religious hatred of other faith traditions. However, the way to confront this irrationality is not with rational arguments no matter how tempting it is to try that approach.

The emphasis on different questions is also apparent in the fact that adherents to the liberal view downplay the theological consequences, while adherents of the strict view go to great lengths to explain the importance of the doctrine of inerrancy.

The liberal view is also articulated in statements of the Fuller Theological Seminary, the largest multi-denominational Christian seminary in the world. Its original Statement of Faith, written several years after its founding in 1947, contained the wording,[14]

The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

In the 1970s, after a decade of internal struggle, the Statement of Faith was modified to read,[15]

All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who speaks through them in living power.

The Bible is still described as divinely inspired and infallible with respect to faith and practice, but no longer as free from all error. The presumption is that there may be some errors, but none that would lead the faithful astray concerning what to believe about God or how to live a God-pleasing life. Daniel P. Fuller, son of the co-founder and, at the time of the adoption of the new Statement of Faith, Dean of the School of Theology, expanded on the division of Scripture into infallible parts and parts that may contain errors:[16]

Scripture as a whole is revelatory, either directly revelatory or facilitating the revelation. The directly revelatory part concerns the main purpose of the Scripture (to make man wise unto salvation) and is inerrant. The facilitating parts are not inerrant and are important only as a framing for the revelatory parts - therefore, they should not be made to harmonize with science and history.

And further,[17]

"A communication can be in error only if it fails to live up to the intention of its author...if they fulfill this intention we regard them as inerrant.” The purpose of biblical writers was, “to report the happenings and meanings of the redemptive acts of God in history so that men might be made wise unto salvation."

This principle, at least, that the intention or aim of the authors is a decisive criterion, is remarkably close to that of the strict inerrantists as expressed in the Chicago Statement:[18]

When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

When error is defined in this way, it is likely that even many critics of the Bible would agree that it is inerrant.

Archaeological evidence

Because the Bible contains a large amount of history, archaeologists are able to check many of the claims in the Bible, and many archaeologists have found that the Bible's history is very reliable. [19] [20]

William Albright wrote:

The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.[21]

Edward Blaiklock stated:

Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere.[22]

Archaeologist Dr. Bryant C. Wood concludes:

In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc.—not with the Bible.[23]

Among many events, persons and places, various archeological findings are seen to provide support for the existence of the sons of Jacob,[24], and of Joseph,[25] and of Balaam the prophet,[26] and that Israelites once lived in Egypt,[27] and for other things mentioned in the Bible.[28][29]

More recent examples of archeological finds that attest to the veracity of the Bible include;

  • The Tel Dan Stele is an inscribed stone discovered in 1993/94 in the North of Israel and dated to the 9th or 8th century BC. It contains text that can be translated to mean "House of David" and "King of Israel". The consensus among archaeologists and epigraphers is that the stele does in fact refer to the Biblical David.[30][31]
  • In 1975, a clay bulla (seal) purportedly containing Baruch's seal and name appeared on the antiquities market and is now in the possession of the Israel Museum. Baruch, son of Neriah, was the scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah approximately 587 BC. In 1996, an identical bulla turned up, but various test have since shown it may be a modern forgery. Corresponding tests have not yet been made on the original bulla.[32]
  • Hebrew University archaeologists have revealed evidenced which supports the Biblical account of King Solomon's construction.[33]

Skeptics of the Bible invoke an absence of archaeological finds or seemingly conflicting evidence.[34]

Others have said that the Bible has the ring of authenticity. Dr. Alex McFarland relates how he saw the Bible in a new way when hearing the Bible taught verse-by-verse for the first time in 1985, with preaching from Acts.

With my background as an English major and had studied literature fairly extensively, ... two things struck me, one that it was well written and one that it had the ring of eyewitness history ... I said 'whoa, I had just tacitly assumed the Bible was myth or legend, but this reads like an eyewitness account of history'.[35]

Tomas, a Nimboran (Western Papua) tribesman, assisting a missionary with Bible translation, was struck how the story of Cain and Abel rang true:

Why, we do just the same to our elders. We are just like Cain, and when our elders get cross with us, we get angry. ... That is just what we would do too! We would be likely to kill the person with whom we were angry, and then we would have to run far away from our father’s land and live separately, so that the avenger of blood couldn’t kill us in return. What happened to Cain is just right.[36]

Manuscript evidence

The New Testament stands alone among ancient documents for both the number of extant manuscripts and the short time span between the originals and the oldest extant manuscript copies. Each of these factors lend considerable credibility to the fidelity of the New Testament documents available to us, as they reduce the likelihood that those documents do not accurately represent the original versions. Any attempt to change the contents of the New Testament would have been futile, as there were so many copies in circulation so early that altered copies would quickly be detected.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the oldest known manuscripts of the Masoretic text (the Old Testament in Hebrew) were from the 9th century AD. The Dead Sea scrolls were dated to the 1st century BC, and contained two copies of the Book of Isaiah (one complete and one about 75% complete) which showed that a millenium of copying had only introduced insignificant variations. This indicates that Jewish transmission practices maintained very accurate copies of the original works.

Documents[37][38] Date of composition Earliest manuscript Intervening years Total Number of manuscripts
Aristotle 384—322 BC 1100 AD 1,400 5
Caesar 100—44 BC AD 900 1,000 10
Herodotus 480—425 BC AD 900 1,300 8
Homer 900 BC 400 BC 500 643
Plato 427—347 BC AD 900 1,200 7
Quran AD 650 AD 750 100  ?
Thucydides 460—400 BC AD 900 1,300 8
Suetonius AD 75—160 AD 950 800 8
Old Testament Approx 4,000—450 BC 150 BC 300—4000 at least 250
New Testament AD 40—100 AD 130 40ʘ more than 24,000

"Manuscript" in this table refers to any portion of the document, perhaps only a few lines; complete documents are not implied.
In contrast to the secular works in this table, which were written by single authors, and the New Testament, which was written during a period corresponding roughly to a human lifetime, the Old Testament was written by many authors over a long period of time. The earliest event depicted is creation, around 4000 BC. The Torah was the work of Moses, who lived around 1400 BC, although there is evidence that Moses compiled Genesis from earlier documents dating back to creation. (According to most secular biblical scholars, it was redacted around 450 BC from sources written between 900 and 550 BC.)
ʘ One of the earliest fragments of the New Testament, in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, is from the Gospel of John, dated to 130AD, only 40 years after John was written. A fragment which may date even earlier is the Magdalene Manuscript containing part of chapter 26 of Matthew's Gospel, dated to 50 to 60 AD (around the time that this gospel was written) by Carsten P. Thiede, although other authorities believe that it dates to around 200 AD.[37]


The Bible is understood to have been written by over 40 different people, over a period covering at least 1,500 years.[39][40] These people were writing under the "inspiration" of God. That is, God was the ultimate author of the books of the Bible, but He used human authors to do the writing, inspired by His Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," while 2 Peter 1:21 explains, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." God ensured that the Scriptures contained the truth and the words that He wanted them to contain, although He used wording that reflected the language, idioms, and personality of the human authors.[41][42]

Not all the human authors of the Bible are known, and many are suspected but not known for certain. The following table lists some of the known and suspected authors. Note that in a few cases others may have edited or added to a particular book. For example, Deuteronomy is believed to have been written by Moses, but records his death and burial. That another author added these details does not negate that Moses was the main author. Note also that writers of the various psalms have not been included.

Author About the author When Books Comments
Moses Adopted son of Pharaoh, shepherd, leader of Israelites Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy Some believe that Moses compiled Genesis from older documents.
Joshua Military leader Joshua
Solomon King Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes
Isaiah Prophet Isaiah
Daniel Second in charge of Babylon Daniel
Matthew Tax collector, disciple of Jesus 1st century Matthew
Mark 1st century Mark
Luke Doctor 1st century Luke, Acts
John Fisherman, disciple of Jesus 1st century John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation
Paul Rabbi, tent maker 1st century Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Peter Fisherman, disciple of Jesus 1st century 1 Peter, 2 Peter
James Brother of Jesus 1st century James

Role in Christianity

The precise relationship between the Bible and the Christian Church differs depending on the form or denomination of Christianity in question (and also between individual Christians within those denominations). All denominations take the Bible as their holy text, but they may interpret and use it in slightly different ways. Below are some statements made by various denominations on the importance of the Bible and what it means for members of their churches:

Anglican Church

The Anglican Church emphasises the Bible's role as a guide to how to live:

We view the Old and New Testaments 'as containing all things necessary for salvation' and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.[43]

Methodist Church of Great Britain

The Methodist Church of Great Britain sees the Bible as a means to know God:

Christians need to be familiar with the Bible and to immerse themselves in it. The Bible is the record of God's self revelation, supremely in Jesus Christ, and is a means through which he still reveals himself, by the Holy Spirit.[44]

However, it qualifies this by noting that different members of the Church have differing views:

A Methodist Conference report ' A Lamp to my Feet and a Light to my Path' identified a wide range of views among contemporary Methodists about the Bible's authority.[45]

Roman Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic church sees the Bible as primarily a record of the good news about Jesus Christ. However, it does not fulfill this role alone, since the Roman Catholic Church's tradition (which it holds to have been handed down in an unbroken chain from the Apostles) is equally important:

Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth [...] In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit"; and in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.[46]

Protestant denominations

Several Protestant denominations make similar statements on the role of the Bible as an authority for "believing and living" - it tells them both what they should believe (ie what is true) and how they should conduct themselves.

The Elim Pentecostal Church says:

We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error, the fully inspired and infallible Word of God and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.[47]

The Baptist Union of Great Britain states:

The Bible is described as the 'Word of God' because Baptists believe that its writers were inspired by God's Spirit. As such, it has authority to guide both what we believe and how we live our lives.[48]

The United Reformed Church takes Jesus as its highest authority, and takes the Bible as the pre-eminent source of His teaching:

The 'highest authority' for our believing and living is 'God's Word in the Bible'. Notice that the Statement does not simply say that 'the Bible' is the authority, but 'God's Word in the Bible'. Jesus, described in John's Gospel as 'the Word made flesh' is the supreme authority.[49]

Other Groups that accept the Bible

The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the Bible as one of its four books of scripture, stating:

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

To that end, they only consider the King James Version to be an acceptable translation.

Jehovah's Witnesses accept the Bible as literal truth, stated to be scientifically and historically inerrant, although they have their own translation that differs from mainstream translations in a few key ways.


The Apocrypha are books that are not accepted as part of the main Bible by most Protestant denominations. Most of the Apocrypha are included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Roman Catholic Church and many Eastern Orthodox churches accept these as canonical. The Apocrypha include additional records of Jewish history, wisdom literature, additions to the books of Daniel and Esther, and other writings. Although the apocryphal writings can be instructive and edifying to read, not all Christian denominations consider them to be divinely inspired in the same way as the rest of the Scriptures, and many Bibles do not include them.

Biblical quotes

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." John 16:13

See also


External links

Books of the Bible
Old Testament
Pentateuch (Torah) GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomy
History JoshuaJudgesRuthI SamuelII SamuelI KingsII KingsI ChroniclesII ChroniclesEzraNehemiahEsther
Wisdom Literature JobPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastesSong of Solomon
Major Prophets IsaiahJeremiahLamentationsEzekielDaniel
Minor Prophets HoseaJoelAmosObadiahJonahMicahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachi
New Testament
The Gospels According to MatthewAccording to MarkAccording to LukeAccording to John
History Acts of the Apostles
Pauline Epistles RomansI CorinthiansII CorinthiansGalatiansEphesiansPhilippiansColossiansI ThessaloniansII ThessaloniansI TimothyII TimothyTitusPhilemon
General Epistles HebrewsJamesI PeterII PeterI JohnII JohnIII JohnJude
Prophecy The Revelation to John


  1. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987. Quoted by J. Hampton Keathley, III, in The Bible: The Inerrant Word of God
  2. Theopedia article on Inerrancy of the Bible, section Inerrancy and infallibility
  3. Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, Biblical Inerrancy—Part 2: The Evidence
  4. Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Dave Miller, Ph.D., Biblical Inerrancy, Apologetics Press
  5. John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction Apologetics to the Glory of God, pp. 71, 85-86, 126, 213-24, 226, Cp. 4
  6. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, pp. 353,54, 379
  7. Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur, Reasons We Believe: 50 Lines of Evidence That Confirm the Christian Faith
  8. Paul D. Feinberg, "The meaning of inerrancy," in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler (Zondervan, 1980), pp. 267-304
  9. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Biblical inerrancy (freedom of error): Contrasting the beliefs of various Christian faith groups
  10. In The King James Bible is Inspired, David J. Stewart holds that all modern translations are inspired.
  11. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Biblical inerrancy (freedom of error): as viewed by Roman Catholics
  12. James White, Of Athanasius and Infallibility
  13. "Bishop Spong Q & A on Biblical Inerrancy," 2006-MAY-31 weekly newsletter. Quoted in Biblical inerrancy (freedom from error): According to mainline, liberal and progressive Protestants
  14. Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), Ch. 6 "The Strange Case of Fuller Theological Seminary", p. 107.
  15. Statement of Faith, Fuller Theological Seminary
  16. Daniel P. Fuller, "The Nature Of Biblical Inerrancy," in the American Scientific Affiliation Journal XXIV/2 (June 1972) p.50. Quoted by Dennis McCallum in The Extent and Nature of Inspiration
  17. Daniel Fuller, “The Nature of Biblical Inerrancy,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, XXIV (June, 1972), p. 47, quoted in Biblical Inerrancy
  18. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
  19. Powell, Doug (2006). Holman QuickScource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Holman Reference.
  20. Hemer, Colin (1990). The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History Eisenbrauns
  21. Albright, 1960, pp. 127,128, quoted in Miller.
  22. Blaiklock, 1983, pp. vii-viii, quoted in Miller.
  23. Dr. Bryant C. Wood, Associates for Biblical Research
  30. 'On the "positivist" side of the controversy, regarding the authenticity of the inscription, we now have published opinions by most of the world's leading epigraphers (none of whom is a "biblicist" in Thompson's sense): the inscription means exactly what it says.' William Dever, 2004, 'What Did The Biblical Authors Know, And When Did They Know It?', pages 128-129, as quoted in WP:Tel Dan Stele
  31. 'The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.' Grabbe, L. L. (2007). Reflections on the Discussion. In L. L. Grabbe (Ed.), Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (L. L. Grabbe, Ed.) (333). London: T&T Clark, as quoted in WP:Tel Dan Stele
  32. Yuval Goren, "The Jerusalem Syndrome in Biblical Archaeology," SBL Forum, n.p. (cited March 2005). Online:
  34. Michael D. Lemonick, Are the Bible's Stories True? Archaeology's Evidence time, Monday, Dec. 18, 1995
  35. McFarland, Alex, Defending Biblical innerancy, Unbelievable, 14 June 2008.
  36. May, Kevin, Is Genesis myth or reality?, Creation 17(3):22–23, June 1995.
  37. 37.0 37.1 The Bible's Manuscript Evidence
  38. Sarfati, Jonathan, Should we Trust the Bible?, Creation 33(1):32-36, January 2011.
  43. What it means to be an Anglican
  44. Reading the Bible
  45. Reading the Bible
  46. Catechism of the Catholic Church
  47. Elim Pentecostal Church: What we believe
  48. What makes a Baptist: The authority of the Bible
  49. URC: Nature, Faith and Order
Personal tools

visitor navigation
contributor navigation