Bible Reliability: Historical Evidence

Ahmed pointed to alleged discrepancies, like the crucifixion’s timing in Luke’s “ninth hour” versus John’s “twelfth hour,” to argue the Bible’s corruption. I countered with the Gospels’ historical strength. Written by eyewitnesses or their close associates—like Luke, who “carefully investigated” (Luke 1:3)—the Gospels emerged within decades of Jesus’ life. Thousands of manuscript copies, dating to the first century, show remarkable consistency. This rapid, widespread transmission makes large-scale corruption implausible. For more apologetics, dive into our Theology Unpacked section.

Contrast this with the Quran, revealed 600 years later via a single angelic source, which Galatians 1:8 warns against. Bible reliability rests on diverse, early witnesses, not a solitary claim of divine preservation. Read Luke 23 on BibleGateway to see the crucifixion account’s clarity.

Explaining Gospel Discrepancies

Ahmed’s crucifixion timing issue got a sharp response from guest Birdie. John’s “twelfth hour” uses Roman timekeeping (midnight start), while Luke’s “ninth hour” follows Jewish time (6 AM start). Adjusted, both align: Jesus died around 3 PM. This isn’t corruption—it’s cultural context. Similarly, the “Field of Blood” purchase details vary slightly but harmonize when viewed as complementary accounts. Bible reliability shines when we grasp the authors’ intent, like Matthew’s Jewish focus on Mosaic Law, refuting claims of an unclear audience.

Timekeeping and Bible Reliability

The timekeeping explanation isn’t a dodge—it’s evidence of the Gospels’ authenticity. Eyewitnesses wrote for different audiences, using their conventions. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tailored their accounts for Jewish readers; John, for a broader Greco-Roman world. These differences don’t undermine Bible reliability but confirm it, showing unforced, independent testimonies. A fabricated text would smooth out such details, but the Gospels preserve raw, reliable history.

Philosophical Challenges to Corruption Claims

Ahmed leaned on the Quran’s claim of divine preservation, but I pressed him: Why trust one text over another? If Bible reliability, backed by thousands of manuscripts and eyewitnesses, can be doubted, why is the Quran exempt? His textual arguments sidestepped the deeper issue of consistent standards. Scripture’s warning in Galatians 1:8—“if an angel preaches another gospel, let him be accursed”—casts doubt on later revelations, reinforcing the Bible’s enduring trustworthiness.