Originally Posted by
truthpaste
They are verified on a regular basis in many areas of science and history.
NB: For example, archeologists have actually used the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts to assist them in locating many things and they give credit to the meticulous writing of Luke which was the key to them finding many of those historical artifacts.
If you move away from the skeptics (who love to make sweeping assumptions) for a moment and do your own research you will see it very differently. Many former skeptics have published their findings and all of them realise they were completely wrong in their original assumptions.
Here is one article which you will find to be genuine:-
Josh McDowell lists evidences for Lukes accuracy compiled by Roman historian Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian: Specialized details, which would not be known except to a contemporary researcher. . .details include exact titles of officials, identification of army units. . .correlation of dates of known kings and governors within the chronology of the narrative. . .undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline Epistles. . .off-hand geographical references that bespeak familiarity with common knowledge.
McDowell notes that many times historians thought Luke was in error on some points, only to be proven wrong by an archaeological discovery. For example:
Luke spoke of Philippi as a part or district of Macedonia. It was believed he erred because the Greek word meris did not mean district. Archaeological evidence unearthed showed, however, that district was the exact meaning of the Greek word meris that Luke had used.
Luke referred to Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene in his Gospel. Because the only known Lysanias to historians was killed in 36 B.C., Luke was thought to be in error. Then an inscription was found bearing the name of Lysanias the Tetrarch and dated between 14 and 29 A.D., just at the right time period.
Luke was thought to be wrong about the census taken at the time of Christ, because critics said there was no evidence of a census and that the governor called Quirinius was in power too late, 6 A.D., to be in his position at the time of Christ. They also stated that it was not required for the people to return to their birth homes. But archaeology showed that in fact these censuses were done regularly and that one was indeed taken at the time of Christ and, furthermore, that Quirinius was governor (or at least an administrator of some type, see footnote #5 below) a second time, in 7 B.C. They also found evidence on a papyrus document showing that during the censuses people were required to return to their own homes and countries.[4][5]
Luke referred to the Philippian officials as praetors, when some scholars thought the titles should be duumvirs, but archaeological finds showed that in fact praetors was the right title for the Roman magistrates of the colony.
Luke used the title politarchs for the Thessalonian officials, but since this title was not found in the classical literature Luke was again assumed to be wrong. Then several inscriptions were found that used the title politarchs, and five of them referred to Thessalonica.[6]
There are many more examples of these findings, where Luke was right and the critics were wrong. Everywhere we can check the Bibles history, it proves reliable. The above excerpt was taken from The Bible Can Be Proven, Chapter 6 entitled The Shovel doesnt Lie.
Reply With Quote