Is there any proof the Bible is true?

In 1868 the German missionary Klein found a stone in Dibon (a town in Moab, East-Jordan land) with the inscription of Mesa, king of Moabites (compare 2 Kings 3). On this stone Mesa recorded in ancient Hebrew letters his disputes with King Jehoram of Israel. This stone dating to the time 840 BC is probably the most ancient extra biblical written testimony for the absolute correctitude of the Old Testament accounts on historical facts. (This stone can now be seen in the Louvre, Paris.)

As for scientific evidence, archaeologists have proved again and again the accuracy of Scripture accounts, the names of peoples, places and dates. Nelson Glueck, eminent Jewish archaeologist, has categorically stated that "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."' William F. Albright, recognized as one of the greatest of archaeologists, testified that there is no doubt that archaeology "has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition.

“In the New Testament we have the names of Roman Emperors—Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius; Roman Governors as Cyrenius, Pontius Pilate, Felix, Festus, Sergius Paulus, Gallio; Jewish kings as Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Agrippa I, Agrippa II. Classical history and the writings of Josephus attest that they existed at the time specified, bore the offices assigned them in the Bible, and in the chronological order in which their names appear. Every quotation from Josephus, Tacitus, or Suetonius; every fresh archaeological discovery in Asia Minor, Cyprus, Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, serves to illustrate the minute accuracy with which every particular respecting them is recorded, even in facts apparently the most insignificant.”

And when we turn to the testimony of archaeological investigation, every bit of it only strengthens the confidence of the Christian in the veracity and faithfulness of Scripture. It is surprising to read a statement like this from the pen of Professor Peake:

It is true that later on he goes into details, seeking to prove that archaeological discoveries throwing light on the times of Chedorlaomer do not alter the findings of the critics. But these discoveries have at least identified Hammurabi as the Amraphel, King of Shinar, mentioned in the expedition, besides giving the name of other kings in that chapter. The extraordinary thing is, that those ancient records, unearthed after all these centuries, are received without a question at their face value, whilst the Bible is questioned and doubted at every point.

123 Take Herodotus, and you will find that he has no nations with a history to tell you of but such as were in connection with the Jews — the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians, and such like — I name only the earliest. All the rest is vague and dark. Outside this we have some Chinese dynasties and some dark Hindu traditions, which tend to confirm the early Mosaic accounts; and in monuments which no fraud could have reached. In Egypt, we have pictures of Jews making bricks under the lash; and, what is remarkable, we have evidently Jewish overseers, and besides them Egyptian directors, or head-overseers — exactly what is stated in the book of Exodus. For if infidelity can find doubts to stumble and fall upon, God has given to a simple faith what even externally confirms its confidence, and confounds the folly of the false science that will not believe. Such proofs are never the foundation of faith; they cheer and confirm it.

The original writings were copied on manuscripts, in painstaking accuracy. This was assured through various techniques, such as counting the number of occurrences of each letter, etc.

Evidence for the accuracy of transmission abounds. Until 1947, the oldest known OT manuscripts were from around 1,000 AD. Bible critics claimed that these had to be very inaccurate because so many centuries had elapsed. The famous Qumran discovery, in 1947, proved them wrong (the critics, not the manuscripts). The caves in Qumran contained copies of all books of the Old Testament (except Esther) - from 100 - 200 years BC. A careful comparison showed that these manuscripts were virtually identical to the ones that had been known before (from 1000 AD).

The four chapters which follow the great dream of Nebuchadnezzar are of a historical character. They do not contain direct prophecies, but record certain events which transpired during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, his successor and grandson Belshazzar, and Darius, the Mede. On the personal history of these three persons and where they are found in profane history we have little to say, as a deeper examination of this subject would lead us too far and would be tedious. But this much must be said that the criticism which charged Daniel with being incorrect has been completely silenced by the Babylonian cylinders of Cyrus and Nabonnaid and the so-called annalistic tablets, the very records of those days. It is true the personality of Darius the Mede has not yet been definitely located historically. However, we do not believe the Bible because its historical statements can be verified from profane history. We believe the Bible because its records are divinely inspired and therefore correct. What would we know of the genuineness of these ancient tablets and cylinders covered with cuneiform inscriptions if it were not for the Bible? These witnesses from the stones, which indeed cry out, do not verify the Bible, they are rather declared genuine and correct by the Word of God. These four chapters then give us historical events. Each has a prophetic meaning, though direct prophecy is not found in them. These chapters describe the moral conditions which held sway during the two first world empires; they indicate prophetically the moral conditions which continue to the end of the times of the Gentiles. Five things may be traced in these four chapters: The moral characteristics of the times of the Gentiles; what will happen at the close of these times; the faithful remnant in suffering; their deliverance and the Gentiles acknowledging God, as King and the God of heaven.

Perhaps no other book of the Bible has been so much attacked as the book of Daniel. It is a veritable battlefield between faith and unbelief. For about 2,000 years, wicked men, heathen philosophers and infidels have hammered away against it; but the book has proved to be the anvil upon which the critics' hammers have been broken into pieces. The book has survived all attacks, and we need not fear that the weak and puerile critics, the most subtle infidels of Christendom in our day, can harm the book. It has been denied that Daniel wrote the book during the Babylonian captivity. Kuenen and Wellhausen and their imitating disciples like Canon Farrar, Driver and others of inferior calibre, claim that the work was not written in the Exile, but centuries later. Daniel had nothing to do with the book at all; a holy and gifted Jew wrote it instead, and it is avowed fiction. Such are a few of the infidel statements made against this sublime book. These critics follow the wicked assailant of Christianity of the third century, Porphyr, who contended that the book of Daniel is a forgery, that it was written during the time of the Maccabees, after Antiochus Epiphanes, so clearly foretold in this book, had appeared. The whole reasoning method of the destructive Bible-criticism may be reduced to the following. Prophecy is an impossibility, there is no such thing as foretelling events to come. Therefore a book which contains predictions must have been written after the events which are predicted. But how could the man who committed such a forgery be a pious Jew? No, the book of Daniel is either divine or it is the most colossal forgery and fraud. No middle ground is possible. We give a few of the evidences which answer the infidel attacks upon this great fundamental prophetic book. It should be enough for every Christian that our Lord, the infallible Son of God, mentions Daniel by name in His great prophetic discourse delivered on Olivet (Matthew 24:15). There can be no question that our Lord at least twice more referred to the book of Daniel. When He speaks of Himself and His coming again in the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man, He confirms Daniel's vision in chapter 7:13, and when He speaks of the stone to fall in Matthew 21:44, He confirms Daniel 2:44-45. How does the critic meet this argument? He tells us that our Lord accommodated Himself to the Jewish views current in His day. They say, perhaps He knew better, and some say that He did not know. In other words, they deny the infallibility of our Lord, and with this invention that He accommodated Himself against His better knowledge, they accuse our Lord of something worse. When the Lord uttered the words, "Daniel the prophet" He put at once His unimpeachable seal on both the person and the book of Daniel. But there are other evidences. The heathen Porphyr declared that the book was written during the days of the Maccabees; as stated above the modern critics have echoed the opinion of that lost heathen soul. But the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was made before the time of the Maccabees, contains the book of Daniel. It was in the hands of the learned Hebrews, who translated in the third century before Christ the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek. The book therefore antedates the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Furthermore during the days of the Maccabees a book was written, the first book of the Maccabees, a historical account of those eventful days. This Maccabean work not only presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel, but shows actual acquaintance with it, and therefore gives proof that the book must have been written long before that period (1 Macc. 1:54, compare with Daniel 9:27; 2:49 and Daniel 3). The reliable Jewish historian Josephus also furnisheth historically an evidence for Daniel. He tells us that when Alexander the Great, who is mentioned in Daniel's prophecy (chapter 8), came to Jerusalem in the year 332 B.C., Jaddua the high priest, showed him the prophecies of Daniel, and Alexander was greatly impressed with them. Then we have the testimony of another prophet of the exile, the prophet Ezekiel. He speaks twice in the highest terms of Daniel, whose contemporary he was. (See Ezekiel 14:14- 20 and 28:3.) Daniel also betrays such an intimate acquaintance with Chaldean customs and history, as well as their religion, such as none but one who lived there and was an eye-witness could have possessed. For instance, the description of the Chaldean magicians perfectly agrees with the accounts found in other sources. The account of the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by the ancient historian Berosus. Then there has been a most striking vindication of this book through the Babylonian excavations, tablets, cylinders and monuments. Into this we cannot fully enter, but we cite but one of the most striking. The name of Belshazzar furnished for a long time material to the infidels to reject the historical accuracy of the book.

The histories as given in these books are likewise confirmed by both Egyptian and Assyrian monumental records; Rehoboam being represented on the former, and Omri, Jehu, Menahem, Hoshea and Hezekiah on the inscriptions of the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. But Scripture, like its great subject, Christ, neither receives nor requires "testimony from men." The monuments do not prove Scripture to be true; it is only proved, when they agree with the Bible, that they are true, and not lies. As we read God's word, "we believe and are sure," because "holy men of God," who wrote these records, "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). True, it is called "prophecy" in the quotation given, but it has been aptly said that "history as written by the prophets is retroverted prophecy." "Moses and the Prophets" means (like "the Law and the Prophets"), the Pentateuch, the Old Testament historical books, and the writings generally designated as "the Prophets." And "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man." So we unhesitatingly declare ourselves, like Paul of old, as "believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14). "And he that believeth shall not be ashamed" — no, "neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Amen and Amen!

There are ten patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5, which Modernists have treated as legendary and mythical and unworthy of serious attention. But the archaeologist's spade, as we have said, has turned up more than soil. A recently discovered clay prism, now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, gives long lists of kings and the dates when they reigned. It commences with a list of eight kings, who were prior to the flood. These correspond with the names of the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5. The Modernist will disbelieve the Bible, until some clay prism turns up, written by heathen hands, and this is believed, even if the Word of God is not. It is awkward for the critics when the "assured results" are discovered to be false. They are then quietly dropped and fresh charges against the Bible are brought forth. If the Bible were reduced to such straits, it would soon be laughed out of court.