I was watching a video in which Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias made an argument as to why the Bible should be considered seriously.
Why the Bible? Ravi Zacharias at the University of Illinois - YouTube
Here is a summary of what he said:
There are 66 books by nearly 40 different authors over 1500 years.
If the Bible made several claims that one found out to be false either historically or philosophically or existentially then one has reason to believe they cannot trust it.
He states that "the Bible is a very unique piece of literature compared to any other religious document."
"When you take the scriptures disclosed over centuries, 40 different authors 66 books and you see the prophetic schemer all the way down to Jesus."
Zacharias claims that the Book of Daniel predicts the fall of the Alexander empire. He talks about a massive empire that will come into being. That empire will be divided into four. The empire will be led by "a strident, strong heedgoat from the west who will be marching several nations under foot but shall be suddenly cut off and his empire will be divided into four. Those four then emerge into two and those two blend into one." He claims when you take the Book of Daniel written before and put it onto the Alexandar empire you see the prophecy. He claims that this prophecy was centuries before.
Then he speaks of the prophecy of Zacarias who describes the crucifiction of Jesus. "'They shall look upon him who they have pierced and weep as a mother weeps for her only son.' You go to the prophecy of Isaiah and see how Jesus is going to suffer immediately you see the supernatural."
He says "when you see the miraculous element and the historical element and it all points to one perfect person, Jesus."
He then cites a scholar, Bruce Metzer, from Princeton who states "when you take the 20,000 lines of the New Testament it is safe for any scholar to say there is at least a 99.6% accuracy." Zacharias goes on to say "no ancient document has the kind of documentary support that the Bible has. Over 5000 documents."
Zacharias then states that in an article in Time Magazine in 1988, Richard Olsen said that "one thing we cannot deny the Christians is the type of documentation that is available across the centuries. Nothing in ancient literature matches it"
Zacharias concluded with the following statement. "When you have got this kind of documentation, this kind of accuracy, that kind of a person in the person of Christ, I think you have pretty compelling evidence."
What are your thoughts?