IS THE BIBLE A HISTORICALLY-RELIABLE DOCUMENT? [1 of 2] There are three tests. The first is bibliographic, which examines whether the documents we have today are the same as those originally written by the authors. "This test considers the quantity of existing manuscripts and the time between the earliest copies and the originals.” When people try to mock the Bible as untrustworthy, keep this in mind: there are only 49 copies of Aristotle's writings in existence and each is at least 1400 years removed from the original. It get's worse: of the writings of Plato, who used to be my son's favorite philosopher—or maybe that was "Play-Doh”—there are only 7 copies on the planet and they are 1200 years removed from the original. Contrast that with the Bible, of which we have over 24,000 copies and they're finding more all the time. The earliest of those is only 25 years removed from the original and even from within the lifetime of the actual authors. Yet people don't think to question the authenticity of Aristotle or Plato's writings, while they scoff at the Bible. It makes no sense! And the Bible’s preservation story gets better than 25 years. In the same community where the Old Testament Dead Sea Scrolls, were found, just in the last few years they have actually also found copies of the New Testament books. And if you use the dates people estimate for the writing of New Testament manuscripts, based on what they just found, we now have portions of the Gospel of Mark from within 13 years of being written, portions of Romans from within 11 years, James within 8 years, Acts within 5 years, 1 Timothy within 5 years, and portions 2 Peter from the exact same year it was estimated to have been written. Yet people want to mock and scoff at the Bible. Excuse me?! It just doesn't make sense! THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE MOST VERIFIED DOCUMENT IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!