Historicity of the Bible

     I saw this article posted recently by someone on facebook-
Is the Bible a Reliable Historical Source?
     Yes, the Bible is a reliable historical source- it is inerrant and infallible.  Inerrancy basically means all statements therein, as recorded, are accurate (the Bible is historically accurate). Definitions of inerrancy in regards to the Scriptures are normally highly qualified remarks with many "ifs, ands, and buts"- usually limiting inerrancy to the original autograph manuscripts and referring to information as yet to be uncovered in the future. The following page (link given) from Theopedia has an excellent discussion of inerrancy as opposed to infallibility: Inerrancy of the Bible . Also, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is considered an excellent and time-tested explanation of inerrancy of the Scriptures. It reminds us to consider genre and literary conventions when looking at passages.
     "So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."  - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
      It should be obvious to people when they reach historical narrative parts of the Bible that they are reading accurate narrative accounts of history.
    Also, concerning the level of perfection required for inerrancy:
     "The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions." - The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
      I first read about the distinction between inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the book The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel in which Strobel interviews Daniel B Wallace, Ph.D. on the unbeliever challenge that "the church tampered with the text" of the Bible. His response, statements and definitions are much like I have given here, but he gives more detail and information. Overall it is an excellent interview/chapter and definitely worth the read and the purchase.
     I remember the first night I ever answered questions publicly in open-air preaching, a very angry man approached the "heckler microphone" and asked, "How is the Bible true?"
   "By the lack of anything untrue," I replied, and then began to discuss the particular ins and outs of inerrancy and infallibility as I understood it. Questions on inerrancy and Scriptural preservation are guaranteed to come up in forums where open confrontation is going on between people of different worldviews. Keep in mind that for some, no explanation, no matter how short or long will ever be enough. They simply do not have the Holy Spirit and will not be enabled to believe. That does not mean that Christians should not try to get the truth across to people and argue for their position, though.
    For information on Scriptural preservation the reader will want to look into the area of textual criticism, and indeed the aforementioned Lee Strobel book is a good place to start. Just to state the basics here, there are some 24,000 extant New Testament manuscripts from antiquity. The internal consistency of New Testament manuscripts is counted by scholars as being at a 99.5% accuracy rate. The book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell provides very much similar information for people to be able to give evidential arguments about manuscript evidence and preservation (as well as extra-biblical sources attesting to Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person).
     Not only does the Bible comport with science and history, but archaeology as well. Archaeologists are continually finding new artifacts that vindicate information in the Bible. I remember it being mentioned in The Case for the Real Jesus that a new archaeological discovery had been made around the time of the interview, vindicating the historical existence of the Old Testament biblical people group the Hittites (which I guess, up until that point had been called into doubt by scholars). A great resource that many people appreciate is the Archaeological Study Bible. Only $4.99 on kindle, it contains commentary and notes on the archaeological information that corroborates the Scriptures, on every page, alongside the verses themselves. Archaeological data just further verifies, vindicates, and testifies to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
    Inerrancy of the Scriptures seems to be an idea that has been largely forsaken and forgotten by our generation. I don't hear the idea being rampantly discussed whenever I hear others discussing the Bible. It is, however, an idea that I hope our generation can reclaim and prize. Not only is the Bible historically accurate, it contains historical narrative accounts for events of history (such as the creation or the life of Jesus) about which there is no better historical record in existence.