Richard Averbeck (BA [Calvary Bible College], MDiv, MA, [Grace Theological Seminary], PhD [Annenberg Research Institute]), "The Reliability of the Old Testament," https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-reliability-of-the-old-testament/

Richard Averbeck tackles the question: “How accurate is the Bible on historical people, facts, and events it recounts and how well does it give an account of the people and processes involved in its writing?” He makes the argument that many people doubt the historicity of the Old Testament, but the New Testament and Ancient Near Eastern extra-biblical material act as witnesses for it. And where there is a lack of evidence, there is still good reason to believe that the accounts are plausible. Despite these, Averbeck cites what he calls “misplaced skepticism,” where there are scholars who deny, ignore, or reinterpret evidence because it does not fit into their belief that the Old Testament is fictional literature created to support the agenda of Israel’s leaders with no basis in history. Averbeck’s conclusion rests on the reliability of the Old Testament in the content it records, the way in which it was composed, and how it was passed down to the modern reader.

Randall W. Younker (Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity. PhD (Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology) Director of the Institute of Archaeology), "THE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY," http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.523.6416&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Randall Younker argues that if the Bible is the fully inspired, authoritative Word of God as a truthful and accurate history of God's dealings with humanity from the time of Creation to the present age, then archaeology is important to study alongside the Bible. He claims that while it is not possible for archaeology to “prove” the Bible, especially details of specific events or its theological dimension, it can provide context, make clarifications, corroborate people, places, and events, and falsify bad biblical theories. While the archaeological witness to the Bible is incomplete, it can support: (1) supernatural intervention in the natural world, (2) the accuracy of the Bible, and (3) its chronological reliability. Ultimately, Younker makes the claim that history can only be understood when the investigator has a relationship with the Author, God, and that through history we can meet God.

Daniel Hoffman (Daniel Hoffman teaches history and Bible at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Georgia. He graduated with an M.Div. in 2012 from Reformed Theological Seminary), "Is Old Testament History Reliable?, https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-old-testament-history-reliable

Daniel Hoffman summarizes that the modern liberal biblical scholar approaches the text with questions like “what is being covered up?” or “whose perspective is being silenced?” or “what crime is this story trying to excuse?” Hoffman argues that while these questions can lead to insight, the biblical scholar is responsible for the assumptions that they bring to the text, epitomized by Provan, Long, and Longman’s A Biblical History of Israel: “the purpose is to think through the assumptions and expectations that we bring to the text, and how these assumptions might unfairly prejudice our readiness to accept them as historically trustworthy.” Hoffman condenses Provan, Long, and Longman’s work into reasons why scholarship is critical of the historicity of biblical narrative, namely five reasons: (1) much historical narrative in the Bible has no extra-biblical verification, (2) much historical narrative in the Bible was written long after the events described, (3) much historical narrative in the Bible is ideologically loaded and has a clear religious agenda, (4) much historical narrative in the Bible jars with what we would expect as normal or possible, and (5) The very form of OT narrative is inherently distorting of historical reality. By addressing these criticisms Hoffman presents a defense of Old Testament biblical narrative and its historicity.

Grant R. Osborne (American theologian and New Testament scholar. He was Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), "HISTORICAL NARRATIVE AND TRUTH IN THE BIBLE," https://search.proquest.com/docview/211180938?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

Gary Osborne asserts that true objectivity in biblical scholarship is impossible, the Bible is both history and theology, and truth is derived differently depending on the genre employed in scripture. Though New Testament historiography is more optimistic because of the roughly one hundred, rather than two-thousand-year span of history, he offers key principles, by which scholars can approach the text. He catalogues the scholarship’s treatment of the historical Jesus in three waves: history or theology (1900-1970), history and theology (1970-1985), and history through theology (1985- present). To ascertain the truth in historical narrative, Osborne submits the text to critical realism, which claims that “there is a definite meaning to be discovered, but that it only comes after serious critical reflection and debate on the alternative hypotheses.” In terms of determining between historical narrative and legend, Osborne recommends working with the literary and historical dimensions of the text in order to ascertain both the historical and theological truth.

Greg Gilbert (senior pastor of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of What Is the Gospel?, Assured: Discover Grace, Let Go of Guilt, and Rest in Your Salvation, and the commentary in the ESV Story of Redemption Bible), "Why Trust the Bible," https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-trust-the-bible/

Greg Gilbert asks and answers “can we conclude the Bible is true without presupposing the Bible is the ‘Word of God?’” He suggests the only way to find out is to approach the New Testament as a collection of historical documents that can speak for themselves. First, Gilbert asserts that though the original sources are lost, there are thousands of documents with original language text copied from each book of the Bible (5,400 pieces when it comes to the New Testament, many going back to the first 3 centuries) which prove the trustworthiness of our modern copy. Next, he demonstrates that the original authors are trustworthy because the New Testament authors infused their narratives with verifiable, historical facts. Additionally, many of the alleged contradictions and inconsistencies have been met with plausible resolutions. Finally, the original authors were not mistaken about the veracity of their accounts because the resurrection – “which could not have been a hoax or deception or mass hallucination” – testifies to the truth of their claims, claims for which they died. Thus, Gilbert concludes that the Bible can be proven true as a historically reliable document.

Benjamin Warfield (professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He served as the last principal of the Princeton Theological Seminary from 1886 to 1902), "The Real Problem of Inspiration," https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_probleminspiration.html

Benjamin Warfield argues that the best way to argue for verbal-plenary inspiration is to show that New Testament authors are trustworthy and credible. He shows that scholars use three major arguments to show that the doctrine held and taught by the church is not the same doctrine held and taught by the biblical writers themselves and biblical authors are untrustworthy. First, critics like Richard Rothe seek to separate Christ’s doctrine of the Old Testament from that of the apostles in which the apostles represent the current Jewish thought. However, Warfield retorts that “we have no Christ except the one whom the apostles have given to us.” The apostles recorded the Jesus they knew and the teachings they heard. If Rothe is correct and the teachings of the apostles cannot be taken authoritatively then Warfield demonstrates that the teachings of Christ would also have to be discounted because they are inextricably bound up together. Likewise, Marvin Vincent tries to discount verbal-plenary inspiration by saying it is “based wholly upon an a priori (valid independently of observation) assumption of what inspiration must be, and not upon the Bible as it actually exists.” Warfield challenges this statement with the argument that that theory of inspiration is the theory of the apostles and Christ and so to abandon verbal-plenary inspiration is to undermine their authority as teachers and guides. The second method of attacking the verbal-plenary theory of inspiration is by representing the New Testament as a matter of accommodation to the contemporary beliefs of the Jews. However, this, Warfield argues, is a logical fallacy to suggest that “a body of religious teachers, claiming authority for themselves, are trustworthy only when they teach novelties.” The third attack Warfield counters is the alleged distinction between the belief and the teaching of the New Testament writers. However, it is ungrounded to suggest that New Testament writers like Paul did not believe in what they taught because there are no sources which contain those opinions. Rather, Warfield shows that the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture is also the evidence which shows that the apostles are trustworthy teachers of doctrine because Scripture’s trustworthiness is the foundation for all other biblical doctrine.

Robert Plummer (professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has served in missionary assignments of varying length in China, Israel, Trinidad, Ghana, Malaysia, and Turkey. Plummer has written 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible), "Do Inconsistencies in the Gospels Undermine Scripture’s Inerrancy," https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/tgc-asks-inconsistencies-gospels-undermine-scriptures-authority/

Robert Plummer’s main argument is that inconsistencies do not undermine the inerrancy of the gospels because incongruities are expected from any historical retelling of events by different witnesses. To support this idea Plummer shows that some perceived mistakes come from modern readers expecting the gospels to be written chronologically. However, each gospel and each author includes or discludes different details to emphasize different aspects. He concludes by advising young scholars not to be afraid in asking honest questions of the text and to study it carefully in order to glean the truth.

A. J. Droge (teaches at the University of Toronto, Mississauga campus, having taught previously at the University of California, San Diego, and at the University of Chicago), "THE LYING PEN OF THE SCRIBES": OF HOLY BOOKS AND PIOUS FRAUDS," https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23550020.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fbasic_SYC5187_SYC188%252F5188&refreqid=excelsior%3A9ee3222bf9063a06df8c796b59b2f1d9

A. J. Droge investigates the problem of “fraud” in religious texts by examining the discovery of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings 22 as an example of how fine the line can be between discovery and invention, history and fiction, religion and politics. By characterizing this story as a common ancient Mediterranean one with a pattern of motifs (a book, or books, or part of books are discovered suddenly and accidentally in a sacred place by a person connected with the king or by the king himself and the book is validated (or not validated) by an official action) Droge raises the question of “legitimacy” and “illegitimacy.” It forces the reader to evaluate his or her assumptions and motivations brought to biblical and other religious books.

Eric Lyons (graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric has served as a full-time member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press since 2001), "Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions," https://soanchoragechurchofchrist.org/articles/070118-dealingfairlywithallegedbiblecontradictions-ericlyons.pdf

Eric Lyons argues against the rejection of the inspiration of the Bible because of its presumed contradictions. One critic, Dennis McKinsey states: “Every analyst of the Bible should realize that the Book is a veritable miasma of contradictions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, poor science, bad math, inaccurate geography, immoralities, degenerate heroes, false prophecies, boring repetitions, childish superstitions, silly miracles, and dry-as-dust discourse. But contradictions remain the most obvious, the most potent, the most easily proven, and the most common problem to plague the Book.” Lyons lists 8 principles for dealing with alleged contradictions. (1) that Bible writers are innocent until proven guilty; “A book is to be presumed internally consistent until it can be shown conclusively that it is contradictory.” (2) possibilities will suffice. He offers this example: Matthew and Mark wrote that “the robbers” (plural) reviled Jesus on the cross (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32). Luke, on the other hand, mentioned that “one of the criminals” blasphemed Jesus (Luke 23:39, emp. added). First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. A second possible explanation for the differences involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as synecdoche – “a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships). Both Genesis 8:4 and 21:7 are examples of synecdoche. (3) Lyons emphasizes the importance of context. For example, he cites Matthew 24:34 which where Jesus tells his listeners that the judgement day will come before the generation he’s speaking to passes away. Many critics site this as a blatant falsehood, however, from the context of the chapter, Jesus was prophesying about the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Points (4), (5), and (6), and (7) relate to Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction and address the nature of the contradiction, or if the same person, place, thing, or time are being considered in the same sense and he offers examples for these misunderstandings. Lastly, (8) he demonstrates that additional material is not necessarily contradictory, for example, Matthew, Luke, and Mark all wrote about how a man named Joseph took the body of Jesus, wrapped it and laid it in the tomb. However, John’s account states that Joseph didn’t bury Jesus (John 19:38-40). Lyons argues that John simply supplemented the others’ accounts by adding additional facts. In conclusion, “different but truthful wordings in Scripture are exactly what a person should expect to find in a book composed of 66 smaller books written by approximately 40 different writers, who wrote to different people, at different times, and in different places with different purposes.”

Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Khoo (principal of the Far Eastern Bible College), "Identification of God’s Preserved Words – Canon, Texts, and Words: Lost and Found or Preserved and Identified," http://deanburgonsociety.org/pdf_VPP_Course/lesson_9.pdf

Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Khoo addresses Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_plenary_preservation) as it relates to Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI). The main thrust of his argument is that (1) the verbally inspired Scriptures are verbally preserved by God and God alone; and (2) the supremely authoritative Scriptures are the extant infallible apographs and not the non-existent autographs (original biblical texts). Thus, he argues that the inspired Scriptures were never lost but always preserved without any corruption or missing words. In terms of the canon, the Old Testament was completely canonized by the time of the New Testament comprising of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings and recognized as divinely inspired books. The New Testament was canonized by the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.). In terms of the texts (copies of the scripture), the Jews copied the scriptures according to very strict rules. For example, “The parchment must be made from the skin of clean animals; must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals. Each column must be no less than 48 and no more than 60 lines. The entire copy must be first lined, and if three words were written in it without the line, the copy was worthless.” Khoo argues that the present confusion in identifying the Hebrew Scriptures is not with the traditional copies which God kept from corruption, but with printed editions of the Hebrew Text which come in two types. Khoo labels the first, the Hebrew Masoretic Text which follows the traditionally preserved manuscripts as pure and the Biblia Hebraica which contains 20,000-30,000 suggested corrections or changes (coming from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the Septuagint) as corrupted. Likewise, two versions of the New Testament texts were also preserved: the Byzantine which came from Byzantium, reflect uniform readings, Khoo considers pure. And the Alexandrian texts, coming from Alexandria were found in 1844, but date back to 350 C.E., Khoo labels as corrupted. Lastly, any discrepancies found in the words of the Old Testament are born out of the Septuagint translation, rather than the Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise, modern English versions of the Bible exclude many words from the Greek (here, he lists nearly all of the words excluded from the New Testament). In summation, Khoo argues that (1) the biblical canon has always been preserved, (2) the Old and New Testaments were preserved perfectly in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, and (3) the words themselves were perfectly preserved in these texts and then faithfully used for the KJV translation of the Bible.

https://ehrmanblog.org/do-textual-variants-really-matter-for-anything/