Question- Can the Bible really be trusted?
Answer- There are two questions to consider on this issue: "Is what we have now an accurate copy of what was originally written?" and "Did it really happen the way it was written?"
First, "Is what we have now authentic?"
The way way to determine if a book that exists today is likely to be an accurate copy of the original is done in two ways.
First, consider the years from when the book was written to the earliest copy that we have now. Then, see if there are enough copies to cross check with one another to ascertain any missing, altered or miscopied parts. Then you can look at other writings during the same time period to see what was or was not said about the subject in question to see if your material is upheld or refuted by those outside sources.
In the first case we have parts of the book of John in a library in England dated at 120 AD. The events occurred around 33 AD and the author lived until around 90 AD so it is much closer (40 yrs.) than say Julius Caesar who lived 100 - 44 BC and the earliest copy we have is 900 AD. In fact, the bible far exceeds all these ancient documents on that score. (Homer - 500 yrs., Plato - 1300 yrs., Aristotle - 1400 yrs., Euripedes - 1500 yrs., Tacitus - 1000 yrs., Caesar - 950 yrs.)
Also the number of copies of these other ancient books range from 10 for Julius Caesar to 643 for Homer .There are a staggering 24,000 copies of the Bible in three different languages making it the most validated work by far from that period. In terms of content. By comparison we have; Homer - 643 copies, Plato - 7 copies, Aristotle - 49 copies, Euripedes - 9 copies, Tacitus - 20 copies, Caesar - 10 copies.
Second, did the things that were written actually occur?
The Gospels are mostly eyewitness accounts of events that occurred. To determine if they are truthful we need to weigh the evidence like you would in a court to make a fair judgment.
For instance, the Gospels are four different accounts of the life of a person named Jesus Christ who claimed He was God so we have to ask ourselves, were the people who wrote the Gospels in a position to eyewitness the events?.
John as an early follower of Christ was there, Matthew also an apostle was there, Luke was a physician who wanted to meticulously record the events of those days for history and traveled with the apostles, Mark was a young man in Jerusalem at the time and later traveled with Paul and finally worked with Peter to write his account of the life of Christ. So, the answer is that they could have recorded the life of Christ. Now the question is did they?
The early followers of Jesus had nothing to gain and everything to loose by telling people about Jesus. They were hunted down and killed and their possessions were taken away. Is it not more likely that what they were saying was true, than that all these people traipsed all over the Mediterranean being imprisoned and executed for a lie? They were not paid but lived off handouts from others like beggars to tell what they had seen. Ask yourself why they would do that if they knew the whole thing was a lie?
According to the Bible when Christ was arrested his followers ran and hid and only came out later after he appeared to them. If he had died and that was the end of him wouldn't they have scattered and gone back to their villages never to be heard from again? But, instead, after Christ appeared to them and proved to them that he had actually risen from the dead they held great rallies. No only that but they held them in the temple courtyard right under the noses of the priests that had just put Christ to death. They told thousands of people about Christ during that time.
The crucifixion of Christ was talked about throughout the region as is evident from what Paul said to King Agrippa when he was brought before him for sentencing: "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." (Acts 26:26)
Now consider; Where are the charges of fraud if the crucifixion did not actually happen? Jesus was referred to in Greek, Roman and Jewish documents outside the Bible (i.e. Josephus, Pliny, The Talmud) but no known document of the time claimed that it was all a hoax. The Jewish high priests tried to bribe the Roman guards into saying that friends had stolen the body but neither the Jews nor the Romans could hide the fact that there was no body. Here was a person who they mockingly called the "king of the Jews" who was nailed to a cross and died and whose body mysteriously vanished. Try as they might, they could not account for what happened to it.
Earmarks of true history-
When an account is true it has certain earmarks that a fiction does not. For instance, people of the day did not commonly talk like Jesus did. If someone were making up a story to be believable they would not have a person saying things like "Verily, amen amen, truly truly, surely" which were not forms of speech used at the time.
If the Gospels were fabricated by the writers they could have had Christ settling the arguments causing so much strife within the early church. Instead, they say nothing about the things the early followers were arguing about, like the need for circumcision and role of Gentiles in the church. Wouldn?t there have been great temptation to flavor the contents to favor their point of view?
If the stories were contrived why would there be things that might be embarrassing or misunderstood to readers like the anger of Christ, unbelief by his own family, and several other things that are debated to this day?
The indications above do not prove the truth of the Bible but they have the ring of truth to them and make it more likely that what Christ said and did was true than not.
If this seems logical to you, wouldn't it be important to study what is said in the Gospels to see if you subscribe to it, rather than dismiss the whole thing out of hand? Don't you owe yourself that much?