How do we know the Bible is true?

We know it the way we weigh any claim about history: by converging lines of evidence - early dating, eyewitness testimony, hostile corroboration, and above all the case for the resurrection. But first an honest distinction both sides often blur: the manuscript evidence establishes that the New Testament was accurately preserved - that we can reconstruct what the authors wrote - not, by itself, that what they wrote is true. Those are two different questions, argued on different grounds; the Iliad is beautifully preserved too, and no one thinks that settles the existence of Zeus.

On preservation, the case is strong. The New Testament survives in over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, plus thousands more in Latin, Syriac, and other languages - far more, and far closer to the originals, than any other work of antiquity. When we compare an early copy like P75 (around AD 200) with the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, we find not wild drift but stability. The skeptic Bart Ehrman grants that the many variants are a by-product of having so many copies - and he himself concedes the 'essential Christian beliefs are not affected' by them, and that reconstructing the text would leave 'maybe one or two dozen' real points of dispute. The famous later additions (the longer ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery) are known precisely because the comparative method flags them.

So step one is secure: we are reading a first-century book, not a legend rewritten beyond recognition. That clears the way for the real question - whether the contents are true - which is argued separately: the early dating, the eyewitness testimony, hostile corroboration from Tacitus and Josephus, and above all the historical case for the resurrection. Good preservation removes one objection so the evidence for truth can be weighed on its merits.