@JohnLemphung Great question What specific argument have you heard that suggests only 7 of Paul’s letters are reliable? Below are some resources pointing out that when historians have sought to prove the NT wrong by showing its historical inaccuracy, they have in fact found that the NT is historically accurate wherever archaeological evidence turns up. In addition, we have lots of manuscript of the NT that date back to near the time of original writing and they verify the accuracy of what we have now.
The NT manuscripts are not forgeries and if there have been any modifications, they have been minor and in no way impact Christian theology. Christ grant you peace and wisdom
Nevertheless, many people used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke’s account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27 (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this “factual error” to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias, and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.
When we look at the field of archaeology, the data is also impressive.Every procurator, governor or Roman official named in the NT has been confirmed through external sources. Every city, village or region mentioned in the NT has also been corroborated. We have historic evidence for at least 31 people mentioned in the NT.
Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology from Yale University says, “On the whole…archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.”
The Zacharias Trust link here has some helpful, supplemental info that links to other resources as well.
It’s funny that the article mentions that Charles Spurgeon was once asked about how he defended the Bible to which he replied, “I’d rather defend a lion!”
. The idea being the Bible is dangerous to those that search for it - it can defend itself. Many scholars trying to disprove the Bible have actually proven its accuracy and some have come to the faith because of their search. Christianity, unlike some other religions, is wide open to and welcomes true criticism knowing that there is nothing to hide and that, if tested, will be found to be true and reliable.
The basic question to me is: If God is God, then wouldn’t He be able to preserve His Word and provide His Word in the form of what it is now the Bible, which we have at our disposal to search and study?