If the Bible has errors or discrepancies how am I supposed to believe in Jesus?

[Lord'sWarrior]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

 

[Albion]

Are we convinced that whoever wrote the Gospel of John did not see the events in question?

 

[Lord'sWarrior]

Are we convinced that whoever wrote the Gospel of John did not see the events in question?

I dont know if who wrote it did know, but that doesn't facilitate my belief. It creates doubt in my mind.

 

[-V-]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Not sure off the top of my head what the supper being different refers to. As to the hour of the crucifixion, one is Jewish time, the other is Roman time.

Who wrote John isn't relevant to whether or not he was an eyewitness. If John was an eyewitness, he was an eyewitness regardless of who it was who recorded that he was an eyewitness.

 

[pescador]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

You clearly don't understand the way the gospels were written. They are not written in the style of modern Western journalism. They are subjectively written to reveal the truth that is in Jesus Christ.

An example that might help you understand: someone takes a photograph of a person, another paints an impressionistic portrait. Which one better reveals the essence and character of the subject? The writers of the gospels were creating "impressionistic" portraits of Jesus Christ so that the readers/hearers would be able to fully understand who he was within their mental-cultural framework.

It is as wrong to ask if the gospels are "accurate" as it is to say that an impressionistic painting doesn't look exactly like the person portrayed. Open your heart and mind to try to comprehend who Jesus was/is in all his complexity instead of trying to look for errors in Scripture.

 

[-V-]

when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel,

*SOME* scholars might think that. Some think John did write it.
4. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline
The first section deals with authorship.

 

[Lord'sWarrior]

You clearly don't understand the way the gospels were written. They are not written in the style of modern Western journalism. They are subjectively written to reveal the truth that is in Jesus Christ.

An example that might help you understand: someone takes a photograph of a person, another paints an impressionistic portrait. Which one better reveals the essence and character of the subject? The writers of the gospels were creating "impressionistic" portraits of Jesus Christ so that the readers/hearers would be able to fully understand who he was within their mental-cultural framework.

It is as wrong to ask if the gospels are "accurate" as it is to say that an impressionistic painting doesn't look exactly like the person portrayed. Open your heart and mind to try to comprehend who Jesus was/is in all his complexity instead of trying to look for errors in Scripture.

I'm not satisfied with the paint of a mountain, are you? I prefer the real thing, and if the supposed portrait isn't well painted who the heck is going to pleased with that 'mere' descrption. We are talking about truth. If you merely believe and repeat what others say about it, that isn't truth. It's a poor argument, yours. And yes, we should test everything. Not accept blindly what others say.

 

[Albion]

I dont know if who wrote it did know, but that doesn't facilitate my belief. It creates doubt in my mind.

But it doesn't make that particular reservation you mentioned to us be valid. I mean, I don't know anyone who is heartsick to learn that the names of some of the books of the Bible are based upon earlier assumptions and may not be correct because someone else might actually have written the contents. But what of the CONTENTS? Are they thereby made false? I would not say so. And this is important because when the subject of discrepancies comes up, it matters what the 'discrepancy' is.

 

[Lord'sWarrior]

But it doesn't make that particular reservation you mentioned to us be valid. I mean, I don't know anyone who is heartsick to learn that the names of some of the books of the Bible are based upon earlier assumptions and may not be correct because someone else might actually have written the contents. But what of the CONTENTS? Are they thereby made false? I would not say so. And this is important because when the subject of discrepancies comes up, it matters what the 'discrepancy' is.

You wrote plenty of words but said nothing at all. Nevermind. You are not being of much help. Please leave this matter to someone who can explain how can a person have faith when there are discrepancies. And certainly isn't you.

 

[pescador]

I'm not satisfied with the paint of a mountain, are you? I prefer the real thing, and if the supposed portrait isn't well painted who the heck is going to pleased with that 'mere' descrption. We are talking about truth. If you merely believe and repeat what others say about it, that isn't truth. It's a poor argument, yours. And yes, we should test everything. Not accept blindly what others say.

If I can't see the mountain directly -- why is that brought up? -- then I must accept the most accurate description of it. I must depend on somebody who wants to convey to me what the mountain is really like.

Are you saying that the gospels aren't "well-painted", even though they have been accepted as part of the canon of scripture for roughly 2,000 years? You demand some ill-defined concept of "truth"? Why don't you tell God that the portraits of his son aren't accurate?

Go ahead and test everything by your own standard, never mind that that's the opposite of faith. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1

 

[PeaceB]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Well if that shakes your faith what do you with the problem of the numerous textual variants in the Greek manuscripts, and the multiple verses that have been removed from the newer compilations?

List of Bible verses not included in modern translations - Wikipedia

List of major textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia

Textual variants in the New Testament - Wikipedia
​

Could it be that Jesus established a Church on Earth to uphold and pass down his teachings, so that a person's ability to know the truth would not be subject to the ability of copyists?

 

[Lord'sWarrior]

If I can't see the mountain directly -- why is that brought up? -- then I must accept the most accurate description of it. I must depend on somebody who wants to convey to me what the mountain is really like.

Are you saying that the gospels aren't "well-painted", even though they have been accepted as part of the canon of scripture for roughly 2,000 years? You demand some ill-defined concept of "truth"? Why don't you tell God that the portraits of his son aren't accurate?

Go ahead and test everything by your own standard, never mind that that's the opposite of faith. "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1

That's exactly what I am going to do. There's a difference in that not seeing and blindless. I do seek for truth, I don't know if you found it yet, but I presume you didn't, as truth is an hard thing to find.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Don't ask for human verification. Take your concerns to God and ask Him for guidance.

 

[Lord'sWarrior]

Don't ask for human verification. Take your concerns to God and ask Him for guidance.

Thanks. That's more helpful. Will do.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

The number of 'errors' in the Bible is vastly exaggerated. It's a kind of fake news that the Bible is chock full of errors. Most apparent discrepancies can be resolved. But that doesn't stop people with axes to grind from listing all of the apparent errors to unsettle you.

 

[pescador]

That's exactly what I am going to do. There's a difference in that not seeing and blindless. I do seek for truth, I don't know if you found it yet, but I presume you didn't, as truth is an hard thing to find.

If you are looking for objective "truth" in the modern sense you won't find it by your methodology. Here is the truth you should be looking for...

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

BTW, I have found the truth -- in Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Guerrier, just take the approach that many of us do, and understand that ANY texts written through the hands of man--even if they are inspired by God--can only be representations of ideas using symbols of communication which humanity can comprehend and use; this is the case whether the writing is history, revelation/prophecy, poetry, personal letters, etc.

The inspiration of the Bible is seen in the fact that it is God who sparked the motivation for the writers to write what they wrote with the competency with which they each could individually write. Perhaps some parts or portions of the Bible were dictated from the mouth of God line by line, or by jot and tittle, but only God can know the extent of how well his authors did in writing this, or which portions were actually dictated.

We also know that God provided the brain-power for people to write things that are very cogent, even though we also realize that the use of written language doesn't capture every detail involved about the full reality of what has been written about.

I'm telling you this simply as a beginning point for you to consider; it's just a tip to think about further. The fact is, there are whole fields of study out there which interlace with one another and by which we come to an understanding of these things. We shouldn't see the Bible as a mystical book of perfection, but as a book which reflects on a practical human scale the truth about God's activity in the world.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[CGL1023]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

There is not a supposed discrepancy in the bible that some gifted, brilliant, learned scholar of the past has not already investigated and has completely put the issue to rest. A good source of bible commentaries (more than 30) is at Bible Commentaries These will answer the questions you bring up and thousands of others and answer them in minute detail.

It would pay to spend some time to see how the pros resolve seeming discrepancies in the Bible.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Not sure off the top of my head what the supper being different refers to. As to the hour of the crucifixion, one is Jewish time, the other is Roman time.

Who wrote John isn't relevant to whether or not he was an eyewitness. If John was an eyewitness, he was an eyewitness regardless of who it was who recorded that he was an eyewitness.

But the Gospels were written decades later, didn't have names attached to them, and don't read like eyewitness accounts as Revelation or Paul's letters do.

 

[ronandcarol]

If the Bible has errors or discrepancies how am I supposed to believe in Jesus?
Why would you allow human errors to shake your faith? The words in the Bible specifically state the they are God Inspired, God breathed. And God makes no errors!
ronandcarol