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

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

Believe and follow JESUS, not men.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You know, this obsession with the number seven might make some sense if there was actually anything we could do about the number seven, or if it made any difference in anything.

So then God chose the seventh day to be His Sabbath (as a part of the Old Covenant) at random?

What about Revelation?

Is it a coincidence that the number 7 appears hundreds of times in that book?


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't find those type of arguments compelling either, and they aren't at all practical for the average Christian to use.

Doubt is not the lack of something. It's the presence of something. All people have faith. The problem is that most people's faith is placed on things other than The Living God. Exposing and exploding the object of one's misdirected faith is the work primarily of the Holy Spirit, but we can help. . .

Men don't not believe because of a lack of information. In fact any new information given to them will be interpreted by their presuppositions, which in many cases, they don't even realize they have, as they are assumed. There is a humous story about a man who thought that he was dead that helps make the point that people interpret all data based on their presuppositions.

Yet, the list of evidences I provided by way of a link did not mention Mr. McDowell or his evidences. One bad experience with one set of evidences should not make one to cast aside other evidences.


...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here.

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

...

Your technique is to take any differences you ever find between King James and other translations and decide that proves the King James is right and the other is wrong.

Without regard to the reason for the difference.

In the case of Revelation 13:1, you ignore the fact that discoveries of manuscripts that are older than the ones available to the King James translators have "he stood" instead of "I stood".

The modern judgement of many is that "he stood" is more likely . . . by a hair. It is only given a "C" rating by the American Bible Society Greek text edited by Aland, Black, et. al. but that's what won out in their judgement by the current state of the evidence.

You, of course, completely ignore anything except the King James version in making your judgements. That is your privilege. But it is circular reasoning to judge all by the KJV and result in accepting the KJV to be correct.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sorry, this is probably none of my business, but the OP is worried about contradictions in the Bible and wants to know how to trust Scripture and therefore have faith.
I don't feel that listing mistakes in the KJV/arguing why those mistakes don't exist, is very helpful.

I, for one, would be interested in a new thread on this - as long as it can be done without arguments and point scoring.

 

[John 1720]

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.

Hi Sir,
Well all I have to say is that Scholars come and go and their theories over time decompose and then get quite smelly but the Word of God will endure forever. I of course base this on Jesus, who said:

• Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

If you want to trust your life to Scholars be aware their track record is appalling. Rudolph Bultmann is now considered the grandfather of the liberal Biblical scholars, Back in the early 20th century he caused many in the so called "know" to fully reject John's Gospel as a late 2nd century document, which he inferred was most likely counterfeited by the Church. Not surprisingly he didn't think too much of the historicity of Jesus either. There's an old joke about Bultmann that someone asked him what would you do if a bunch of archaeologists actually discovered the actual bones of Christ? It is said he'd reply, "So he existed after all". I kid you not.

Bultmann of course was a product of 19th century German skepticism which didn't believe Jesus could even perform a miracle, much less rise from the dead. Almost all modern liberal scholarship from the 20th century, even until now, is made in his image. Of course the problem here is that he was proved wrong on mostly all his pet theories, including the late date of John Gospel. Unfortunately for him that came crashing down in light of the physical evidence. Some Egyptian archaeologists turned up papyrus P-52 which was subsequently dated by papyrologists between AD 94 to AD 137; this being anywhere from the same decade as its proposed authorship to some mere decades afterwards. Liberal scholarship had pretty much taken a metaphorical torpedo amidships on the dating. I wish someone would write a book on how many proverbial scholars have been proved wrong; then perhaps maybe people would put their faith in the Word of God rather than some academics trying to glorify their own name on the History Channel at the expense of Jesus and His Gospel.

What we believe and who we believe really does matter, so let us know if we can help. As for me I'm going to keep trusting in the witness of some honest itinerant Galilean fisherman and a repentant Church persecutor rather then trust the latest sensationalist theories of Academia but it's your choice. Is it going to be the history channel or His Story? God does not force one to believe.
In Christ,
John 17:20

 

[-V-]

Ok. Was there one man with the Legion of demons, or two men?

Mentioning one is not the same as claiming there was one and only one. Don't make the mistake of confusing divergence with contradiction.

 

[dreadnought]

"He solves all MY problems."

He'll solve your problems, too, if you let him.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

He'll solve your problems, too, if you let him.

Is that why He came and got Himself nailed to a cross so that He could solve my problems? Sounds like you think that the God of the universe is nothing more than a PA.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your technique is to take any differences you ever find between King James and other translations and decide that proves the King James is right and the other is wrong.

What other Bible in the English is there that is as pure?
There is none.
God said He would preserve His Word for all generations.
Also, this is not the only piece of evidence for the KJV in being divine, either.

Without regard to the reason for the difference.

In the case of Revelation 13:1, you ignore the fact that discoveries of manuscripts that are older than the ones available to the King James translators have "he stood" instead of "I stood".

Hey, look. This is not the only instance where the devil has placed his name in Modern Bible versions. This is one example. If you do not like the facts, I cannot help that.

The modern judgement of many is that "he stood" is more likely . . . by a hair. It is only given a "C" rating by the American Bible Society Greek text edited by Aland, Black, et. al. but that's what won out in their judgement by the current state of the evidence.

I trust the KJV scholars more than the American Bible Society.

You, of course, completely ignore anything except the King James version in making your judgements. That is your privilege. But it is circular reasoning to judge all by the KJV and result in accepting the KJV to be correct.

I use Modern Translations but I treat them as panning through dirt so as to get to the gold in the KJV (and or the original languages on certain rare occasions).


...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What other Bible in the English is there that is as pure? There is none.

You KJV people just make that up without any real reasons.

God said He would preserve His Word for all generations.

It is preserved, but not in only KJV.

Hey, look. This is not the only instance where the devil has placed his name in Modern Bible versions. This is one example. If you do not like the facts, I cannot help that.

Hey, I know you SAID the devil "placed his name" there, but you didn't PROVE it. You just SAID it. Nobody made you the infallible source of knowledge on this subject.

I trust the KJV scholars more than the American Bible Society.

We believe you, we just don't see any reason for such a weird way of thinking about one of the many great translations we have.

 

[Vicomte13]

It is preserved, but not in only KJV.

It's preserved in Hebrew and in Greek, the languages of the respective testaments. A translation is but an echo. (Unless, of course, one believes that one's translation is itself inspired by God. If that were the case, one could then correct divergent ancient Hebrew and Greek and Latin and any other manuscript to the inspired translation, as that would be later in time and a complete and perfect present-day original manuscript. This seems unlikely.)

 

[RDKirk]

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.

I don't believe in God because of the bible, I believe in the bible because of God.

What bible did Cornelius have? Use his.

Your faith should not depend on the bible, your faith should depend on knowing Christ, and you don't know Christ by the bible, but by the Spirit. The Spirit who is Truth will point you back to the bible.

Here is what Andy Stanley has to say in that regard:

Why 'The Bible Says So' Is Not Enough Anymore

 

[Goatee]

Believe Jesus INSTEAD of men.

Follow Jesus, by faith, HE is PERFECTLY FAITHFUL,
not men.

His Word is Perfect and TRUTH - HE is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE.

All the so-called discrepancies you've been lied to about, believe them if you want to not follow Jesus.

If you want to follow Jesus, love the TRUTH, and always keep seeking the TRUTH.

No one who comes to Jesus is ever disappointed in Him.

How do you know that what you interpret from scripture is the truth? Why not the next person or the other denomination?

 

[Goatee]

What other Bible in the English is there that is as pure?
There is none.
God said He would preserve His Word for all generations.
Also, this is not the only piece of evidence for the KJV in being divine, either.



Hey, look. This is not the only instance where the devil has placed his name in Modern Bible versions. This is one example. If you do not like the facts, I cannot help that.



I trust the KJV scholars more than the American Bible Society.



I use Modern Translations but I treat them as panning through dirt so as to get to the gold in the KJV (and or the original languages on certain rare occasions).


...

What Bible came before? Have a think!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You KJV people just make that up without any real reasons.

Well, I believe in reading Modern Translations (i.e. I sift through them like panning through dirt to get to the gold in the KJV and the original languages) and also believe the Holy Scriptures existed perfectly in the past in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. So I am not just one of those "Read the KJV only or you are deceived" type people. I merely believe believe it to be the perfect Word of God for our world language today among other perfect Bibles in the past (And that using Modern Translations helps to update the 1600's English in certain portions or parts of Scripture). The KJV (and the original languages) are my final Word of authority.

It is preserved, but not in only KJV.

I also believe the Word exists in the original languages, but seeing we do not speak and write Biblical Hebrew or Greek. We speak and write English. The world language today is English. God had His Word available for the world language in the past before with the Greek. God does not change.

Hey, I know you SAID the devil "placed his name" there, but you didn't PROVE it. You just SAID it. Nobody made you the infallible source of knowledge on this subject.

Start watching this video 25 minutes into it (i.e. Minute 25:00).

He will cover three key verses that talk about how the devil has put his name in Modern Versions.

I hope this helps;
And may God bless you.


...






We believe you, we just don't see any reason for such a weird way of thinking about one of the many great translations we have.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What Bible came before? Have a think!

Sigh. I am saying the Word of God existed perfectly in different languages through out time.

I believe God chose these four languages to preserve His Word perfectly.

#1. Hebrew (God's chosen nation that was suppossed to be a light to the world in the OT).
#2. Greek (World language at one time).
#3. Latin (World language at one time) (Note: This was not the Catholic Latin Bible).
#4. English (World language now) (Note: This would be the 1769 KJV).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't believe in God because of the bible, I believe in the bible because of God.

What bible did Cornelius have? Use his.

Your faith should not depend on the bible, your faith should depend on knowing Christ, and you don't know Christ by the bible, but by the Spirit. The Spirit who is Truth will point you back to the bible.

Here is what Andy Stanley has to say in that regard:

Why 'The Bible Says So' Is Not Enough Anymore

Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
It's the parable of the sower!
You cannot separate Jesus's word from Jesus.
The words of the Holy Scriptures are an expression of the heart of our God to us.
Not every Bible says the same thing.
Other Bibles have a different spirit by what they say.


...

 

[RDKirk]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
It's the parable of the sower!
You cannot separate Jesus's word from Jesus.
The words of the Holy Scriptures are an expression of the heart of our God to us.
Not every Bible says the same thing.
Other Bibles have a different spirit by what they say.


...

Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. - 1 John

Notice what is not in that list of what constitutes valid testimony of Jesus? The bible is not in that list.

The bible does not testify. Inasmuch as the Church was formed without the New Testament even in existence, Jesus could not be validated by the bible. Validation of Jesus is by the Spirit, always by the Spirit.

That Spirit who testifies of Jesus will then point to the bible, and that is what validates the bible. The bible does not stand validated by itself, it is validated by the Spirit.

It was by the Spirit that the early Church knew which documents were "inspired" and must be copied, quoted, and cherished.

It is by the Spirit today that anyone in whom He abides can know what translation is valid.

A whole lot of folk make the mistake of letting someone tell them what translation is valid by Greek epistemology. They should have read it for themselves and let the Spirit confirm it to them.

BTW, it's by that same Spirit that all of us are to determine whether a pastor is preaching the true word of the Spirit, and we are obligated to speak that witness as the pastor is preaching to confirm to the congregation that he's speaking truthfully.

That's why the old pastors asked, "Can I get a witness?" and "Can I get an 'amen?'" When the Holy Spirit gives someone a poke that says "I told him to say that," that person is supposed to call out "Amen!" If the pastor doesn't get validating witnesses from the congregation, he's supposed to sit down and shut up.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus Christ—He is the One who came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and by blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement. - 1 John

Notice what is not in that list of what constitutes valid testimony of Jesus? The bible is not in that list.

The bible does not testify. Inasmuch as the Church was formed without the New Testament even in existence, Jesus could not be validated by the bible. Validation of Jesus is by the Spirit, always by the Spirit.

That Spirit who testifies of Jesus will then point to the bible, and that is what validates the bible. The bible does not stand validated by itself, it is validated by the Spirit.

It was by the Spirit that the early Church knew which documents were "inspired" and must be copied, quoted, and cherished.

It is by the Spirit today that anyone in whom He abides can know what translation is valid.

A whole lot of folk make the mistake of letting someone tell them what translation is valid by Greek epistemology. They should have read it for themselves and let the Spirit confirm it to them.

BTW, it's by that same Spirit that all of us are to determine whether a pastor is preaching the true word of the Spirit, and we are obligated to speak that witness as the pastor is preaching to confirm to the congregation that he's speaking truthfully.

That's why the old pastors asked, "Can I get a witness?" and "Can I get an 'amen?'" When the Holy Spirit gives someone a poke that says "I told him to say that," that person is supposed to call out "Amen!" If the pastor doesn't get validating witnesses from the congregation, he's supposed to sit down and shut up.

Well, I am not saying that Christians cannot read other Bibles or anything. But I believe in time, they will be led to cherish the KJV as the perfect Word of God if they are truly a truth seeker. Not all Bibles say the same thing. Jesus says, "They word is truth" (John 17:17). Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God that proceeds out of his mouth (Matthew 4:4). There can only be one Word of God and not many words of God.

Jesus said abide in me and abide in my words.

Two things here.

Abide in Jesus and abide in His words.

The Modern Translations teach a slightly different message (subtly) vs. the KJV.

The words of Jesus are not exactly the same in Modern Translations as they are in the KJV.

Which words are going to side with?


...