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

[Bible Highlighter]

Now, you may be wondering how can the Scriptures refer to the words "the Son of God" in Daniel 3 as being both a reference to "an angel of God" (from Neb's perspective) and to Jesus, the "Son of God" (in reality of the fact that it was Jesus in the fire with Daniel's 3 friends)?

Well, Scripture can sometimes have a double meaning. The Messianic prophecies are testimony to this fact. Also, there are passages that have a double fulfillment to them, too. Here is one them:

Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

First Fulfillment (That was in the Past):
Reference to the exodus of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

Secondary Fulfillment (That was in the Future):
Reference to the Love of God calling his Son back to the comparative safety in Egypt so that he might die for his people. Matthew 2:15 - "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."​

Granted, the situation with Daniel 3 and Jesus is not a double fulfillment type passage, but the point is that verses can speak from two different perspectives or truths.


...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I suspect they aren't taking his advice. Tell them to do what the Lord tells them to do.

And then they can expect God to solve all of their problems, right?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And then they can expect God to solve all of their problems, right?

That's why there are no real Christian martyrs, the problem of being persecuted for Christ never comes up for the true followers of Jesus.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That's why there are no real Christian martyrs, the problem of being persecuted for Christ never comes up for the true followers of Jesus.

You do understand that I don't agree with dreadnought, right?

 

[dreadnought]

And then they can expect God to solve all of their problems, right?

Yes.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Yes.

You should write a book.

 

[dreadnought]

That's why there are no real Christian martyrs, the problem of being persecuted for Christ never comes up for the true followers of Jesus.

Being persecuted for Christ isn't really a problem, is it? The early Christians welcomed martyrdom, I've been told.

 

[dreadnought]

You should write a book.

I've written books.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I've written books.

I'm not at all surprised.

Care to share the titles with us?

 

[dreadnought]

I'm not at all surprised.

Care to share the titles with us?

My most recent was "The Social Climbers."

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

John did write the Gospel according to John, the scholars are wrong.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

My most recent was "The Social Climbers."

Is it a, "how to" book, or a condemnation of?

 

[Steve Petersen]

John did write the Gospel according to John, the scholars are wrong.

How do you know that? Church tradition is the only source for this authorship.

 

[dreadnought]

Is it a, "how to" book, or a condemnation of?

A novel.

 

[-V-]

How do you know that? Church tradition is the only source for this authorship.

Not true. There is evidence beyond "church tradition".
4. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Argument, Outline

 

[-V-]

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

... even though that's not what the Aramaic says (as already shown). Apparently we're supposed to believe that the KJV is more divinely inspired than the original.

While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Using your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion? Logic fail. And, your "God surely would have" comment shows that what you're essentially saying is, "it's true because it sounds really nice that way to me."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

... even though that's not what the Aramaic says (as already shown). Apparently we're supposed to believe that the KJV is more divinely inspired than the original.


Using your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion? Logic fail. And, your "God surely would have" comment shows that what you're essentially saying is, "it's true because it sounds really nice that way to me."

...

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you know that? Church tradition is the only source for this authorship.

Internal, external and bibliographical testing.

 

[Rick Otto]

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 to disregard, but is intellectual certainty the same as faith?

 

[rjs330]

The Bible does not have errors in the way a lot of us think as errors. It is inerrant in what it says. We have to remember that a lack of precision is not an example of error. For example when we ask someone how old they are they give their age as of their last birthday. They do not give their age down to the precise year months, days, minutes and seconds. That would be precise. But they are still without error when giving their age according to their last birthday. Here is an excellent link to getting a basic understanding of innerrancy.

www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_421.cfm

Much must be considered when speaking of innerrancy. The Bible IS inerrant.