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

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Chalk?

 

[hedrick]

I was mostly trying to say that discrepancy doesn't negate the truth of a thing.

i agree that on factual matters the 4 Gospels don't differ seriously enough for it to be an issue.

However I'm a bit more concerned about Jesus' teaching, as shown there. In the Synoptics, Jesus' core message is about his role in bringing the Kingdom, what we need to do to enter it, and the way we live within it. But Kingdom occurs only one place in John, and Good News not at all. In John, Jesus' teachings have their own unique content.

In my opinion John is a perfectly valid understanding, from a perspective after the resurrection, of Jesus' significance. I find it really valuable. But it does claim to contain Jesus' teaching. I don't expect word for word agreement. That's not reasonable in a culture with no good way of recording speech. But it does bother me that it's so different. The only way I can accept John is to say that 1st Cent historians didn't expect speeches to be actual transcripts. That simply wasn't reasonable. So they wrote what they thought the character might have said. Furthermore, it seems that early Christians didn't distinguish between what Jesus actually said during his life and what people felt they were inspired by Jesus to say.

Note that my reservations about John are not to the truth of what is said, nor to the events and their chronology, but strictly to whether Jesus' speeches there are very close to actual transcripts of what he said. As to events and chronology, there's reason to think that John is at least as accurate as the Synoptics. His three-year ministry is more plausible than the impression you'd get from the Synoptics. Of course it's not so clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke either had or intended us to think they had, a real chronology.

 

[hedrick]

The OP seems to be bothered by John 21:24, which implies that one of the disciples wrote the Gospel. That seems unlikely, for many reasons.

There are a number of possibilities. One person has suggested that 21:24 actually refers only to chapter 21. After all, chapter 20 ends in what sounds like an ending for the Gospel. Or more likely to a document that the editor used as a source for 21.

That hypothesis doesn't seem widely accepted. More likely, "written" is meant broadly, in the sense that he was the source. In a day when most people couldn't write, and used scribes to do it for them, a statement like this would be read less literally than today.

 

[-V-]

Because you said that "the writers of the Bible don't write as we do today". If that was the case then there wouldn't really be any uses of first-person regarding writings,

No, that is a non sequitur.

Not to mention Luke says right in his introduction (though he never used his name) that he was not an eyewitness, but he compiled his Gospel from stories handed down from people who were eyewitnesses.

Yes, Luke was not an eyewitness, he was a companion of Paul. Since Luke recorded stories from eyewitness accounts, that still makes his Gospel an "eyewitness account".

 

[AlexDTX]

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.

If this has already been said, then please excuse my repetition. You don't believe Jesus because of the Bible. You believe the Bible because you believe Jesus. If you know Jesus through the new birth, then you trust that He is Truth and spoke the Truth. Seeming errors and discrepancies will be resolved when you first trust Jesus in inquiries.

 

[Vicomte13]

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.

Have you ever read accounts of battles in World War II? They differ. Ever track how what science "knows" changes rather dramatically from time to time.

Do you nevertheless generally trust our histories to be basically accurate, and our science to be generally right, if imperfect?

The Bible is human-written history. It contains in it the human recollections of encountering God, what God said, etc. If you expect any human history to be perfect, then you will be disappointed. it doesn't have to be perfect to convey the point, and that's true whether the subject is World War II or what Jesus said and did.

The Bible is not a movie, and except in a few short, specific passages where God essentially says "take dictation", it's not a dictated transcript. It's human-written history, the product of human minds and human hands - inspired by God, yes, but that inspiration is the same inspiration that, say, drove Mother Theresa to abandon Europe and go take up residence in the poorest slum of India, taking care of some of the most neglected people on the earth.

Inspiration does not equal dictation. If you insist that it has to our your faith will crumble, then unfortunately you've built on sand, because the Bible does contradict itself in all sorts of niggling details here, there and everywhere. If you recognize you're reading a history book, you realize that doesn't matter. If you think you're holding divine perfection, well, you've made an idol out of a history book, and the idol will fail you.

So, my advice is to recognize how human memory works. It is imperfect as to detail, but quite good as to the key points.

Secular example: Did America declare independence on July 2nd or July 4th? It depends on what you consider the decisive act to be - the vote, or the signature and promulgation of the paper. Does that mean that we didn't declare independence at all? Does it mean that we're "wrong" to celebrate it on the Fourth.

Did Jesus say that Peter would deny him thrice before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, or that he would deny him thrice before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows thrice? What exactly happened on the morning of the resurrection...who went to the tomb, what did Jesus say to whom? The stories are different, and it's a muddle. But does it MATTER? It doesn't matter if you're reading history - the POINT is that Jesus rose from the dead, and everybody remembered that. What the women did, exactly, and what Jesus said to one or more of them...none of the women wrote it down, and the men remembered things differently. Does that invalidate the Bible? Not as a sacred history it doesn't. As a letter-perfect, contradiction-free dictation by God, yeah, it fails as that, because it isn't that.

And if Paul was wrong and death didn't come into the world because of Adam, so that whole theological parallel between Adam and Christ isn't really true, does that change the fact of the resurrection and the promise of eternal life? Not at all. All that it does is mean that the significance of what happened was interpreted by Pharisaic Christians as pertaining exactly to their own stories and views of significance, but that they were off a bit.

If man descends from primates, it means that Adam and Eve and the Garden did not happen as told, and that that's a creation myth. It doesn't mean that God didn't create everything.

Jesus rose from the dead - he left us the Shroud of Turin to prove that. And there have been miracles through the ages that vouch for it. With the Bible, we've got some histories of what he said and did. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate in order to be true in what matters.

 

[-V-]

Have you ever read accounts of battles in World War II? They differ. Ever track how what science "knows" changes rather dramatically from time to time.

Do you nevertheless generally trust our histories to be basically accurate, and our science to be generally right, if imperfect?

The Bible is human-written history. It contains in it the human recollections of encountering God, what God said, etc. If you expect any human history to be perfect, then you will be disappointed. it doesn't have to be perfect to convey the point, and that's true whether the subject is World War II or what Jesus said and did.

The Bible is not a movie, and except in a few short, specific passages where God essentially says "take dictation", it's not a dictated transcript. It's human-written history, the product of human minds and human hands - inspired by God, yes, but that inspiration is the same inspiration that, say, drove Mother Theresa to abandon Europe and go take up residence in the poorest slum of India, taking care of some of the most neglected people on the earth.

Inspiration does not equal dictation. If you insist that it has to our your faith will crumble, then unfortunately you've built on sand, because the Bible does contradict itself in all sorts of niggling details here, there and everywhere. If you recognize you're reading a history book, you realize that doesn't matter. If you think you're holding divine perfection, well, you've made an idol out of a history book, and the idol will fail you.

So, my advice is to recognize how human memory works. It is imperfect as to detail, but quite good as to the key points.

Secular example: Did America declare independence on July 2nd or July 4th? It depends on what you consider the decisive act to be - the vote, or the signature and promulgation of the paper. Does that mean that we didn't declare independence at all? Does it mean that we're "wrong" to celebrate it on the Fourth.

Did Jesus say that Peter would deny him thrice before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows, or that he would deny him thrice before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows thrice? What exactly happened on the morning of the resurrection...who went to the tomb, what did Jesus say to whom? The stories are different, and it's a muddle. But does it MATTER? It doesn't matter if you're reading history - the POINT is that Jesus rose from the dead, and everybody remembered that. What the women did, exactly, and what Jesus said to one or more of them...none of the women wrote it down, and the men remembered things differently. Does that invalidate the Bible? Not as a sacred history it doesn't. As a letter-perfect, contradiction-free dictation by God, yeah, it fails as that, because it isn't that.

And if Paul was wrong and death didn't come into the world because of Adam, so that whole theological parallel between Adam and Christ isn't really true, does that change the fact of the resurrection and the promise of eternal life? Not at all. All that it does is mean that the significance of what happened was interpreted by Pharisaic Christians as pertaining exactly to their own stories and views of significance, but that they were off a bit.

If man descends from primates, it means that Adam and Eve and the Garden did not happen as told, and that that's a creation myth. It doesn't mean that God didn't create everything.

Jesus rose from the dead - he left us the Shroud of Turin to prove that. And there have been miracles through the ages that vouch for it. With the Bible, we've got some histories of what he said and did. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate in order to be true in what matters.

Quite frankly, the view that the Bible is only "generally right" is just a horrible view. The Bible then is nothing more than a literary buffet, we can believe whatever we like and disregard whatever we don't like. Why should Jesus' resurrection be one of the "right" parts, other than because it's a part you want to keep?

 

[Vicomte13]

Quite frankly, the view that the Bible is only "generally right" is just a horrible view. The Bible then is nothing more than a literary buffet, we can believe whatever we like and disregard whatever we don't like. Why should Jesus' resurrection be one of the "right" parts, other than because it's a part you want to keep?

Because the alternative, that every word is literally exactly true and unchanged, results in the whole thing collapsing into a welter of small contradictions. To deny the contradictions is to depart from honesty and truth and to force a unicorn onto a white horse.

For what the Bible is, it is very good. But it isn't more than it is. It isn't, for example, a God maker. Because men put Paul's letters, or James', into the collection of works that is in the Bible, does not elevate either James or Paul to the level of God. it does not mean that what Paul wrote has the same authority as what Jesus said and did. If it is insisted that it DOES mean that, the the wings come off the plane, because Paul and James contradict each other directly on certain points, and they both depart in emphasis from what Jesus emphasized.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing what to believe either. It's a matter of getting the POINT out of the text, and not getting lost in the sometimes inaccurate details.

 

[-V-]

Because the alternative, that every word is literally exactly true and unchanged, results in the whole thing collapsing into a welter of small contradictions. To deny the contradictions is to depart from honesty and truth and to force a unicorn onto a white horse.

For what the Bible is, it is very good. But it isn't more than it is. It isn't, for example, a God maker. Because men put Paul's letters, or James', into the collection of works that is in the Bible, does not elevate either James or Paul to the level of God. it does not mean that what Paul wrote has the same authority as what Jesus said and did. If it is insisted that it DOES mean that, the the wings come off the plane, because Paul and James contradict each other directly on certain points, and they both depart in emphasis from what Jesus emphasized.

It's not a matter of picking and choosing what to believe either. It's a matter of getting the POINT out of the text, and not getting lost in the sometimes inaccurate details.

How can "what Jesus said and did" have ANY authority whatsoever when we can't determine which parts are correct an which are errors?

Further, Paul & James do NOT contradict each other. That view comes from simply not understanding what Paul & James are saying.

 

[Vicomte13]

How can "what Jesus said and did" have ANY authority whatsoever when we can't determine which parts are correct an which are errors?

Further, Paul & James do NOT contradict each other. That view comes from simply not understanding what Paul & James are saying.

They contradict each other. The view that they don't comes from closing your eyes and lying to yourself, because you've created a doctrine that if there's any contradiction at all, the Bible collapses, and because your faith is based on the Bible, your faith collapses.

What Jesus said and did can have authority just exactly like every other law, regulation, rule or custom does. There is authority out there, it's real and true. It's conveyed to us imperfectly, through imperfect people and imperfect writings, but we're all human and we're all made with the ability to discern what is and what is not.

Did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow once or three times? What exactly did Jesus say about the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowing?

How many times did Jesus clear the temple of moneychangers, once, in his final week in Jerusalem (per some gospels), or at the beginning of his ministry (per another). Does that mean that he cleared it twice, or that somebody got a detail wrong.

It doesn't matter that the detail is wrong. Everybody remembered that Jesus foretold something regarding Peter and the rooster crowing, and it happened. It doesn't matter that it was one crow or three crowing - except that the discrepancy and contradiction shows us that we can't take the text strictly literally.

If we MUST take it literally - then we MUST make these contradictions square. And they don't. So then faith must collapse because the Bible contains contradictions and errors. Or we have to lie to ourselves and say that it doesn't when it clearly does, and then just keep repeating it over and over. Or we have to start making up fables and improbable stories that aren't in the text in order to "save" its perfection.

Really, the best thing to do is to accept that it is history, with the minor issues of any written text, and to do the same thing with regard to it that we do with regard to books of law and custom - focus on the meanings and not become obsessed with the typos.

 

[-V-]

They contradict each other.

And we should just take your say-so on that?

What Jesus said and did can have authority just exactly like every other law, regulation, rule or custom does. There is authority out there, it's real and true. It's conveyed to us imperfectly, through imperfect people and imperfect writings,

That makes no sense. How can Jesus' words and actions have any authority when we don't even know what His words and actions actually were?

but we're all human and we're all made with the ability to discern what is and what is not.

Which, like I said, makes the Bible nothing but a buffet. Why would we "discern" things the same way? We won't. Which means we're just picking & choosing whatever we like and disregarding whatever we don't like.

Did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow once or three times? What exactly did Jesus say about the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowing?

How many times did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow?
Did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow once or twice before Peter's third denial? | carm

How many times did Jesus clear the temple of moneychangers, once, in his final week in Jerusalem (per some gospels), or at the beginning of his ministry (per another). Does that mean that he cleared it twice, or that somebody got a detail wrong.

First, mentioning one while not mentioning another is not a claim that it happened only once. Second, the writers often used a topical order, leaving chronological order as a lesser consideration. None of them ever claims, "this is the exact chronological order of the events of Jesus' ministry."

It doesn't matter that the detail is wrong. Everybody remembered that Jesus foretold something regarding Peter and the rooster crowing, and it happened. It doesn't matter that it was one crow or three crowing - except that the discrepancy and contradiction shows us that we can't take the text strictly literally.

With your view, we can also just dismiss the entire crowing incident altogether. You also seem to confuse inerrancy with "strictly literally". I never said every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. To pretend there is no metaphors or poetry or figures of speech is just foolish.

If we MUST take it literally - then we MUST make these contradictions square. And they don't.

You haven't yet presented one that "isn't square".

Really, the best thing to do is to accept that it is history, with the minor issues of any written text, and to do the same thing with regard to it that we do with regard to books of law and custom - focus on the meanings and not become obsessed with the typos.

But you're not talking about "typos". Your view has false doctrines in the Bible with no way to know which doctrines those are.

 

[hedrick]

Quite frankly, the view that the Bible is only "generally right" is just a horrible view. The Bible then is nothing more than a literary buffet, we can believe whatever we like and disregard whatever we don't like. Why should Jesus' resurrection be one of the "right" parts, other than because it's a part you want to keep?

Inerrancy doesn't fix this. Most major theological issues don't have simple answers in Scripture. Rather, they require looking at evidence from many passages, and coming up with a way to integrate them. That's why we have differences in baptism, justification, and most other major theological topics. Even on major topics such as the Trinity and Incarnation there are differences. It's just that church tradition has settled on one approach to the Biblical evidence and called all others heresy.

Historically, inerrancy seems to have arisen in the next generation after the Reformers. Catholics objected to sola scriptura because it didn't settle anything. There were multiple understandings of Scripture. The hope was that a sufficiently "literal" approach could come up with agreement. Unfortunately that failed. I believe it failed because it ignored the nature of Scripture, which is more aimed at making disciples than giving precise answers on doctrinal questions. Why do you think Jesus taught in stories, demanding personal reactions to people? Why is the OT history rather than a theology textbook? Perhaps because God is willing to leave questions open, so that people have to grapple with them.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

On the contrary, there is no such thing as blind faith, so if it is blind, then it is not faith. For example, if you were going camping with a friend and they told you that they would bring all the food for the week, then the future is unseen, so having faith in your friend would be believing that your friend will do as they said and taking an action that would depended on them to do that. However, this faith would not be blind because it would be based upon your past experience with your friend and on how reliable you perceive them to be.

Our beliefs do spontaneously pop into our heads uncaused, but rather there is always some evidence that indicates to us that they are true, without which aour beliefs would never be formed in the first place. People who believe weird things will nevertheless usually try to give you their reasons to convince you to also believe, so even though their believe may be false, it is not blind, only mistaken.

With friends bringing food, it's not faith. It's expectation based on direct experience or knowledge. You know perfectly well that something might happen, God forbid, a car accident, heart attack, house fire, tornado, death in the family etc. and there would be no food. So it's not solid faith. It's a logical calculation of high probability. With God and the gospel of Jesus or any other religious faith it's quite a different matter. You accept as fact something totally out of your experience. Thus, the term "blind", denoting the absence of any support to the beleived information by the data supplied by the human senses.

 

[Vicomte13]

And we should just take your say-so on that?


That makes no sense. How can Jesus' words and actions have any authority when we don't even know what His words and actions actually were?


Which, like I said, makes the Bible nothing but a buffet. Why would we "discern" things the same way? We won't. Which means we're just picking & choosing whatever we like and disregarding whatever we don't like.


How many times did the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crow?


First, mentioning one while not mentioning another is not a claim that it happened only once. Second, the writers often used a topical order, leaving chronological order as a lesser consideration. None of them ever claims, "this is the exact chronological order of the events of Jesus' ministry."


With your view, we can also just dismiss the entire crowing incident altogether. You also seem to confuse inerrancy with "strictly literally". I never said every word of the Bible is to be taken literally. To pretend there is no metaphors or poetry or figures of speech is just foolish.


You haven't yet presented one that "isn't square".


But you're not talking about "typos". Your view has false doctrines in the Bible with no way to know which doctrines those are.

There is the Holy Spirit to guide me. What you've got is a book full of contradiction, a doctrine that it doesn't, and then a set of make-believe patches.

But it works for you, so who am I to tell you to do differently?

The OP, however, has encountered the contradictions and is shaken in faith. I suggested a way to look at it differently, to preserve faith by accepting the weaknesses and imperfections in the written record. You've suggested a different way: doubling down on the assertion that there are no contradictions, and willing them out of existence.

I could never do it your way - I'd always know that I was lying to myself and I would never believe it. But clearly your way works for a great many.

So the OP has two sets of suggestions, both clearly articulated, to consider. S\he will have to decide what to do.

Have a good day.

 

[-V-]

Historically, inerrancy seems to have arisen in the next generation after the Reformers.

That's just false. The inerrancy of Scripture is something affirmed all throughout the history of the church from the beginning.
Inerrancy and Church History: The Early Fathers

 

[-V-]

There is the Holy Spirit to guide me. What you've got is a book full of contradiction, a doctrine that it doesn't, and then a set of make-believe patches.
But it works for you, so who am I to tell you to do differently?

Right, so it is just your say-so.

The OP, however, has encountered the contradictions and is shaken in faith. I suggested a way to look at it differently, to preserve faith by accepting the weaknesses and imperfections in the written record. You've suggested a different way: doubling down on the assertion that there are no contradictions, and willing them out of existence.

The OP has encountered something they perceive to be a contradiction. That does not make it an actual contradiction. And giving a logical explanation that clears up a contradiction is NOT "willing them" away. What an intellectually dishonest statement.

I could never do it your way - I'd always know that I was lying to myself and I would never believe it. But clearly your way works for a great many.

Yet you haven't shown any example of lying. More of your unsubstantiated say-so.

 

[Vicomte13]

Right, so it is just your say-so.


The OP has encountered something they perceive to be a contradiction. That does not make it an actual contradiction. And giving a logical explanation that clears up a contradiction is NOT "willing them" away. What an intellectually dishonest statement.


Yet you haven't shown any example of lying. More of your unsubstantiated say-so.

I did. You ignored it. Not going to bother repeating myself, because you're just going to do that again, and we're off the OP's topic. You keep doing what works for you, for as long as you feel you can.

 

[-V-]

I did. You ignored it. Not going to bother repeating myself, because you're just going to do that again, and we're off the OP's topic. You keep doing what works for you, for as long as you feel you can.

Right, ok, if you say so.

 

[hedrick]

That's just false. The inerrancy of Scripture is something affirmed all throughout the history of the church from the beginning.
Inerrancy and Church History: The Early Fathers

What I was referring to wasn't just inerrancy, but an approach attempting to get precise answers from it. The problem with quoting from the Fathers, is that the Catholic tradition used allegory fairly freely. It was committed to understanding Scripture in the sense of the catholic tradition. So inerrant meant something a bit different. It meant that Scripture as interpreting using their methodology was without error. You have to be really careful to understand what people mean when they say Scripture is perfect. Calvin, for example, was very clear about that. But when you look at his exegesis, he admitted minor disagreements, and said that the Sermon on the Mount wasn't given as written, but was constructed from things Jesus had said on various occasions.

This is why we see disagreements over whether the Fathers or Calvin believed in inerrancy. Taking their statements out of context it looked like they did. Looking at their practice it looks like they didn't.

 

[-V-]

What I was referring to wasn't just inerrancy, but an approach attempting to get precise answers from it. The problem with quoting from the Fathers, is that the Catholic tradition used allegory fairly freely. It was committed to understanding Scripture in the sense of the catholic tradition. So inerrant meant something a bit different. It meant that Scripture as interpreting using their methodology was without error.

Sounds like you're confusing Scripture being inerrant with how someone interprets what Scripture says. Two people can agree that a passage is true while disagreeing about what the passage means.

You have to be really careful to understand what people mean when they say Scripture is perfect. Calvin, for example, was very clear about that. But when you look at his exegesis, he admitted minor disagreements, and said that the Sermon on the Mount wasn't given as written, but was constructed from things Jesus had said on various occasions.

Being constructed from various occasions, however, doesn't make any of the statements errant. The idea of inerrancy does not preclude such a construction.