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

[hedrick]

There's one other issue: there was a major change starting with the Reformation, and into the Enlightenment. It's generally referred to as critical scholarship. The basic concept is that we should treat our own opinions and the evidence leading to them as carefully as we would anyone else's. This approach when applied to the nature world leads to science. Applied to Biblical studies, it leads to critical Biblical scholarship.

Precritical views on Scripture look naive today. I understand that there are many Christians why reject this. In my opinion they should abstain from using the Internet, because the technology on which it's built comes from the same type of commitment to objectivity, although applied to natural science rather than theology or Biblical studies.

This isn't something over which rational debate is likely to have much effect. The OP has to decide whether he's willing to accept this brand of objectivity or not. If so, then he's got to deal with the fact that Scripture isn't inerrant. If he is willing to reject the Enlightenment, then he can take whatever view his tradition has taught him, since there's no objective way to judge it. Humans are really good at rationalizing. You can find ways of dealing with any possible contradiction, if you're committed to believing there aren't any.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

Can God only be known through a book?

 

[hedrick]

Can God only be known through a book?

Of course not. But people claim to be inspired to all kinds of different views. If we claim to be followers of Jesus, we really need to know what he actually taught, and what his life was like. Otherwise anyone can claim anything and some people will believe them.

For a few decades after Jesus' life, there was living tradition. The first disciples didn't need a book. But 2000 years later, the only realistic information that can be used to judge who's right about Jesus is sources from the 1st Century.

 

[Goatee]

How do you think people managed all those years before the Bible was put together? The 'Bible' did not exist.

 

[hedrick]

How do you think people managed all those years before the Bible was put together? The 'Bible' did not exist.

The Gospels and Paul's letters were seen as authoritative by the early 2nd Century. Frankly I could care less whether the Bible includes Jude or not, and I wish it didn't include the Pastoral Epistles. Debates went on for several centuries about exactly what books were canonical. But people had the key documents available from very early, and used them.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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 all of the gospel accounts were exactly in sync, that would be very suspicious, wouldn't it? Eyewitnesses see different things, and/or emphasize different things.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

“Faith/Faithfulness

These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’) p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.”

When you have faith in your friend, you are trusting, relying, and depending on them to do something, and this is the same type of faith that the Bible speaks about in regard to trusting God to do what He has promised and to guide us in how to rightly live. The fact that something might happen to prevent your friend from bringing the food does not mean that you were not relying on them to bring it, only that your faith was misplaced. God had shown Himself to be trustworthy, so there a logical calculation of a high probability that He will continue to do as He has promised and to guide us in how to rightly live.

To say that a belief was formed in the absence of any support is to say that the belief was uncaused, but belief to not form uncaused, but rather we only hold and maintain the beliefs that we do because we consider there to be sufficient support for them. It is humanly impossible to form a belief without support and if we thought that one of our beliefs no longer had sufficient support, then we would no longer continue to hold it. Faith is the will to keep one's mind fixed on what reason has discovered to it, so if your reason tells you that your friend is reliable, then then having faith is the will to keep focused on your good reasons for depending them to bring the food even when it is starting to look like they might not.

 

[Goatee]

The Gospels and Paul's letters were seen as authoritative by the early 2nd Century. Frankly I could care less whether the Bible includes Jude or not, and I wish it didn't include the Pastoral Epistles. Debates went on for several centuries about exactly what books were canonical. But people had the key documents available from very early, and used them.

Not everyone had the written word though.

Why do you not care if those letters etc were included or not?

 

[hedrick]

Not everyone had the written word though.

Why do you not care if those letters etc were included or not?

The most important thing for Christians is Jesus. So the Gospels have priority. Knowing how his first-generation followers implemented his teaching is useful, but Acts and Paul's letters give us a good grounding for that. The messages of the other letters are not so unique that missing one or another is a big deal. The Pastorals use Paul's name to present a domesticated version of Paul.

It would be wonderful if everyone read the Gospels. But in many cultures they didn't. It's still important to have them there, and for leaders to use them as a cross-check on what they teach. To the extent that people didn't use them, there were problems. And that certainly did occur.

I'm actually not a fan of the early Church. I'm not going to say that they completely lost Jesus' message. Cleary they didn't, and enough of the Gospel was present to transform the culture. But I also don't consider them such a wonderful model either.

 

[1213]

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...

Odd, I don’t think that is true. Could you please show the scriptures that show that there is something wrong?

...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.

Why believe the scholars who were not there?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

If all of the gospel accounts were exactly in sync, that would be very suspicious, wouldn't it?

Yes, we would think God helped write them.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

When you have faith in your friend, you are trusting, relying, and depending on them to do something, and this is the same type of faith that the Bible speaks about in regard to trusting God

No. You know friends through direct experience, you know their character from direct experience. You hear their promise with your own ears. You know what food is and that it's easily accessible to your friends. Etc.

All of the above is knowledge. No faith there. As for God, it's faith, as there is zero factual data coming through your sense. You choose to believe in the version supplied by the Bible. My Shamanic Kazakh ancestors believed that the world was created by Tengri, the Sky God, and human lives are directed by the powerful spirits of the dead. I used to be a Muslim and believed in Allah most merciful most compassionate and his messenger prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). When there is no direct experience or knowledge, faith comes in play. You can construct any version of reality and believe in it. It will work exactly the same way.

I can tell you what would be faith with your friends. If they told you "We have pet angels Shmuel and Arariel who will rain nutritious manna from heaven three times a day" and you would truly and honestly believe them, then that would be faith! Of course, in that case you'd be in for a harsh disappointment. Probably, combined with realization that your camping trip starts on April 1st (Fool's Day).

Or if your friends were incarcerated in jail for ten years and told you during your visit to the jail to see them, "We're gonna bring lots of food to the camping trip", you would have trouble to believe them because it contradicts your direct experience. Or you'd be calling 911 about their planned prison escape if you did believe them.

 

[Deadworm]

Start by reading through this thread on how to connect Gospel accounts with eyewitness testimony and pose questions and comments there that can serve as a basis of further discussion:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-testimony-and-extrabiblical-sources.7948801/

Recognize that the Bible is not inerrant and never claims to be. Furthermore, NT claims about divine inspiration refer only to the OT because the NT as our collected body of works did not reach a consensus prior to around 200 AD. It seems that your faith has been wounded by the horrific Domino theory of biblical inspiration--the theory that either the Bible in its entirely must be accepted as the inerrant Word of God or it, together with Christ's atoning death and resurrection, must be rejected as deluded. The flawed human role in transmitting Gospel traditions is seldom taken seriously by Fundamentalists.

Beyond that, there are all kinds of arguments for harmonizing apparent biblical discrepancies; and I encourage you to either google commentaries on texts that trouble you or post your issues on my cited thread.

 

[klutedavid]

The most important thing for Christians is Jesus.

Agreed.

So the Gospels have priority.

Correct again, the Gospels clearly identify the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus the messiah.

Knowing how his first-generation followers implemented his teaching is useful, but Acts and Paul's letters give us a good grounding for that. The messages of the other letters are not so unique that missing one or another is a big deal.

Agreed.

The Pastorals use Paul's name to present a domesticated version of Paul.

A very difficult topic, Pauline authorship of these letters, one that I have been unable to confirm.

I'm actually not a fan of the early Church. I'm not going to say that they completely lost Jesus' message. Cleary they didn't, and enough of the Gospel was present to transform the culture. But I also don't consider them such a wonderful model either.

When we have Paul opposing Peter in the letter to the Galatians, and this occurs nearly two decades after Christ departed. So obviously the early churches indeed had very serious issues to deal with, given that the apostles were in conflict.

The Old Testament promised the coming messiah, then behold His Majesty did really visit us. This is what the Gospels tells us, He entered Jerusalem on a donkey. We listened to the words of His Majesty for a while and then we crucified Him, the rest is church history.

 

[BrotherDave]

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.

God began to write the Bible in the days of Moses, 3500 years ago. He decided what books were to go into the Bible. How He did that is immaterial; He obviously used men, but the mechanics of it makes no difference. God was in charge (Peter 1:21)

During the time of Constantine the bible was translated into Latin and the translators had to make judgments about what words and verses meant based on the information and knowledge they had at that time. Unfortunately, some errors were made and future translations all referenced these flawed Latin translations so the errors continued. However, the King James was not translated from the Latin version but the original language. There are a few mistranslations but it is by far the most accurate version.

We know the bible is true because God recorded in scripture what happened in the past, what was happening during the time it was written and what was going to happen in the future. People of our day can look back and see how all the events came to pass. Such as Abrahams line becoming a great nation, the flood, the coming of the Messiah and the death and resurrection of Christ, the salvation of the Gentiles and the explosion of sin and apostasy of the church as judgment day approaches. There is exquisite unity and cohesiveness of the Bible. Only God could have written it this way.

Regarding John. He was an eyewitness of events involving Jesus but nothing in the Gospel of John refers to John as the writer. The most likely author is Lazarus. He is the disciple that Jesus loved (John 11:5,36, john 21:24). A disciple is a follower of Jesus vs. an Apostle who is a delegate or official messenger of Christ.

Incidentally, John 21:25 further tells us that the Bible is a careful and deliberate work of God. It contains the exact amount and kind of information that God wanted to give men. We must not think there is anything missing or that if early Christians were more careful we would have a better bible. It is the result of the sovereign plan of God Himself (Det 29:29, Rev 22:18,19). I think one of the ways we can test our love for Christ (or salvation) is spend time researching and verifying verses. The Bible is its own dictionary and commentary but requires looking at every verse that relates to a specific subject (or Hebrew/Greek word). It is not easy. God could have made it very simple but chose not to.

Recall God tests us all the time as He did with Adam and Eve. Only a few things we can do. Prayerfully dive into the details with a hunger for truth or brush it off as not reliable and then say there is no accurate description of God and his requirements of us; or just go along with whatever everyone else thinks hoping for the best.

Recall also that the way to life is the narrow path. Most people will not seek out God the way He requires because it seems like too much work, too difficult or His way does not agree with their (human) feelings or understanding of love, compassion and justice.

I’m not sure where the discrepancies are that you referenced. Any apparent differences between accounts of the same story are deliberate and reveal the hand of God. Each account provides a piece of the larger picture that reveals the total historical and spiritual truth when properly understood. If you provide the verses I would enjoy looking into them…

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

Some, "scholars" are tools of Satan. They enjoy casting doubt, as their father did in the Garden.

 

[klutedavid]

God began to write the Bible in the days of Moses, 3500 years ago. He decided what books were to go into the Bible. How He did that is immaterial; He obviously used men, but the mechanics of it makes no difference. God was in charge (Peter 1:21)

During the time of Constantine the bible was translated into Latin and the translators had to make judgments about what words and verses meant based on the information and knowledge they had at that time. Unfortunately, some errors were made and future translations all referenced these flawed Latin translations so the errors continued. However, the King James was not translated from the Latin version but the original language. There are a few mistranslations but it is by far the most accurate version.

We know the bible is true because God recorded in scripture what happened in the past, what was happening during the time it was written and what was going to happen in the future. People of our day can look back and see how all the events came to pass. Such as Abrahams line becoming a great nation, the flood, the coming of the Messiah and the death and resurrection of Christ, the salvation of the Gentiles and the explosion of sin and apostasy of the church as judgment day approaches. There is exquisite unity and cohesiveness of the Bible. Only God could have written it this way.

Regarding John. He was an eyewitness of events involving Jesus but nothing in the Gospel of John refers to John as the writer. The most likely author is Lazarus. He is the disciple that Jesus loved (John 11:5,36, john 21:24). A disciple is a follower of Jesus vs. an Apostle who is a delegate or official messenger of Christ.

Incidentally, John 21:25 further tells us that the Bible is a careful and deliberate work of God. It contains the exact amount and kind of information that God wanted to give men. We must not think there is anything missing or that if early Christians were more careful we would have a better bible. It is the result of the sovereign plan of God Himself (Det 29:29, Rev 22:18,19). I think one of the ways we can test our love for Christ (or salvation) is spend time researching and verifying verses. The Bible is its own dictionary and commentary but requires looking at every verse that relates to a specific subject (or Hebrew/Greek word). It is not easy. God could have made it very simple but chose not to.

Recall God tests us all the time as He did with Adam and Eve. Only a few things we can do. Prayerfully dive into the details with a hunger for truth or brush it off as not reliable and then say there is no accurate description of God and his requirements of us; or just go along with whatever everyone else thinks hoping for the best.

Recall also that the way to life is the narrow path. Most people will not seek out God the way He requires because it seems like too much work, too difficult or His way does not agree with their (human) feelings or understanding of love, compassion and justice.

I’m not sure where the discrepancies are that you referenced. Any apparent differences between accounts of the same story are deliberate and reveal the hand of God. Each account provides a piece of the larger picture that reveals the total historical and spiritual truth when properly understood. If you provide the verses I would enjoy looking into them…

Hello Dave.

There is a distinct difference between the authorship of God, and the authorship of men inspired by God.

Here is God's pen at work, an infallible text.

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Now here is a man writing the text and inspired by God.

Luke 1
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.

One is beyond error and the other is the result of Luke's investigation.

 

[Vicomte13]

As for God, it's faith, as there is zero factual data coming through your sense.

That's not true for everybody. Some of us have encountered God directly through miracle. We learn quickly through our friends and family and acquaintances that people may like to talk about God, but they absolutely DO NOT want to hear about your PERSONAL encounters with God.

Peter Gabriel had such an experience, and he wrote a song about it that expresses precisely it, and what happens afterward. He changed his life after the experience, and went back to Solesbury Hill a decade or more later to record an album.

Everybody who has ever had factual data about God coming through his senses who hears these words knows exactly what Peter means:

"Climbing up on Solesbury Hill
I could see the city light.
Wind was blowing, time stood still,
Eagle flew out of the night.
He was something to observe.
He came in close, I heard a voice.
Standing stretching every nerve -
Had to listen - had no choice.
I did not believe the information,
I just had to trust imagination,
My heart going boom-boom-boom,
'Son,' he said, 'grab your things, I've come to take you home.'

To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut.
Turning water into wine,
Open doors would soon be shut.
So I went from day to day,
Though my life was in a rut.
Till I thought of what I'd say,
Which connection I should cut.
I was feeling part of the scenery,
I walked right out of the machinery,
My heart going boom-boom-boom
'Hey' he said 'Grab your things
I've come to take you home.'"

 

[miamited]

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 guerrier,

Look, faith in God is a choice. You don't have to believe in Jesus. God has established His covenant with you in the same manner that He established His covenant with Israel. He gave unto them the law and explained to them the way in which they should live. Then He told them that heaven and earth were His witnesses that He had set before them life and death...and He encouraged them to choose life. He didn't tell them that they had to.

Now, God has done the same thing for you that He did for Israel in establishing His Son as our witness of Him. God has given a plethora of evidence to us that Jesus is His Son and that he was sent to establish righteousness for us, and for those who would believe that and set Jesus as their standard bearer, that they can have eternal life with Him. No one has to do that. God speaks of Israel and says that they all, like sheep, have gone astray. Friend, we are no different than Israel in that.

Jesus clearly explained that there were two ways out of this life. One a broad road that many travel. Those who want to argue that God's not fair or that God just hasn't been clear or that there's something wrong with what God has done, they're free to walk the broad road. It's there and there are many people who are right now walking along it just having a gay old time back slapping and joking with each other and taunting and mocking God and decrying that He just isn't fair or that there's something wrong with what He's done. They're living their lives and enjoying their friends and working their jobs and spending time with their families and loved ones and just walking right on down that big, broad road.

The second way is much narrower and more difficult to maintain. It requires a trust and belief in God. That He is right and fair and just. It requires that a person who might question who the author actually is of some of what we find in the Scriptures understand that it doesn't matter... it's the truth. Whether John the apostle wrote it or Billy Bob Thornton, it's the truth in what it reveals to us about God. As to some of your other issues. It really doesn't matter what time Jesus died. What's important is that he did, that your sins could be forgiven.

However, you don't have to believe a word of it! You are free to walk your merry way in whatever way your heart chooses to go.

But, before you do, let me just ask you: Do you believe that Mary was a virgin with child and that when that child was born a host of angels heralded his birth? If you do believe that, then that should certainly be enough, despite all of your other 'discrepancies' you claim are found in the Scriptures, to attest to you that Jesus is God's Son and he did come to give his life for yours. If you don't believe that, then I'd say you will likely live a much happier life while on this earth by turning away from Jesus and what God, through him, is offering you.

God has set before you in the Scriptures life and death. All of the heavens and the earth are God's witnesses. If you want what God has to offer, then you must choose life. If you choose life, then it will only be on God's terms.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

That's not true for everybody. Some of us have encountered God directly through miracle. We learn quickly through our friends and family and acquaintances that people may like to talk about God, but they absolutely DO NOT want to hear about your PERSONAL encounters with God.

Peter Gabriel had such an experience, and he wrote a song about it that expresses precisely it, and what happens afterward. He changed his life after the experience, and went back to Solesbury Hill a decade or more later to record an album.

Everybody who has ever had factual data about God coming through his senses who hears these words knows exactly what Peter means:

"Climbing up on Solesbury Hill
I could see the city light.
Wind was blowing, time stood still,
Eagle flew out of the night.
He was something to observe.
He came in close, I heard a voice.
Standing stretching every nerve -
Had to listen - had no choice.
I did not believe the information,
I just had to trust imagination,
My heart going boom-boom-boom,
'Son,' he said, 'grab your things, I've come to take you home.'

To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut.
Turning water into wine,
Open doors would soon be shut.
So I went from day to day,
Though my life was in a rut.
Till I thought of what I'd say,
Which connection I should cut.
I was feeling part of the scenery,
I walked right out of the machinery,
My heart going boom-boom-boom
'Hey' he said 'Grab your things
I've come to take you home.'"

What is your experience?