How can I believe the Bible when it is full of errors?

Many people believe that the Bible is full of errors and mistakes; so many that it completely

discredits the Bible in their eyes. What they fail to recognize is that there is a very distinct difference between an error and a textual variant.

This distinction brings us into the world of lower criticism. Lower criticism is asking the question “do we have a reliable copy of the Bible?” to which the short answer is absolutely. When people say there are errors in the Bible, they are most likely referring to the thousands of translations that use different words, or are lacking/adding passages, or have different grammar. What is really happening in all of these situations is a textual variant. A textual variant is exactly what it sounds like, a variant in the text. While “error” would refer to the content of the text, a textual variant would refer to the text itself.

The reason we have Bibles in countless languages around the world and are still confident in saying that they are all the same is due to a process called cross checking. Scholars use manuscripts, from the collection of over 29,000 found manuscripts and fragments, to cross- check, reference, and compare in order to piece together and reconstruct the original autograph for each book of the Bible. Due to this process, scholars throughout history have regarded the Bible as undeniably reliable even with all of the textual variants.

To question the reality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is to call into question the accuracy of the content in the Bible. This is a question of Higher Criticism, “are the stories in the Bible just made up?” When we check up on the Gospels specifically, we see that the authors have used a number of sources very carefully. In Luke 1:1-4, Luke is sure to note that he is simply sharing the accounts of first-hand, eyewitness testimonies. He claims the he has “carefully investigated everything” (v. 3). We can even take the Synoptic Gospels and compare them with one another to see how different authors describe the same events. The more similar the accounts are, the more likely those accounts were cited in great detail from a common source. Scholars agree that both Matthew and Luke carefully and accurately used Mark as a source. But they also know that another unfound source was use by Matthew and Luke, its name is Q. Matthew and Luke’s Gospels are so detailed, so specific, and so identical that they had to have used their sources verbatim.

One worry of Higher Criticism is that too much time passed between the actual events and the writing of the Bible for the stories to be accurate, therefore they must be fabricated to some extent. In Dr. Seeman’s Not Franco’s Jesus, a very detailed timeline is drawn up to show that the writings actually came about at an incredible rate. Scholars agree that the earliest Gospel of Mark was written between A.D. 50 and A.D. 80, but most say it was closer to A.D. 70. Which means that there is gap of only 17-37 years between Christ’s death on the cross and the earliest written Gospel account (pg. 3). Beyond that, early churches across various regions must have been already established for the letters of the NT to be written to, Jews needed to have accepted a wildly different belief of Jesus as the Messiah, Church leaders such as Paul needed to have converted and begun teaching to where their writings could be accepted as Scripture. All that, and more, to say the time gap of up to 37 years has now dwindled down to merely 7 years after the crucifixion (pg. 5). Yet even this timeframe does not account for Paul’s conversion and the various events that happened before that. Paul is believed to have converted sometime between A.D. 34 and A.D. 37, which is only 1-4 years after Christ’s death

(pg. 5-6). It is clear to see that the stories of the Bible, specifically the NT, all began to take place nearly immediately after the crucifixion.

Some people make the objection that the stories that contain miracles cannot be true since there is no such thing as supernatural miracles. So, if the Bible is full of made-up stories of miracles then we cannot trust the rest of the stories to be true either. Let me start off by saying that this view is clearly a very anti-supernatural view to have. After all, how can you be absolutely sure that miracles do not exist? Furthermore, in order to show that this is simply not the case, I want to point out that if the stories of the Bible were in fact made up, would you not expect the authors of the stories to paint themselves in such a light that they look better than they really are? Yet when we read through the NT, the Apostles are shown as petty, unaware, and constantly bickering. This is not a good look for the church leaders. In fact, it is rather embarrassing. They are portrayed as selfish, slow to believe, cowardly, and rather obtuse. When Jesus is tried and sent to the death on the cross, the cowardly Apostles lock themselves behind closed doors, they hide, and Peter even denies that he ever knew Jesus... three times. You would expect someone who is making up stories to invent positive stories about themselves, especially if they are the leaders of such a largely growing religion, but this is just not what happened. Even the hardest teachings of Jesus, including the stories of Jesus rebuking the Apostles, are preserved and kept with great detail. There are three criteria that can be used to determine whether or not stories of the Bible are genuine. First, the stories and sayings that are unlike those found in Jewish culture and unlike those found in the later Church are likely to be genuine, this is called dissimilarity. Second, multiple attestation claims that the stories and sayings that are found in multiple sources are likely to be genuine. Finally, any story or saying that fits together nicely with both of the first two criteria is also likely to be genuine, this is called coherence. When all three of these criteria are employed fairly and evenly to the NT, we find that nearly all of the stories, including those that are miraculous and especially the Resurrection, are genuine.

Speaking of the Resurrection, this is one of the most controversial stories in the Bible and understandably so. If the Resurrection of Jesus Christ literally happened as described in the Bible, then everything in the world changes. So, it only makes sense that so many people refute the legitimacy of the Resurrection and call it “wishful thinking, believed only by those who need a crutch.” Although, when we look at the historical facts of the Resurrection, it is nearly impossible to claim it as simply just made-up. Before the Resurrection of Christ, we see the disciples in denial, they did not expect Jesus to be killed, let alone be crucified. Their notion of the Messiah was a political figure, one that would drive the Roman empire out of the Jewish land for good. They were rather embarrassing (as already described), selfishly trying to elevate themselves. Even after Jesus’ death, they were still in denial, this time over what they heard from the women about Jesus being raised from the dead. But then suddenly, there is a drastic shift in their lives. They are unashamedly proclaiming the death and Resurrection of Christ without fear, even to the point of death. They even went to the very people that killed Jesus and proclaimed to them that Jesus was resurrected. They lowered themselves and endured much suffering. They even rejoiced in their suffering. The next historical fact is simply the empty tomb. In fact, not a single person denies that the tomb of Jesus is empty, they are instead disputing over why it is empty. What I believe to be one of the strongest most persuasive historical facts of the Resurrection is that it was women who first discovered that

Jesus had risen. During this time period, women actually had no reliability. They were worthless as witnesses in court. They were seen as unable to testify and had no significance in legal actions. So, for it to be women to first discover the empty tomb, and for them to run and tell the disciples was absurd. This is why the disciples did not believe until they saw for themselves, it was the words of women that first brought it to their attention. These “unreliable” words from women are the very words that the early Church focus entirely on. History shows that the Church had a strong emphasis on the Resurrection of Christ, everything else the Church taught centered around it. And in fact, it was immediately that the message of the Resurrection came about. Literally the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Since the day it happened, the Resurrection has subsequently shaped history.

One last objection that many people have about the truth of the Bible is that it is merely a belief. It is a faith, just the same as the faith that the 9/11 terrorist died for. The disciples are no different in their dying for their beliefs. This objection however fails to acknowledge that the disciples actually died for much more than just a faith. The terrorist involved in 9/11 died for their beliefs, yes. But their beliefs were merely ideas, concepts of the world that had no historical evidence. The disciples were eyewitnesses. They actually saw the very things that they claimed. They experienced first-hand the truths that they willingly died for. The difference here is similar to me saying “skydiving is fun” even though I have never been before and you saying “skydiving is terrifying” after having just landed on the ground with a parachute still attached to your back. My idea (or belief) of skydiving is drastically different than your first- hand experience. The same is true in distinguishing the 9/11 terrorist from the disciples. One group died for what they believed, the other died for what they saw.

So, how can I believe the Bible? I can believe it because even through its textual variants, the Bible is undeniably accurate and reliable. The stories of the Bible are far too detailed and far too vulnerable for them to be fabricated. Even the supernatural miracles, especially the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, has too much historical evidence for me to ignore. It is not wishful thinking for those who need a crutch. The Bible and the Resurrection of Jesus is logically, historically, and irrefutably accurate for all people that are willing to look at it truthfully.