If the Bible is originally from God, then the Bibles we have today will not contain even the slightest inaccuracies. They will be 100% accurate. If there is even one flaw to be found in modern Bibles, then the Bible could not have come from God.
But already there's a problem with that argument. Why should we believe that there cannot be some slight inaccuracies in our modern versions of the Bible? What if, for example, some minor flaws crept in through copying errors over the years, and our modern Bibles are now only 99% accurate? Does that mean that the Bible did not originally come from God? Does that mean that God cannot still use the Bible to show us the important truths that he intended it to convey? Are the important truths of the Bible affected one bit if, for example, there are slight errors in the genealogies or records of how old someone lived to be?
No, such slight errors would not affect the message of the Bible at all. And the fact of the matter is that comparison of the many ancient copies of Biblical manuscripts we have shows that the variations and possible errors within the Bible amount to a very small percentage of the Bible--one-half of one percent for the New Testament, according to one source I found.
But would God really do things that way? Would he really allow any errors, no matter how slight, to slip into the Biblical record? I don't see why not. It's not the way we humans normally assume God would work. But it is the way the Bible itself depicts God as working: God works through people. And when you do things through people, you always risk the possibility of human error.
Sometimes we wonder why God didn't just dictate the truths he wanted to tell us as a sort of systematic theology, instead of giving them to us in this strange collection of stories, poetry, laws, letters, proverbs and prophecies. But God didn't just give us abstract truths. He gave us truth EMBODIED in human lives and history. And with this we get all the quirkiness and imperfections that are part of being human.
It's as plain as day that the Bible has not been passed down to us in a perfect form. Look in most Bibles and you see footnotes indicating that some of the words are uncertain and giving possible alternative versions. But you'll also see that the number of such words is relatively SMALL. God has preserved the Bible so that in all but the smallest details, the message has remained unchanged.
The gospels relate the same stories in slightly different ways, but the main points come through loud and clear. The details are not all that important. How much does it matter who Korah's father was?
Jesus was also an embodiment of Truth. But he wasn't unsullied either. He was perfect in being, but to look at him bloodied and beaten on the cross, we see that he suffered all the brokenness of being human. Embodied truth is the only truth that can help us.
God chooses to bring his truth to the world through people whom he chooses for that task. The only alternative would be for God to continuously speak his truth directly into the minds of each individual, so that the truth is not diluted through the medium of language, memory, etc.
Anyway, it's very reasonable to assume that there could be slight errors in the Bible. However, the errors are trivial. The historical accuracy of the Bible is proven over and over. That's why those who seek to discredit the Bible have to spend so much time scrutinizing the minute details in their delusion that the discovery of some small historical copying error can nullify the truths of the entire Bible.
Wrong. Human errors can never discredit God's truth. Certainly copying errors don't nullify the fact that God spoke through the original words of the Biblical writings. And even minor human reporting inaccuracies don't affect the truths that God still conveys through the Bible.
I don't think this is really a radical view for Christians. I think most conservative Biblical scholars would at least acknowledge that that one-half of one percent of somewhat uncertain New Testament details is there. But so what? God chose to embody his truth in human lives and history. And of course anything in a human form, whether it's Jesus, the ultimate Truth, in a human body, or God's word in the form of human writings, is subject to some extent to the frailties of our human existence.
But we do have to keep in mind that many seeming "errors" in the Bible turn out not to be errors. Two statements that seem to contradict each other can turn out to both be true. For example:
Daniel chapter 5 tells of King Belshazzar, who was king of Babylon when the Medes and Persians conquered them. For years historians scoffed at this story as mere fiction, because the other historical records they had said that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon--not Belshazzar, who wasn't even mentioned anywhere besides the Bible. So they decided Belshazzar was fictional. So one account said Belshazzar was the last king; others said Nabonidus was. Which one was true?
Finally, ancient records were discovered that cleared it all up. Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son. Nabonidus retired elsewhere and left his son to rule in his stead. So both accounts were true. Nabonidus was king, but his son was ruling as king at the time. Those who had scoffed at the Bible were left with egg on their faces.
Similarly, accounts within the Bible that may seem at first glance to
conflict may be just relating different aspects of the same events.