Are there errors in the Bible?

from the old testament

• Many of the supposed contradictions or errors in the Bible arise from misunderstandings of the text, differences in perspective, or a failure to consider the historical and literary context. Critics often point to examples that, on the surface, seem problematic, but when examined carefully, these issues are resolved.
• An example of a supposed discrepancy is in the number of animals taken into the ark. Genesis 6:19–20 says Noah was to bring two of every kind of animal, while Genesis 7:2–3 says he was to bring seven pairs of clean animals and birds. This is not a contradiction but a clarification. The general instruction was two of every kind, but clean animals—those suitable for sacrifice—were to be brought in greater numbers. This distinction makes sense in light of Noah’s later offering a sacrifice (Genesis 8:20).
• Critics also point to numerical differences in parallel accounts, such as the number of men killed in battles or the size of armies. For instance, 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 report different numbers for the census of Israel. These differences can often be attributed to copyist errors in ancient manuscripts or differences in how the numbers were rounded or reported. Importantly, none of these variations affect any core doctrine or theological truth. The Bible’s message of salvation through Christ remains unchanged.
• Some claim that the Bible contains scientific errors, such as references to the “four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12; see Revelation 7:1), suggesting a flat earth. However, these are clearly figures of speech, much like we use terms such as “sunrise” and “sunset” today. The Bible often uses phenomenological language—describing things as they appear from a human perspective—which is not scientifically inaccurate but simply observational.
• Ultimately, these supposed contradictions or errors do not undermine the truth of Scripture. As Psalm 119:160 says, “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
• Even if an answer to some apparent discrepancies is not available right now, that does not mean an answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography, only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered. For example, for centuries "scientists" believed the earth was flat. The book of Isaiah, written thousands of years before Columbus, declares that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22).

from the new testament

• One frequently cited example of contradiction or error is the differing accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels. Critics note that the number of women at the tomb, the number and identity of angels, and the sequence of events vary slightly between Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20. However, these differences are not contradictions but complementary details. Each Gospel writer emphasizes different aspects of the event, much like multiple eyewitnesses describing the same incident from different angles. Importantly, all accounts agree on the central truth: Jesus rose from the dead.
• There are thousands of ancient manuscripts of the Bible, especially the New Testament, and while they overwhelmingly agree with one another, there are some differences among them. These differences are known as textual variants. A textual variant is any difference between manuscripts, whether it’s a change in word order, spelling, omission, or addition. Most of these variants are minor and do not affect the meaning of the text. However, a few are more significant and have led to discussions about which readings are original. Importantly, none of these variants compromise any core doctrine of the Christian faith. One well-known example is Mark 9:29. In the King James Version, Jesus says, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.” However, many modern translations, such as the ESV, say, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer,” omitting “and fasting.” This difference arises because the KJV is based on later manuscripts that include the phrase, while the ESV and others rely on earlier manuscripts that do not. The variant does not change the essential teaching—Jesus is emphasizing dependence on God, whether through prayer alone or prayer and fasting.
• Another significant example is the ending of the Gospel of Mark. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, end at Mark 16:8. However, later manuscripts include verses 9–20, which describe post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and the Great Commission. Because of this, many modern Bibles include a note or bracket around Mark 16:9–20, indicating that these verses may not have been part of the original text. Still, nothing in these verses contradicts the rest of Scripture, and the truths they contain are affirmed elsewhere in the New Testament.
• John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery, is another passage with manuscript differences. This account is absent from the earliest manuscripts and appears in different places in some later ones. While the story reflects Jesus’ character and aligns with His teachings on mercy and sin, scholars debate whether it was part of John’s original Gospel. Again, the passage does not introduce any new doctrine or contradict biblical truth.
• As Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” The presence of textual variants does not undermine the authority or reliability of Scripture—it simply reflects the human process of copying texts over centuries, and the providence of God in preserving His Word through it all.
• When we approach the Bible with humility, seeking to understand rather than to discredit, we find that it is internally consistent and divinely trustworthy. As 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms, “All Scripture is breathed out by God,” and therefore, it carries the authority and perfection of its Author.

implications for today

The claim that the Bible contains errors—whether contradictions, historical inaccuracies, or scientific mistakes—is a common objection, but it does not hold up under careful examination. Many of these accusations arise from misunderstandings of the biblical text, a failure to consider the historical and literary context, or the imposition of modern expectations onto ancient writings. When Scripture is interpreted using sound hermeneutical principles—particularly the historical-grammatical method, which seeks to understand the original meaning intended by the human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—the Bible consistently proves to be coherent, unified, and trustworthy.

For example, what some perceive as contradictions are often complementary perspectives or differences in emphasis. The four Gospels, for instance, present the life of Jesus from different angles, much like multiple eyewitnesses to the same event. These differences do not undermine the truthfulness of the accounts but rather enrich our understanding. Additionally, many supposed historical discrepancies have been resolved through archaeological discoveries and deeper study of ancient cultures and languages. The Bible has withstood centuries of scrutiny and remains unmatched in its internal consistency and historical reliability.

The message of God’s holiness, humanity’s sin, Christ’s sacrifice, and salvation by grace remains the same throughout. In fact, the thousands of preserved manuscripts allow scholars to confirm the remarkable accuracy of the Bible compared to the originals. Far from undermining trust, these minor variations highlight how carefully the Scriptures were preserved. The Bible is fully trustworthy, divinely inspired, and authoritative in all it teaches. Its consistency across centuries and cultures points to God as its ultimate author, guiding human writers by His Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21). Rather than being discredited by claims of error, the Bible continues to stand as the reliable foundation for truth, faith, and life.