Is the Bible truly “Filled with Errors?”
A Short Lesson in Apologetics
Torrey Burton
April 7, 2026
Last month, I made a blog post introducing the topic of apologetics. In it, I encouraged every believer in Christ to learn the discipline of apologetics - providing a reasoned defense and justification of faith. I cited the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to “...always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have...” and I shared that one major benefit of learning apologetics is the encouragement and strengthening of your own faith as you learn to answer challenging questions from unbelievers and skeptics.
I began this series by providing a defense for two common questions posed by unbelievers and believers alike: Is the Bible reliable? How do we know that man hasn't corrupted God's Word as time has passed? Through evidential/historical apologetics, I proved that the Bible IS reliable, uncorrupted, and is in fact the BEST-attested and MOST reliable of ANY ancient manuscript. I encourage you to read the full post linked here: Blog | Buckeye Baptist Church.
Today I would like to continue on the theme of Biblical reliability and address another common question posed by unbelievers: is the Bible “full of errors”? Skeptics will claim that there are 400,000-500,000 “errors” in the Bible, is this claim true?
STOP and THINK - If someone posed these questions/made these claims to you, how would you respond? What would you answer?
Let's take a few minutes to learn and strengthen/encourage your faith!
Short Answer: No, the Bible is not “full of errors.” There are no “errors” found in the Bible with meaningful consequences (that would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith). After diving into the details, we clearly see the Bible has been well-preserved and remains a faithful record of the Word of God - we can and should have great confidence in it!
Now let’s use some evidential/historical apologetics to back up that answer!
When you hear skeptics claim the Bible is “full of errors” and has 400,000-500,000 “errors” in it, you might experience some doubts in your faith and God’s Word. I would like to firstly encourage you - the reason this number is so large is because of the extraordinary number of manuscripts we have! Remember last post: we have over 5,795 manuscripts in Greek from AD 130 (or less) and over 17,974 manuscripts in other languages. The more manuscripts we have - the easier it is to compare them and determine what was said in the original autographs!
We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. “The original manuscripts [autographs] written by [the apostles] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit were without error.” [a]
However, the doctrine of inerrancy is not a claim about every copy of the Bible but about the original autographs. As the original autographs were copied, many minor “errors” were made during the handwritten copying process of many manuscripts. “These places where the manuscripts differ from one another are called variants. A textual variant is any place among the manuscripts in which there is variation in wording, including word order, omission or addition of words, even spelling differences.” [a] “Variants are not necessarily an error, they are just differences between manuscripts.” [b]
When skeptics make the claim that the Bible is “full of errors”, what they are ACTUALLY referring to are these “variants.” But “it’s not the number of variants that’s important, it’s the nature of the variants. It’s not the quantity of the differences; it’s the quality of the differences.” [a] So, what are these differences between manuscripts? Let’s dive down the rabbit hole and take a look.
-
To begin, 99% of 400,000-500,000 “errors” refer to trivial variants in word order, spelling, slips of the pen, and changes in grammar. These differences between manuscripts do not affect the meaning of the Biblical text or impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith whatsoever. It is silly and dishonest to bring up these “errors” and act as if these types of variants change the meaning of the Biblical text or would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
Now that 99% of these “errors” are explained, what about the remaining 1%?
-
Some of this 1% refers to variants in titling. What do I mean by this? In some manuscripts there are additions of the word “Jesus” to “Christ”, the word “Lord” to “Jesus”, the word “Christ” to “Lord Jesus”, the words “of God” to “the temple”, etc. Verses such as Matthew 4:18, Mark 10:52, Acts 19:4, etc, contain additional titling. However, these additions never change who or what we are reading about. We would never conclude we were reading about someone other than Christ whether he is called “Christ”, “Christ Jesus”, or “Lord Jesus”. It is silly and dishonest to bring up these “errors” and act as if these types of variants change the meaning of the Biblical text or would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
-
Some of this 1% refers to variants of absent/missing text. Let me provide an example: in newer manuscripts, we read Mark 7:16 - "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." In older manuscripts, this verse is absent/missing. Does this mean Jesus never said “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear”? Well, in the SAME older manuscripts that are missing Mark 7:16, the absent statement is recorded in Mark 4:9 & Mark 4:23. Meaning the question is NOT if Jesus ever said “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear"; the question is how many times did he say it. It is silly and dishonest to bring up these “errors” and act as if these types of variants would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
-
Some of this 1% refers to variants in references to the Old Testament, some manuscripts contain additions/completions of a referenced verse. As an example, in Matthew 15:8 all manuscripts record Jesus quoting part of Isaiah 29:13 - “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” However, SOME manuscripts record Jesus quoting a LARGER part of Isaiah 29:13 “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” Meaning the question is NOT if Jesus ever quoted Isaiah 29:13, the question is how much of Isaiah 29:13 did he quote. It is silly and dishonest to bring up these “errors” and act as if these types of variants change the meaning of the Biblical text or would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
-
Some of this 1% refers to variants of additional cultural clarification/context. John 5:4 is an example of this. “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” In older manuscripts, this verse is absent. The addition of this verse in younger manuscripts appears to be for the purpose of cultural clarification/context of why people laid at the pool of Bethesda. The bottom line is, whether this verse is included or excluded: it is not essential to Christian doctrine, it does not affect Jesus’ authority; it is not required to understand Jesus’ miraculous healing power. It is silly and dishonest to bring up these “errors” and act as if these types of variants change the meaning of the Biblical text or would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
With that, we have covered >99% of these “errors” and explained how it is silly and dishonest to bring up these types of variants and act as if they change the meaning of the Biblical text or would change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith. “[These variants] do not detract from the Bible's authority or its role as the inspired Word of God.” [c]
Now, let’s get into the last <1% of these “errors.” After disproving the >99%, the skeptic would likely challenge you with 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11. These are known as “the Big Three.” [d]
-
1 John 5:7 - “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." The controversy is that many early manuscripts do not contain the underlined part of this verse. While it is true information that agrees with Biblical doctrine, scholars believe it may have not been present in the original and may have been added later to support the doctrine of the Trinity. However, if we were to remove this verse, would we lose all support for the doctrine of the Trinity? The answer is no, there is plenty of support for the doctrine of the Trinity throughout the Bible: Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, etc. Conclusion: this variant does not change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
-
Mark 16:9-20 - This is a longer ending of the Gospel of Mark that narrates Jesus’ appearances to Mary and his disciples after his resurrection, Jesus’ final commands to his disciples, states signs will accompany those who believe (driving out demons, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, healing), and ends with Jesus’ ascension to heaven and the disciples following his commands. All manuscripts contain Mark 16:1-8 and most manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20. However, the controversy is that some early manuscripts and some translations into other languages do not contain Mark 16:9-20 at all, some include it with questionable marks about it in the margins, and some contain a shortened version of only verses 9-11. Scholars believe Mark 16:9-20 may have not been present in the original and may have been added later as a combination of information from Matthew, Luke, and Acts to provide a more thorough reflection and conclusion of Mark’s gospel. The question is: if we were to remove Mark 16:9-20, would we lose anything that would change Christian doctrine? The answer is no. Mark 16:1-8 still confirms the resurrection of Christ; Matthew, Luke, and John confirm Jesus’ appearance to Mary and his disciples after his resurrection; the Great Commission can be found in Matthew 28:19-20; and signs of the apostles are found in Acts. The only potential issue is for snake-handling churches, a small, isolated number of churches compared to the vast majority of Christendom. Conclusion: this variant does not change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.
-
John 7:53-8:11 - This is the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. This is a beautiful narrative that highlights Jesus’ mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and justice. However, the controversy is that this story does not appear in any early manuscript - it only appears in later manuscripts (10th-14th centuries). It also is not consistent where it appears, sometimes it is in John 7:53-8:11, other times appearing in another part of John, another time appearing in Luke instead of John. Scholars believe this story may have not been present in the original, but that it is a true historical account of Jesus that may have been added later to be preserved with the copies of the Gospels. The question is: if we were to remove John 7:53-8:11, would we lose anything that would change Christian doctrine? The answer is no. There are many other examples of Jesus’ mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and justice throughout Scripture: feeding the 5,000, healing the sick, parables of the Good Samaritan & Prodigal Son, his sacrifice on the cross, etc. Conclusion: this variant does not change/impact a Christian’s doctrine/faith.