People want to point to a couple of problems with a number or the spelling of a name and throw out the entire Bible.
I just don't believe this is so, Terry. There's a century and a half of solid biblical scholarship which frankly disproves or calls into question much of the Bible. It's not done for the purpose of trampling anyone's religious beliefs. If some people see Biblical fiction as a reason to cast the Bible aside it's a direct result of the loud insistence that it is inerrant.
No other collection of books have ever stood the test of time that the Bible has been through.
The Vedas are older and the I Ching is nearly as old, plus there are Egyptian and Babylonian works, eg, which have survived without being directly in the care of a single religious or ethnic group. Confucianism, Taoism, and Mohism predate the New Testament by several centuries, and the oldest Buddhist texts are roughly contemporaneous with the earliest Gospels. The Bible doesn't need superlatives heaped on it, particularly spurious ones.
All of the errors that I have ever seen are in the OT. As far as I know there are none in the NT because we have manuscirpts that date back to almost the time of the original writting.
Uh, no, unless you mean scraps the size of your thumbnail. The Vatican Codex is a couple hundred years later. And the difficulties with the NT histories begins at Matthew 1, proceeding through an entirely fictitious nativity in Bethlehem designed to fulfill a misreading of prophecy in Isiah.
I don't mean to sound harsh, Terry, I truly don't. But facts are stubborn things, and there are plenty of articulate people like truthlover who can face them
and find spiritual value in the texts.