In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I utilize AI from time to time. But I make a note of it too.

I excerpted a large part of their post. Then went to Google AI and asked it if the text was AI generated.

There's someone else here who posts what appear to be sermons. They use AI,also not credited,to compile those threads and posts.

I think it's the age we live in.
Kids in school today are basically raised on computers. They're awake and active in school more hours than at home.

I know parents whose kids can't spell without spell check assist. They can't do math in their head. They need a calculator.

So,it stands to reason they can't write a thread or post on any religious topic without AI.
I agree. I think a lot of the problems we have now-a-days is that people just generally don't think. They either repeat what they've been taught (even arguments they've heard others say) or they use AI. If someone has to use AI as a response, clearly they aren't interested in the truth or having a discussion, they are only interested in winning whatever argument that's on the table. I use AI sometimes by asking it if my argument sounds convoluted, just because I've been told sometimes I don't explain myself well when things get complex. But my thoughts are my own. I've had issues on other forums where the entire response is just AI generated... if I wanted to debate an AI, I'd just open up my own tab in my browser at that point... lol
 
Thats truth for sin, not what scripture says is true, so you're taking that out of context.
And sin cannot distort our understanding of what is true? Why do NT writers then cite the need for multiple witnesses for things associated with salvation. Paul emphasizes the number of witnesses to the resurrection and John emphasizes three witnesses.
 
And sin cannot distort our understanding of what is true? Why do NT writers then cite the need for multiple witnesses for things associated with salvation. Paul emphasizes the number of witnesses to the resurrection and John emphasizes three witnesses.
You're applying a rule out of context. If you want to talk principles or concepts, that's different. So which is it, is it a rule or a principle or concept that is the basis for your argument?
 
You're applying a rule out of context. If you want to talk principles or concepts, that's different. So which is it, is it a rule or a principle or concept that is the basis for your argument?
I seek to follow the rule as it appears that the NT writers understood it, not as is convenient to allow for finding a way around it. Where do you see that the standard for truth is other than two or three questionable eyewitnesses to verify the truth? Even in the OT at times the heavens and the earth were summoned to be eyewitnesses to covenants between God and Israel, or was God wasting His time in invoking them.
 
I utilize AI from time to time. But I make a note of it too.

I excerpted a large part of their post. Then went to Google AI and asked it if the text was AI generated.

There's someone else here who posts what appear to be sermons. They use AI,also not credited,to compile those threads and posts.

I think it's the age we live in.
Kids in school today are basically raised on computers. They're awake and active in school more hours than at home.

I know parents whose kids can't spell without spell check assist. They can't do math in their head. They need a calculator.

So,it stands to reason they can't write a thread or post on any religious topic without AI.
I have no doubt that the specific post you refer to was heavily influenced, if not a totally written, by AI. However, the poster has made numerous other posts that do not seem to be AI generated. Using AI can be a shortcut in some cases, and very tempting. My personal use for AI is limited, mostly spelling and grammar with occasional "I know I saw that, but where" searches so that I can go back to the original source faster to make certain of what it said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bible_Locket
I seek to follow the rule as it appears that the NT writers understood it, not as is convenient to allow for finding a way around it. Where do you see that the standard for truth is other than two or three questionable eyewitnesses to verify the truth? Even in the OT at times the heavens and the earth were summoned to be eyewitnesses to covenants between God and Israel, or was God wasting His time in invoking them.
I see that you're taking concepts and applying it to the rule of sin, and then saying that rule applies to other things apart from the context that it's used in. Which, I do not agree with. I think you're seeing the word "witness" or others like it, and automatically lumping it in the same pile just because of the word regardless of the context.

When it comes to the law due to actions, then there are 2-3 witnesses needed due to judgement that would follow. That is where you get the heavens and the earth being invoked because what follows? Judgement.

Where you're trying to apply that concept, is to "truth". Specifically scriptural truth and what scripture says is true or false. There is nothing in scripture that indicates witnesses have to be present in order for something to be true. Only when it comes to proof of actions. So your example is going back to the law when it comes to actions and consequences. If you have any verses that talk about witnesses when applying to interpretation of truth or understanding, then please share them.
 
I see that you're taking concepts and applying it to the rule of sin, and then saying that rule applies to other things apart from the context that it's used in. Which, I do not agree with. I think you're seeing the word "witness" or others like it, and automatically lumping it in the same pile just because of the word regardless of the context.

When it comes to the law due to actions, then there are 2-3 witnesses needed due to judgement that would follow. That is where you get the heavens and the earth being invoked because what follows? Judgement.

Where you're trying to apply that concept, is to "truth". Specifically scriptural truth and what scripture says is true or false. There is nothing in scripture that indicates witnesses have to be present in order for something to be true. Only when it comes to proof of actions. So your example is going back to the law when it comes to actions and consequences. If you have any verses that talk about witnesses when applying to interpretation of truth or understanding, then please share them.
Might I make a slight correction? I am not challenging what scripture says is truth, I am challenging what fallible humans claim scripture is saying. I am challenging the interpretation of scripture by sinful, unperfected humans who are still subject to sin (hence the rule of sin applies), not the scripture itself. "Oh, but my interpretation is from the Holy Spirit", well and good so long as you can PROVE that it was the HS and not either your own mind or a deceitful entity, which of course is nigh well impossible. Thus, I call for the backup of INTERPRETATIONS of scripture via independent, questionable sources, just as God imposed backup entities, the heavens and the earth, for His covenants with the ancient Israelites.
 
Might I make a slight correction? I am not challenging what scripture says is truth, I am challenging what fallible humans claim scripture is saying. I am challenging the interpretation of scripture by sinful, unperfected humans who are still subject to sin (hence the rule of sin applies), not the scripture itself. "Oh, but my interpretation is from the Holy Spirit", well and good so long as you can PROVE that it was the HS and not either your own mind or a deceitful entity, which of course is nigh well impossible. Thus, I call for the backup of INTERPRETATIONS of scripture via independent, questionable sources, just as God imposed backup entities, the heavens and the earth, for His covenants with the ancient Israelites.
That's a good clarification, thank you for that because based on your first response to me, thats what it sounded like you were arguing for. So, understanding your premise better now, I agree with you. Interpretation is a pretty rocky boat. I mean, just look at the example between us as proof that understanding something can be difficult. While I do agree that sin plays a part, I won't say it's the only thing as I think there are other issues like, how one was raised, what doctrinal lens people are viewing scripture by, or low IQ (not an exhaustive list). But on your basis, I will say that I agree with you.
 
There are no references in you list of independent biblical scholars who are free of denominational doctrinal control. They are all told to teach the Book of Daniel as the expression of the dogmas specific to their founding and supporting churches. It then is not a surprise that they all agreed exactly with each other. To believe otherwise would terminate their employment.

You make a very sweeping statement above. To accuse all the scholars I listed as teaching as being "under denominational doctrinal control" seems premature. Do you have documentation from each of these that they would not change their view of Daniel if it would "terminate their employment"? Or, maybe you have talked to them all individually? Just because someone teaches in a denominational setting does not negate their writing and scholarship.

You are surely entitled to your own opinion of Daniel and when/how it was written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CS1
You make a very sweeping statement above. To accuse all the scholars I listed as teaching as being "under denominational doctrinal control" seems premature. Do you have documentation from each of these that they would not change their view of Daniel if it would "terminate their employment"? Or, maybe you have talked to them all individually? Just because someone teaches in a denominational setting does not negate their writing and scholarship.

You are surely entitled to your own opinion of Daniel and when/how it was written.
Yes, most church-supported seminaries require professors to teach in agreement with their statements of faith.
These schools protect their beliefs. They ask faculty members to sign a document called a statement of faith. This document lists the exact beliefs of the supporting church or group.

Why it matters: The school makes sure that all teachers share the same core values. This stops the teaching of ideas that go against church rules.

The rule: Professors usually must teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" the statement.
Annual sign: Teachers and board members often sign or state their agreement every year.

If a professor changes their mind or teaches something different, they usually must resign or the school will remove them.

Those seminaries that are supported by a group of denominations also demand borders which cannot be crossed without termination. Even some seminaries mostly supported by generations of philanthropy still restrict theological conclusions to those in accord with their funder's wishes.

We are dealing with issues surrounding the book of Daniel, but the tightrope seminary teachers must walk extends to all issues of conflict between the stated dogmas of their seminary/church and any variation in their scholastic conclusions.

I do not claim their dogmatic boundaries negate their writing and scholarship, only that they must agree with their supporting dogmas to even write or claim "scholarship." When "scholarship" is defined as defending church dogmas it fails all tests of what scholarship means. If scholarship means expertise, then these captured scholars are only experts in their churches predetermined idea of what scholarship means..... agreement with church dogma. They spend their entire lives attempting to "prove" their denomination's purity and validity. "We hold these dogmas to be true, your job is to spend your entire scholastic life proving we are right and everyone else is wrong. They should more properly be called apologists instead of scholars.
 
You make a very sweeping statement above. To accuse all the scholars I listed as teaching as being "under denominational doctrinal control" seems premature. Do you have documentation from each of these that they would not change their view of Daniel if it would "terminate their employment"? Or, maybe you have talked to them all individually? Just because someone teaches in a denominational setting does not negate their writing and scholarship.

You are surely entitled to your own opinion of Daniel and when/how it was written.
Yes, most church-supported seminaries require professors to teach in agreement with their statements of faith.
These schools protect their beliefs. They ask faculty members to sign a document called a statement of faith. This document lists the exact beliefs of the supporting church or group.
Can confirm, here are examples:

Cedarville University - Link "Each faculty member and employee (full-time and part-time) is required to sign initially, and annually thereafter, the following Doctrinal Statement as a condition of employment."

Fuller Seminary - Link "...the ultimate positions of faculty members must not be at variance with the basic theological stance of the community as set forth in the Statement of Faith..."

Presbyterian Theological Seminary - Link -"ALL FACULTY MUST SUBSCRIBE TO THE FOLLOWING DOCTRINAL POSITION WITHOUT RESERVATION UPON EMPLOYMENT."

It's actually pretty well known that colleges/seminaries keep a strict doctrinal belief. No deviations from their statement of faith, ever. Everyone who goes to that school, is being taught the same denominational beliefs of that school. That is no where near "scholarly", and just nothing but telling people what to believe.
 
Yes, most church-supported seminaries require professors to teach in agreement with their statements of faith.
These schools protect their beliefs. They ask faculty members to sign a document called a statement of faith. This document lists the exact beliefs of the supporting church or group.

Why it matters: The school makes sure that all teachers share the same core values. This stops the teaching of ideas that go against church rules.

The rule: Professors usually must teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" the statement.
Annual sign: Teachers and board members often sign or state their agreement every year.

If a professor changes their mind or teaches something different, they usually must resign or the school will remove them.

Those seminaries that are supported by a group of denominations also demand borders which cannot be crossed without termination. Even some seminaries mostly supported by generations of philanthropy still restrict theological conclusions to those in accord with their funder's wishes.

We are dealing with issues surrounding the book of Daniel, but the tightrope seminary teachers must walk extends to all issues of conflict between the stated dogmas of their seminary/church and any variation in their scholastic conclusions.

I do not claim their dogmatic boundaries negate their writing and scholarship, only that they must agree with their supporting dogmas to even write or claim "scholarship." When "scholarship" is defined as defending church dogmas it fails all tests of what scholarship means. If scholarship means expertise, then these captured scholars are only experts in their churches predetermined idea of what scholarship means..... agreement with church dogma. They spend their entire lives attempting to "prove" their denomination's purity and validity. "We hold these dogmas to be true, your job is to spend your entire scholastic life proving we are right and everyone else is wrong. They should more properly be called apologists instead of scholars.
I would point out that there are a very few seminaries in the USA that do not push specific doctrines but rather intellectual honesty, that is one can make whatever point as long as they can provide sufficient intellectual support. But I agree that far more common are seminaries that require a "statement of faith". I would assume that this is also likely to apply around the world, but I have no personal knowledge on that point.
 
Three catches:

1. The bible is inerrant and infallible only in its ORIGINAL languages of Hebrew and Greek; all translations, including KJV, are errant and fallible. In fact, the more you study ancient Hebrew and Greek, the more inaccuracies and erroes you'll notice. In some cases there're subtle references beyond literal meaning, they don't make sense to modern minds unless you know the cultural and historical context.

2. The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, stated by the bible itself - "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (Jn. 20-30-31) God has two revelations of himself, the special revelation through the bible, and the GENERAL revelation through all his creations. The bible is inspired by God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction and righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16), but NOT for worship. You can know ABOUT God by studying the bible, as much as you can know ABOUT a celebrity by studying their biography, but only can you know God by personally experiencing him through his general revelation.

3.The bible is not a weapon for "prooftexting", it's not an intellectual armory for you to preach your own theories, to win debates by quoting more verses than your opponent. You can even draw certain verses to support socialism, abortion, slavery and genocide (such as the conquest of Canaan and Noah's Flood), that'd be taking the Lord's name in vain.
Lovette
I agree with your sentiment however to assign the "original languages" to Hebrew and Greek you fail to appreciate the scope of translational challenges.

Koine Greek: The original language of the entire New Testament. It was the common language spoken across the Roman Empire but the educated Romans spoke in latin. Koine Greek was the uneducated vernacular form of Greek. Classic greek was very different. The Romans were attracted to Greek because it provided an expansive philosophical footprint. Many Greek speaking and reading Romans were ardant readers of the Hebrew Bible as it provided a cleaner and equally deep philosophical infrastructure. When Paul wrote to the Church in Rome he knew of how fond of the old testament and Judaism the Romans were including converted Romans. That is why when Paul wrote what we call the book of Romans he alluded to and quoted over 80 Hebrew Bible quotes to help evolve Roman fascination with Judaism into Christian theology.

Syriac: The Bible (especially the Gospels) was translated into this ancient language in the 2nd century. It was used in Syria and areas to the east.

Latin: Early Latin translations (known as Vetus Latina) started to appear late in the second century. They served the growing church in North Africa and the West.

Prior to this period, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek in the third century BC. This Greek translation is known as the Septuagint. The septuagint was done by Greek Political leaders to extend the power of Greece into all areas of culture. The septuagint translators opened the door to Christianity. They chose to render "young woman" in Hebrew into Greek "virgin" for instance not realizing that this and several terms unique to their Greek translation would become the foundation of Christianity. Without the Septuagint there would likely be no Christianity.

The Hebrew bible did not include what we today call the deuterocanonical books. However many Christians accept them.
Tobit: The story of a righteous Israelite family, an angel, and a miraculous healing.
Judith: A tale of a courageous Jewish widow who saves her city from an invading Assyrian general.
1 Maccabees: A historical account of the Maccabean revolt and the rededication of the Temple (the basis for Hanukkah).
2 Maccabees: A different perspective on the Maccabean revolt, emphasizing theological concepts like the resurrection of the dead.
Wisdom (or the Wisdom of Solomon): A reflection on the value of wisdom and divine justice.
Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus): A collection of ethical and practical teachings by a Jewish sage named Ben Sira.
Baruch: A prophetic and penitential work attributed to Baruch, the scribe of the prophet Jeremiah, which often includes the Letter of Jeremiah as its final chapter.

These books are included in Roman Catholic Bible as they support indulgences, prayers for the dead, 2 Macc. 12:42-45 intercession of Angels Tobit 12:12 and Atonement Through Good Works: Tobit and Sirach (Tobit 12:9; Sirach 3:30) teach that almsgiving and good works can help expiate (make up for) sins.

The Eastern Orthodox include the Catholic deuterocanonical books but add even more texts. Both use books like Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees. However, the Orthodox also include 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151.

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Bible is the largest and most complete biblical canon in Christianity, containing 81 books. In the Hebrew Bible they add
The Book of Enoch: An ancient apocalyptic text widely known in the early church.
The Book of Jubilees: An ancient Jewish religious work, sometimes called "Little Genesis".
1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan: Three unique historical books often referred to as the Ethiopian Maccabees, focusing on moral and religious battles.
4 Baruch (Paralipomena of Jeremiah): An expansion on the stories of Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch.
Ezra Sutuel and 2 Ezra (Greek Esdras): Expanded apocalyptic versions of the Book of Ezra.
The Book of Josippon and Joshua the Son of Sirach

In the New Testament one must chose. If you want to read the old testament from Hebrew you must use the Masoretic text. All our Hebrew Bible is a translation into Greek....english....
 
Three catches:

1. The bible is inerrant and infallible only in its ORIGINAL languages of Hebrew and Greek; all translations, including KJV, are errant and fallible. In fact, the more you study ancient Hebrew and Greek, the more inaccuracies and erroes you'll notice. In some cases there're subtle references beyond literal meaning, they don't make sense to modern minds unless you know the cultural and historical context.

2. The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, stated by the bible itself - "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (Jn. 20-30-31) God has two revelations of himself, the special revelation through the bible, and the GENERAL revelation through all his creations. The bible is inspired by God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction and righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16), but NOT for worship. You can know ABOUT God by studying the bible, as much as you can know ABOUT a celebrity by studying their biography, but only can you know God by personally experiencing him through his general revelation.

3.The bible is not a weapon for "prooftexting", it's not an intellectual armory for you to preach your own theories, to win debates by quoting more verses than your opponent. You can even draw certain verses to support socialism, abortion, slavery and genocide (such as the conquest of Canaan and Noah's Flood), that'd be taking the Lord's name in vain.

Actually, the first caveat is that the Bible is inerrant only in the original manuscripts,
which no longer exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
Actually, the first caveat is that the Bible is inerrant only in the original manuscripts,
which no longer exist.
GWH
This is taking the real issues of translation and manuscript families too far. First, in whatever original versions that may have existed there still are contradictions not likely introduced by manuscript copiers. The lineage of Jesus, the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem, where did Jesus tell his disciples to wait for him prior to His resurrection? According to Mark, nobody was told of the resurrection. The long ending of mark, the Johannine Comma, what was said or not said by Jesus on the cross, where did Paul go immediately after his conversion? On what day was Jesus crusified?.... These are simply the result of those wanting to provide a written account of the life of Jesus telling the story the way they heard it some 50+ years after the fact. This does not make them unreliable or their stories less true in some sense on the big issues. Without going too far down the rabbit hole of what exactly "inspiration" means and how it works, we can trust the recounting of the stories of people who differ on details because that means they were providing their own honest recounting of what they had come to learn. Dishonest people conspire to eliminate any inconsistencies in their story. Some may ask "Why did they wait so long to write down their Gospels?" There is no accurate answer but it is assumed that 1. there were many people who knew Jesus or knew of him second hand while the Apostles and Church leaders were alive. 2. Many expected Jesus to return in their lifetime so writing down His gospel might look like they doubted His imminent return. 3 A number of fables about Jesus evolved over time and someone needed to set things straight.

If anything, this discussion should send us all back to better understand the translation we use including who did it and who paid for it. Archaic language is a barrier to understand the text. The NIV was commissioned by Evangelicals to support their ideas. I personally use several translations, study bibles, concordances and my favorite is the New English Translation which includes all the translators notes on virtually every verse. It too is a reading by a very conservative group, but the translators notes give us an ability to see what choices they made and why.
 
GWH
This is taking the real issues of translation and manuscript families too far. First, in whatever original versions that may have existed there still are contradictions not likely introduced by manuscript copiers. The lineage of Jesus, the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem, where did Jesus tell his disciples to wait for him prior to His resurrection? According to Mark, nobody was told of the resurrection. The long ending of mark, the Johannine Comma, what was said or not said by Jesus on the cross, where did Paul go immediately after his conversion? On what day was Jesus crusified?.... These are simply the result of those wanting to provide a written account of the life of Jesus telling the story the way they heard it some 50+ years after the fact. This does not make them unreliable or their stories less true in some sense on the big issues. Without going too far down the rabbit hole of what exactly "inspiration" means and how it works, we can trust the recounting of the stories of people who differ on details because that means they were providing their own honest recounting of what they had come to learn. Dishonest people conspire to eliminate any inconsistencies in their story. Some may ask "Why did they wait so long to write down their Gospels?" There is no accurate answer but it is assumed that 1. there were many people who knew Jesus or knew of him second hand while the Apostles and Church leaders were alive. 2. Many expected Jesus to return in their lifetime so writing down His gospel might look like they doubted His imminent return. 3 A number of fables about Jesus evolved over time and someone needed to set things straight.

If anything, this discussion should send us all back to better understand the translation we use including who did it and who paid for it. Archaic language is a barrier to understand the text. The NIV was commissioned by Evangelicals to support their ideas. I personally use several translations, study bibles, concordances and my favorite is the New English Translation which includes all the translators notes on virtually every verse. It too is a reading by a very conservative group, but the translators notes give us an ability to see what choices they made and why.

Here is my view about biblical inspiration:

Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!

The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant.

Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.

Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.

Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).
 
GWH
This is taking the real issues of translation and manuscript families too far. First, in whatever original versions that may have existed there still are contradictions not likely introduced by manuscript copiers. The lineage of Jesus, the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem, where did Jesus tell his disciples to wait for him prior to His resurrection? According to Mark, nobody was told of the resurrection. The long ending of mark, the Johannine Comma, what was said or not said by Jesus on the cross, where did Paul go immediately after his conversion? On what day was Jesus crusified?.... These are simply the result of those wanting to provide a written account of the life of Jesus telling the story the way they heard it some 50+ years after the fact. This does not make them unreliable or their stories less true in some sense on the big issues. Without going too far down the rabbit hole of what exactly "inspiration" means and how it works, we can trust the recounting of the stories of people who differ on details because that means they were providing their own honest recounting of what they had come to learn. Dishonest people conspire to eliminate any inconsistencies in their story. Some may ask "Why did they wait so long to write down their Gospels?" There is no accurate answer but it is assumed that 1. there were many people who knew Jesus or knew of him second hand while the Apostles and Church leaders were alive. 2. Many expected Jesus to return in their lifetime so writing down His gospel might look like they doubted His imminent return. 3 A number of fables about Jesus evolved over time and someone needed to set things straight.

If anything, this discussion should send us all back to better understand the translation we use including who did it and who paid for it. Archaic language is a barrier to understand the text. The NIV was commissioned by Evangelicals to support their ideas. I personally use several translations, study bibles, concordances and my favorite is the New English Translation which includes all the translators notes on virtually every verse. It too is a reading by a very conservative group, but the translators notes give us an ability to see what choices they made and why.
I would argue with you on how long after Jesus's crucifixion the gospel accounts were written. I would argue that Mark was the first written, sometime in the 40's (before 49) seem plausible (later edited to add a physical resurrection, possibly to conceal its original message), the now called John (a first edition that clearly needed rewritten after 73) the next in the mid 50's, then Matthew in the mid to late 60's (after 64) and Luke-Acts in the early to mid 70's, clearly after 70, plausibly soon after 73. The version of John we are familiar with was likely written in the 80's by John.

The authors had different messages to spread about Jesus, Mark's and the first version of John's, likely also Matthew were definitely anti-Roman, Luke was decidedly pro-Roman, as fits with being written after the Roman victory in the 1st Jewish war, absolve the Romans and blame the Jews.
 
It is an eyewitness as they saw in the context of the Last Supper. That is not a discrepancy, it is a personal eyewitness of and event they were at as they saw and heard it. John is speaking before the meal was served and during the preparation which led into the Passover meal. The grammatical- historical method we can pay close attention to both the language the text was written in and the cultural -historical setting or occasion that produced it. The Gospel of John also great emphases Jesus as the Lamb of God which is the Passover meal or feast. Also, gospel say Jesus ate this meal before he went to the cross. John’s account is not biblically wrong. It simply uses different terminology and focuses on the broader Passover festival rather than the single evening meal. The Last Supper in John is still the Passover meal, just described in the context of the festival’s timing rather than the meal’s specific date.
What about John 18:28? The unnamed "they" have not yet eaten the Passover meal. Why not?

28Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.