Well, I don't know if your intending it, but I feel that you are being a little condescending. I only ask this here becsuse my pastor refuses to believe that the bible has errors. It doesn't really affect my walk, as much as my face-value reliance of the bible. As far as the websites that adress them, they mostly state that "x" or "y" are potential meanings, or that it was a miscopy. The quote from Matthew 27:9 is nowhere in Jeremiah. Ots in Zechariah. The verse is there, it was just wrote down wrong. I don't see how these can be interpreted as not being simple mistakes.
Again, I haven't read all the responses yet; I would like to respond right away, and if this has been said already, please forgive my redundancy.
Yes, Trax and others are being condescending and rude, and less than helpful.
They are correct to a point: knowledge of these discrepancies is not new. What
is relatively new (150 years or so) is people trying to "explain away" the discrepancies to make the Bible agree with itself factually.
Astallia, you sound like an intelligent and well-read man. I am going to assume you've read some Shakespeare, or at least you're familiar with the fact that he wrote plays about some historical figures (Henry VI, Richard III, etc.)?
I'm also sure you're aware that those plays were written in a time when there was no audio recording.
Do you think the things Shakespeare wrote are exactly the way it happened?
If not, why is Shakespeare considered such a great writer, if his plays are filled with errors?
Okay, now, I hope you don't think I'm being condescending, because I'm not trying to be condescending to you, although I am being a little ... how shall I say ... dismissive of a prevalent view among some Christians today (I believe it's a minority of Christians, but I've seen different polls that say different things, so I don't know). See, only in the last 150 years has anyone thought that the Bible was written with the intention to be taken as a historical document, rather than as literature. Before the late 1800s, it was just assumed that the stories in the Bible, while many were of course based in actual historical events, were written like Shakespeare's plays -- with a purpose, a plot, a lesson. The writers (and yes, I believe God inspired every book in the Bible, but there were human transcribers who had human ideas and human understandings, including human failings) each had a specific story to tell, and more importantly, a reason to tell that story, to tell it the way they did.
It was never considered heresy to think that the 900-some years that Methusela lived may not have been 900 literal years (365 days each), but some other measure for a numerical / symbolic purpose. Many Hebrew scholars have offered many different possibilities for what that number might mean. I know of no Hebrew Rabbi who argues that it's literal.
So, when you say that you found an "error" in the Bible, that presupposes a false assumption on the Bible that was never intended to begin with. In order for some statement in the Bible to be "wrong," that implies that the person who wrote it intended it to be taken literally. While there are many things in Scripture (especially the Gospels) that are literally true, much of it is (almost all of Genesis is, for example, and huge swaths of the Writings / Ketuvim and Prophets / Nephi'im are) some kind of parable.
An example: at one point, Jesus said, "I am the vine." Another he said "I am the bread of life." In still another, he compares himself to a mother hen. So, which 2 of those 3 statements is Jesus lying and which is the truth? After all, if something is a vine, it is not bread -- bread is not a vegetable. And neither thing is a chicken. All 3 sound dubious, for we believe Jesus was a human.
Again, this sounds condescending, but when someone insists on an old testament passage like some of the ones you quoted to be literally true, it's as ludicrous as taking the above statements from Jesus literally. Of course Jesus was using metaphor. Duh! And since Jesus is God, why wouldn't you expect God to use metaphor when communicating? The reason a lot of people "miss" the symbolic meanings is that they're further removed. See, Jesus was only 2,000 years ago, and Greek is less removed from English than Hebrew is. The Old Testament is 4-6 thousand years ago, and way more removed from English, so a lot of phrases that someone at that time would have immediately recognized as a phrase for a story, we just don't hear them any more.
Like "Once Upon A Time." In English, we know that means we're about to hear a fairy tale. Can you imagine that in some distant culture, 6,000 years from now in some totally foreign language, they may not recognize that phrase, and might think we really believe in talking frogs and dragons?
I hope this helps a little. I'm sorry your pastor is one of those who doesn't get it. I invite you to attend any one of the many mainline protestant churches that understands Scripture as it was written, not insisting on a literal interpretation, but allowing God to speak to us in Truth, however that Truth may reach us. If you want to privately message me your location, I can look up a few churches in your area where your questions will be welcomed, and answered to the best of their ability.