I wanted to write you and address some concerns you had about the validity of the Bible. I know this is a sticking point when it comes to your decision to "subscribe to Christianity," as you put it, so hopefully this will clear up your objections. The Bible is the central focus for our study of God because it is the only written piece of literature available to us that reveals who He is and what He wants for us. I understand your objections to this book, but I implore you to read this letter and consider my arguments. As I have told you before, I am less concerned with the rewards of being right, but more concerned with the consequences of being wrong. Your salvations means a lot to me, so please know that I am writing you this letter out of love for your soul.
The first objection you have given me is that you can't rely on a book that was written by man. More specifically, the Bible can't be trusted because of this fact alone. As Christians, we believe that God wrote the Bible though men, they did not write it on their own. That assertion aside, to make a claim that the Bible can't be trusted because it was written by man would mean that we could not trust anything that was ever written. You also have pointed out to me that man is prone to make errors and these errors are proof that the Bible is fallible. While it is true that people make errors, it is not true that people always make errors. If we did, we couldn't trust anyone ever, including ourselves! Moreover, even if there were minor errors in the Bible, that wouldn't mean the central facts are wrong. A book can have typos or errors in some details, but still tell significant truths.
Another point that we have talked about is the translations of the Bible. You claim that there are too many versions and there is no way to know what was originally written. Why are translations a problem? Why is it a problem that there are many ways to communicate the same truth? There are several translations of Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" yet no one would claim there was not an original or that we can't know what the original said. Different translations result from different principles of translation. Does the translation intend to be word for word (like the New American Standard Bible) or more thought for thought (like the New International Version)? Will sentence structure be maintained, or will the translation fit the sentences into the target language? Will antiquated figures of speech be literally translated and explained in notes, or will they be replaced by something modern readers understand? These are important questions, but they don't prevent us from knowing the truths that the Scriptures are communicating. Different translations can actually enhance our understanding by phrasing the truth in different ways.
With translations aside, you have expressed concerns within our own community around other gospels that claim to be true. We normally refer to these as the Gnostic gospels. The major claim is that the Gnostic gospels were once a part of Christianity and that church councils threw them because they did not fit their narrow view of Christianity, but this simply isn't true. The Gnostic gospels (The gospels of Peter, Judas, Thomas, etc.) were forgeries written 100+ years after the events. They most certainly not written by the people whose names are associated with them (this was a common act of plagiarism in those days). And they were certainly not written by anyone that witnessed the events either. Here is a good way of explaining this. In 2012, two movies about Abraham Lincoln were released: one a historical look at the life of the president (Lincoln), and the other a fast-action paranormal hack-n-slash (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). While one was attempting to be true to the history, the other was obviously using a historical character in a fictional context hundreds of years after the age of eyewitnesses. The Gnostic gospels are more like "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"…borrowing the name of Jesus but not being true to His actual life.
Another point of contention that you pose is that the authors of the Bible had an agenda. I would really have to ask; do you know of any author who doesn't have an agenda? Atheists have agendas. Christians have agendas. But having an agenda doesn't mean that what a Christian or atheist writes is false or biased. People can present evidence objectively even if they personally are not neutral (I'd argue that neutral people rarely have the interest or expertise to write books!). All authors have agendas, and we should want them to have one because all authors should believe what they write. The focus should not be the agenda, but the evidence! The survivors of the Holocaust certainly had an agenda when they wrote about its horrors. Does that necessarily mean that we cannot trust them? Of course not. In fact, their experiences may have caused them to be all the more accurate and meticulous so as not to risk the dismissal of the message they cared so passionately about. The holds true for the New Testament authors. Why would they risk compromising the message they died for by inventing stories? (It's important to remember that many of the New Testament authors died promoting what they wrote.) Would they die for their own lie? I think many people will die for a lie they think is the truth, but I don't think anyone will die for a lie they know to be a lie.