What would an error in the bible even show?

[Marnie]

Matthew and John were not eyewitnesses! Their names are not even Matthew and John!

Do you have backing for such a claim?
Take a look at this page: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswe...08-07.html
John claims to be an eyewitness in his Gospel (see bottom). He shows his identity as John by referring to himself is "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Early writers Irenaeus and Tertullian confirm John's authorship. John also provides touches such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3)--reflecting the recollections of an eyewitness.
Church tradition makes Matthew the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. We already know that the man Matthew the Evangelist was one of the Twelve Apostles. Papias of Hierapolis confirms Matthew as being the author.

Given the lifespan back then, the persecution of Christians, and the fall of Jerusalem it would be next to impossible for anyone to have been alive near the end of the first century who was an original disciple and an eyewitness to Jesus.

According to Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem, John died of natural causes "in great old age in Ephesus" at the beginning of the second century. He had been exiled to Patmos, where he escaped persecution and wrote Revelation. The Gospel of John was written in Ephesus, where he reportedly lived the remainder of his life.
Unless, of course, you think everyone who wrote history was in cahoots and made this all up.

I only could skim through the article. I find it hard to read material so clearly lobbying for one point regardless of what history and modern biblical scholarship have to say.

Traditional authorship claims were made without any knowledge of textual analysis and dating. Church traditions and tradition biblical authorship claims are factually baseless. The church fathers may have as well written some praenomina on slips of paper and drawn from a hat to find the author's names. The tradition of associating John the disciple arose in the beginning of the second century, nearly a century after the death of Christ.

As I have said before the author we call Matthew was also not an eyewitness. While I'm at it neither was Mark. Matthew clearly used Mark's gospel and likely other sources while writing his gospel. An eyewitness would simply not have to use other sources while writing about their own experiences.

If John was a disciple of Jesus and lived until the beginning of the second century, he lived for an absolutely absurd amount of time. He would be near or older than one hundred years old at his death. That is old for now, back then he'd be one of the oldest people alive.