The NT includes many things that aren't in the OT, but are claimed. For instance:
Matthew 2: 23* g He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”
There is in fact no OT quotation that says this.
As well, there are inconsistencies and numerous misquotes of OT verses. Matthew 27: 3-10 is quoted from Zechariah, but it actually comes from Jeremiah.
Even the four Gospels do not agree on some things such as what is written above the head of Jesus, or what the events were on Resurrection Sunday. Exactly none of our Bible literalists will even reply to me on such matters because there is no possible reply except to acknowledge that without the Magisterium to interpret the Bible, it cannot make sense.
As we have been instructed most thoroughly by many of our antagonists, Paul is the true source of the Gospels and Jesus and the Gospels (and the first portion of Acts) is to the Jews only. I found several websites that had that as their main theme; I found several others that had that as a basic assumption of what they considered doctrine.
Duelling verses are often on the menu du jour in talking with these folks. They consider that if Jesus says this and Paul says that which appears to be in conflict with what Jesus says, then Paul wins and we should ignore the Gospels.
Honestly? How soon they forget! We discussed this topic very recently, do you not remember? You were given explanations and even a few links that explain in even more detail about the "supposed" errors in the Bible. AND, you claim you believe what your Magesterium says regarding the inspiration by God, the infallible nature and the reliability of the Scriptures. Is this a case of "flip-flopitis"?
No need for the Holy Spirit then, if we have a infallible group of men labeled a *magisterium* then is there?