The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is probably false.

We probably have more in common than not. However, I would disagree with the assertion that the Bible is not inerrant. I believe the Bible is God's Word, that it is Inspired, Infallible and Inerrant. I would submit that the definition of "Inerrancy" is a little more complex than what Wikipedia says. To say that the Bible is "considered accurate and totally free of error," is rather subjective. We must first define what "error" is. If error is defined as the traditional arguments of textual variations, paradoxes and so forth, no one would deny the Bible has those. However, the great majority of minute differences found can be reasonably explained. I would define "error" the way the Bible does: " We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6). Error is encountered, according to John, when we depart from the Testimony of Scripture itself. "He that hears us, hears God. " "He that does not hear us, does not hear God. " Therefore, the Scripture is absolute truth. It is outside of Scripture that error is encountered. It is reasonable to assume that if God wrote a book, that book would be free from error. As James White contends, "Upon what principle of reason, then, would you say it is impossible for the God who created men in His image to use them then as a means by which to communicate Himself, using their language, even their historical setting and context, in such a fashion that the resultant revelation accurately and inerrantly communicates His will to them? " (From "A Second Open Letter to Dr. Lee Carter") I prefer Ryrie's definition of inerrancy: "The Bible tells the truth, which may include approximations, free quotations, the language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict" (Basic Theology, p. 535). White comments on Inspiration and Inerrancy thus: "While related to the issue of transmission, they are first and foremost theological statements regarding the nature of Scripture itself. They were true when Scripture was written, hence, in their most basic forms, are not related to the transmissional process. " (From article "Inspiration, Inerrancy, Preservation") This means that, for example, the very first handwritten copy of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, although not considered to be inspired or inerrant in the technical sense as the original, should be considered just as true, for it contained, logically, the same words as the original. No other work enjoys a more favorable history of dedication to accurate transmission than does the Bible. Furthermore, my opponent states that inerrancy stems from 19th Century Princeton theology, and is thus, a new idea. First of all, whether or not it is a new idea is not the determining factor ultimately of its truthfulness. If it is true, it is true because the Bible substantiates it. Nevertheless, this is an inaccurate claim: Augustine (396-430) - "most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. That is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing put down in these books anything false. If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true. " Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) - "nothing false can underlie the literal sense of Scripture" (Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10, ad 3) Martin Luther - "The Scriptures have never erred" (Works of Luther, XV:1481) John Wesley - "Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible there may well be a thousand. If there is one falsehood in that Book it did not come from the God of truth" (Journal VI, 117) We can trust the Bible. It contains God's will for our lives. It is trustworthy and will lead you to salvation in Jesus Christ. If God did not create the world in six days, there is no reason to believe that He raised Christ in three. I would agree with my opponent that there are a great many misinterpretations of the text of the Bible, and that it is often abused, misunderstood and taken out of context. However, the nature of the Book itself is that it is God's Word, and God and His Word are one. No, the Bible is not God, but we cannot know God apart from it, and if it is unreliable, then so is the God who wrote it. I look forward to discussing the matter further in a friendly matter. I would add the following disclaimer: If I do not win the debate, it is not because my argument is not true. Rather it is due to my own personal failure to contend for the truth to the same ability as my opponent. Finally, my opponent's statement is thus: "The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is probably false. " This statement implies some doubt. .. that is "possibly true. " That being the case, I hope to show that it is indeed true.