The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is probably false.

INTRODUCTION: Thank you to InquireTruth for the kind welcome. This issue hits at the very core, the truth of the only accepted account of the Lord Jesus Christ we have: The Bible. Do we believe in the Jesus of a Bible that is a falsehood and filled with errors, or do we believe in the Jesus of the Scripture that was breathed by God and is trustworthy? I believe our stance on this issue is enormously important, and carries great risk along with it. Consider Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who on the surface proclaim the belief in the same Jesus as the orthodox Church. Yet they preach "another" Jesus, and "another" gospel. Thus if I am to err, I would rather err on the side of orthodoxy. To the First Point: InquireTruth has stated concerning the Bible that "a judge may not reside over his own trial." Thus, he admits that it is the Bible that is on trial here. This being the case, I submit that it is also true that every witness has a right to face his accuser, and deserves to be heard. Whether or not that witness proves the case, they should have the right to testify on their own behalf. With that said, I would ask the question, "What does the Bible say about itself?" Here are just a few brief points: 1. Man must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew4:4) 2. All scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) 3. The accounts of the flood were quoted by Christ and fulfilled historically in the destruction of Jerusalem. (Matthew 24) 4. Jesus' life and ministry is based on Moses and the prophets (Luke 24:27) 5. Men wrote the Scriptures as they were "borne along" by the Holy Ghost It rather perplexes me that InquireTruth contends it is more probable that a Jewish man was beaten to a pulp, hanged on a tree, and then came back from the dead, than that the Holy Bible is free from error... Again, James White states "Almost every one of the New Testament books addresses the need to speak the truth, and to avoid error."[1] Quite a hypocritical claim, if the Bible is full of it itself. As to the Second Point: I think the comment that InquireTruth made concerning Warfield/Hodge rather strengthens my position. Historically, the Church has always reevaluated, creedalized, systematized, and redefined its views for the very reasons of a debate such as this - to differentiate between orthodoxy and heresy. Thus, Warfield and Hodge were defining a belief already prevalent in the Church, as shown by my previous quotes. For example, even though the formal name and doctrine of the Trinity did not come about until the 4th Century, it came about precisely because the belief, although not fully developed, had been historically prevalent in the Church. We could also argue that the Early Church fathers were predominately Premillennial, even though the system was not yet fully developed, nor did it have a name. That didn't come until much later. What Warfield/Hodge did was to nail down in record a belief that the orthodox Church already held. As To the Third Point: InquireTruth has placed the Sargon narrative account at the commonly accepted date of 7 BC. This isn't really an issue considering the Church's commonly accepted date for the writing of Exodus by Moses was 1446 BC. Secondly, Brian Lewis, author of The Sargon Legend, suggests the story was written in the reign of Sargon II. He also adds that while there are a few similarities, the accounts are in some ways different. Lewis considers both accounts to be fiction, and concedes that they are both drawn from a motif which reflects an expression of social practice. As to the Creation account, 1) The Young Earth theory is a matter of interpretation. Not all Christians who take the Bible literally believe in a young earth. 2) It could easily be argued that Moses, as does Paul, uses truth wherever it is found. Paul on Mars Hill preached to pagans with many beliefs and many gods. Yet, he used their own pagan belief about their pagan gods to demonstrate that what they have said is indeed true. He says to them, "For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). Paul verifies truth wherever it is found, but credits it to the God of the Bible. In addition, IF events, such as the flood DID occur, it would be common sense that succeeding generations would have knowledge of it, and would pass it down. Considering the orthodox belief that all nations ultimately descend from Noah and his family, the recounting of the flood event would have been a certainty, and we should expect such an account to take on variations over time. Thus, the fact that so many cultures have a flood story is more to its credit than to its fault. As to the Last Point: Textual variants are well-known, as I stated before. Each person giving his own account of an event reflects a genuine, rather than a borrowed idea. The texts are: (Matthew) And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Mark) And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Luke) And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John) And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. If someone reported to me that a mutual friend had a hundred-thousand dollar income last year, I might well say "Are you telling me the truth?" When that person replied "Yes," that would be an inerrant reply, even though his income for reporting to the IRS was $100,537. The question is, does this variation change the meaning of the account one iota? No, of course not. 1. Video [http://www.youtube.com...]