The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

At issue in this debate is whether there are "factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts within the Bible" (Con's words)... And I think Con was initially rightly concerned with issues in the text that might rise to that level of consideration. Initially, the debate was framed such that we wouldn't be wasting time over a scribe misspelling someone's name or committing some other effective "typo" in a particular manuscript copy of the text. When we discuss the topic of inerrancy, factual integrity and consistency are really the only worthwhile aspects of interest.To this point, it now seems I'm being called to refute claims of questionable authorship and transcription errors. However, no examples of "factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts" resulting from either potential issue were presented by Con in the opening arguments. I certainly have no intention of comparing original Greek manuscripts in search of a potential transcription error so I can then attempt to correct or reconcile it by pointing to the majority text or some modern translation.While I hate to spend my time and space on issues that should not even be in scope--and though Con says I don't have to respond--I think Con altered the course of the debate and there is only one way to resolve that problem.Though I've already touched on this, I would like to emphasize that Con assigns extremely exaggerated significance to transcription errors/alterations found in the ancient texts by claiming that they constitute factual error. I think it is telling that no supposed factual error resulting from a transcription error/alteration was presented. I will use one of Con's own sources [1] with highlights posted here (in-line) in support of my refutation:-------------------------------------------"Old Testament: How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.""New Testament: There are tens of thousands of manuscripts from the New Testament, in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor. Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).""Conclusion: With all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% [2] of the text (compared to only 95% for the Iliad).""How could there be such accuracy over a period of 1,400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, theological liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence."-------------------------------------------I think a couple of things are worth repeating here: Con's own sources refute his claim that "New Testament transcriptions were about 95% accurate"... As mentioned in the sources, "New Testament manuscripts agree in 99.5% [2] of the text." Con's sources repeat point-for-point what I stated in my opening arguments... Repeated from the sources: "Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies." As for claims of pseudonymously authored epistles, it was not uncommon in that day for "secretaries" or fellow-workers to write or co-write a letter on behalf of their fellow-workers (especially between Peter and Jude or Paul and Luke, Paul and Barnabus [for a time], etc...) Many scholars who believe 2 Peter was pseudonymously authored, believe that it may have been co-written with Jude (and there is great internal evidence for this in the text itself). [3] Needless to say, none of the critical claims of liberal scholars questioning authorship amount to a significant consequence with respect to Biblical inerrancy. Moreover, the early church fathers were much closer to the issues of authenticity and it only follows that they would have known better than a modern scholar in this regard. In fact, 2 Peter was one of the most widly debated texts considered for canonization. The fact that it made the cut after such scrutiny and its doctrinal consistency with the whole of scripture attests to its authenticity. [4]Con is free to extend arguments or deal with this particular rebuttal... However, I fear that I will not have enough time or rounds to address Con's original opening arguments #2 and #3 if we continue down this path.I hope to have the opportunity to take some time this weekend to address arguments #2 and #3 starting in the next round if we can agree NOT to raise any new arguments and stick to your assertions of "factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts within the Bible".[1] http://www.godandscience.org...[2] Metzger, Bruce M. 2005. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford, Oxford University Press.[3] http://www.desiringgod.org...[4] https://bible.org...