The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is probably false.

Rebuttals and Remarks: -"Martin Luther was well known for his distaste of the Epistle of James, calling it an "epistle of straw." He put it in the appendixes of his translations and treated it with deuterocanonical authority if he treated it with any at all - this is hardly the practice of an inerrantist"- To address fully the attitude of Martin Luther's attitude toward the inerrancy of Scripture is beyond the scope of this debate. However, I would like to make some comments about it since it has been addressed several times. To quote from Montgomery: "It is surely of more than routine significance that belief in the unqualified accuracy of Holy Writ conditioned the thinking of nearly all influential western minds from the beginning of the Christian era to the rise of modern secularism in the 18th century. Conceivably - though the notion hardly accords with the arrogance of modernity - Augustine, Aquinas, Michelangelo, Luther. Calvin, Pascal, Bach, Kepler, Wesley, and a host of others too numerous to mention may have had better reason to hold to Scriptural authority than 20th century man has to reject it." [1] Addressing the claim that Martin Luther did not consider the Bible inerrant, he states: "What can be said in critique of this interpretation of Luther's bibliology? Much, but one point is all that is needed: the view is simply not Luther's." [1] If one looks at Luther's life, ministry and writings as a whole, it would be virtually impossible to come away with the belief that he held anything but the utmost reverence for the Bible. He literally placed his life in the fact that Its words were true. Besides the partial quote of Luther's own words in round one, here are a few more comments he made himself about the Holy Bible: "…and you must boldly take your stand on His words, which no devil, hell, or death can suppress. Therefore no matter what happens, you should say: There is God's Word. This is my rock and anchor. On it I rely, and it remains. Where it remains, I, too, remain; where it goes, I, too, go. The Word must stand, for God cannot lie; and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or tittle of His Word remains unfulfilled." [2] "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites." [3] "Mr. Wiseacre is a shameful, disgusting fellow. He plays the master if he can discover that [in our Bible translation] we have perchance missed a word. But who would be so presumptuous as to maintain that he has not erred in any word, as though he were Christ and the Holy Spirit?" [4] "Who can think this through to his satisfaction? A man [Jonah] lives three days and three nights in solitude, without light, without food. in the midst of the sea, in a fish, and then comes back. I dare say that is what you would call a strange voyage. Indeed, who would believe it and not consider it a lie and a fable if it did not stand recorded in Scripture?" [5] And there are more, reflecting not only Luther's belief in the inerrancy of the Word of God, but also that it was authored by God Himself. Luther's distaste for James and three other New Testament books is unfortunate. However, any doubts that Luther had as to whether or not these books were inerrant were solely based on his concern about whether or not they properly belonged in the Canon. Thus, as far as Luther believed the books to belong in the Canon, he believed them to be God's very Word. As Wood declares, "Luther's doctrine of inspiration is inseparably linked with that of inerrancy." [6] -"Not quite. Martin Luther was well known for his distaste of the Epistle of James, calling it an "epistle of straw."- That is true early on in his ministry, but statements like this must also be qualified with other statements he made. He also said about the book of James, "I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates God's law." In subsequent editions of his Bible which he supervised, many of these negative comments were removed, and some even replaced with commendations. Nevertheless, Luther is only one man within the chorus of the Church. -" It is absolutely anachronistic because there was no formulated understanding of what that even was until the 19th century."- I already refuted this reasoning in Round 2. Notice that Augustine said in his letter to Jerome, ""I confess to your charity that I have learned to defer this respect and honor to those Scriptural books only which are now called canonical, that I believe most firmly that no one of those authors has erred in any respect in writing." [7] This was Luther's attitude as well. By the way, ironically, he quotes and paraphrases from Augustine and even uses the terminology: "St. Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome, has put down a fine axiom - that only Holy Scripture is to be considered inerrant." [8] – Thus, again, as far as Luther was convinced the books belonged in the canon, they were inerrant. -"This was a little disingenuous. While I did in fact place the Sargon narrative account at the commonly accepted date of 7 BC, HisLife did not place the authorship of Exodus at its commonly accepted date."- Commonly accepted by whom? I said that this was the Church's commonly accepted date of Exodus, and is reflected in almost every Bible commentary that I have read. -"The book of Exodus is most likely a compilation of multiple sources from multiple authors writen during the Exilic periods in the 6th and 5th century BC."- Well now that is a matter of opinion. The very same source you used for this states that "According to tradition, Exodus and the other four books of the Torah were written by Moses." [9], which vilifies why I said that this was the Church's accepted date of authorship, because this is the Church's accepted author…However, I concede that I should have used the word "historically." -"The Documentary Hypothesis is a longstanding view of the authorship of the Torah held by most Old Testament scholars."- Again, using the term "most Old Testament scholars" is misleading. Perhaps "most modern Old Testament scholars" would be a bit more accurate. I think historically, not only does the Church back up my claim, but the Bible does as well. "Some say it is "obvious" that Moses did not write the account of his own death and burial. Who did write it then? Only God and Moses were present at his burial. It is just as likely that Moses predicted that "no one knows his grave to this day" (Deut. 34:6) as it was for Joseph to prophesy what would happen to his bones hundreds of years after his death (Gen. 50:25). Even if Joshua or a later scribe wrote this passage, he was still prophesying things that only the Spirit could reveal." [10] And as Norman Geisler asserts, "Furthermore, "the critical theory of a small Mosaic "core" of writings, supplemented over the centuries by various redactors, is specifically refuted by Pentateuchal laws forbidding just such additions (Deut. 4:2; 12:32)." [11] -"While they all pretty much report similar accounts, not one of them can be said to represent an ACTUAL account of what was ACTUALLY said above Jesus' head."- Referring to the sign above Jesus' head: 1.John 19:20 points out that the signs were written in 3 languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin). So differences could have come from the way the different languages phrased it. 2.Four men were asked to view a "STOP" sign. When asked later what it was the sign ACTUALLY said they replied as follows: The First said, The sign said "S" The Second said, The sign said "T" The Third said, The sign said "O" The Fourth said, The sign said "P" Which of these men lied? Which of the men gave a contradictory account? They are complimentary, not contradictory.