Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[John V]

You read the Bible with legal precision, but it wasn't written that way. When Paul wrote his epistles, his primary intent was to communicate with his various parishes concerning practical as well as spiritual matters. If he had known that his letters would some day be considered the "Word of God," he might have been more careful about what he said.

The entire Bible concerns practical as well as spiritual matters, so that's no basis to separate Paul's letters from other Scripture.

True. But even if you carefully read the gospels and accept that Peter was the rock or foundation of the church, that still doesn't get you to inerrancy to begin with. "Peter is the rock" doesn't inherently mean that "everything Peter writes is inerrant." That is a stretch... but it seems as though this sketchy conclusion begins the journey to accepting your doctrine.

Vague interpolations get you to accept the doctrine of inerrancy-- then, once you accept the doctrine, the selfsame nebulous verses that you used to arrive at inerrancy become themselves inerrant. The whole thing is dizzyingly circular. Without conceding any of your own beliefs, you can at least see where I'm coming from, right?

I disagree that the verses are vague or nebulous. I agree that it's circular. Since you mentioned the Timothy passage, I thought you were looking for Biblical references on the subject, which are necessarily circular. If you're just wondering why I accept it personally, it's a matter of faith. The Bible feels right to me. It speaks to my soul. When I follow its precepts life is good. When I lapse, it's not so good.

I see nothing wrong with deferring to the judgment of those who have made it their life's work to analyze a text.

First, I didn't say it was wrong. I said there was nothing to discuss. This is a discussion forum. When one person just links to a wikipedia article and won't discuss further, what's the point?

Second, while he can personally defer to anyone he likes, declaring the matter as definitively settled is wrong. Has he defined scholar? Has he defined definitively settled? Has he determined what the scholars all think on the subject? No. He just knows that it's definitively settled. Again, there's no point in talking to such a person. Fact is that some scholars think Luke was wrong. Some think Josephus was wrong. Some think both were right (which is where I'm at right now). But no, it's definitively settled that Luke's wrong because link. Whatever.

---

I doubt that alpha will agree with their assessment, but most scholars consider 1 & 2 Peter to be spurious. "Peter" the author most likely lived much later when Paul's epistles were heavily circulated amongst believers.

See above. You don't know what most scholars believe on the subject, as you haven't defined scholar and haven't surveyed them. Further, truth isn't determined by majority vote. When there's disagreement on an issue I take an interest in, I tend to read the different sides and come to my own conclusion, or sometimes remain agnostic.