Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[vulcanlogician]

That's a theory but it isn't very credible considering all of the turmoil going on in the region at that time.  

So there's this guy Paul who's racking up frequent boat and donkey miles flittering around the towns in Asia Minor and the Western Med.  Every once in a while he would zip off a long scroll to his buddies in some far off town giving them a prop talk on his magic man.  In the meantime rebellions and wars are breaking out all over the place but Paul's letters survive all of the havoc and end up in a central library.  That's really turning water into wine.  

Sure, there was a very real Christian religious movement at that time but the idea that it was written down in detail is almost certainly false.  Like all of the other religions it was most certainly based on oral stories that varied among the regions. 

It was around 690 A.D. before all of the stories were actually written and compiled into an unified book, the first Bible and it was written in Latin by a committee based in England.

I think few doubt the historicity of Paul. I'm pretty sure scholars agree that Paul is the genuine author. Other books in the NT are considered to be written "in the name of" various apostles. Dishonest practice, but hey, it's religion.

[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.

[Drich]

[Jehanne]

The author of Luke erred; Quirinius was not the Roman govenor of Syria when Herod was alive. He was off fighting in a Roman war far away from Syria; another individual was the govenor; look it up.

[Drich]

The author of Luke erred; Quirinius was not the Roman govenor of Syria when Herod was alive.  He was off fighting in a Roman war far away from Syria; another individual was the govenor; look it up.

R-tard... I did not say he was alive. I simply asked when did the secular historean count the census. the day the census was issued or the day it was complete. Why? because as I understand it a census like that one could take years to start, record compile and complete.

Herod died in 6 BC quirinius took power in 4 bc. If Herod issued the proclamation for the census before his death and was not completed till the new legit took over, then who do you think gets the credit?

For the Jews it would be the man who started it.

For the gentiles it would be the man who saw it through.

Luke was a gentile as was most of rome back then.

[Jehanne]

[vulcanlogician]

[John V]

[Jehanne]

No, I'm referring to a majority vote among scholars. Even if you did conduct a survey of all scholars and found a majority position, that wouldn't make the position true.

Can you point to some scholars who defend Biblical inerrancy?

[Drich]