Just curious. Have you read/studied Bart Erhman’s “MisQuoting Jesus”?

Nice post. I’ve given up on ‘inerrancy’ and gone for ‘infallibility’ for pretty much the same reasons.

I read this link from a more recent post of yours.

“The modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regards to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that—a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and is birthed from a faulty hermeneutic.”

I do wonder what the stats on that really are. There are just more believers than skeptics period. So all the believer demographics are likely to be larger than the corresponding skeptic demographics. Are there more Christians that accept your version of inerrancy than not? Not sure, but I imagine so. Not sure skeptics are doing themselves a favor by focusing on the KJV only-ish crowds.

I’m sure you would admit there are skeptics who think the Bible is faulty in probabilistic ways as well as just outright fabricated in places. Though most skeptics it seems that are interested in debunking Christianity will do so in superficial ways. That’s probably because doing otherwise would be too great a secondary investment. It’s hard to blame them though. There’s just too much material to sort through.

Ben

[...] Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. I call my view “reasoned” inerrancy which does not suppose a particular wooden hermeneutic to be tied to it. (You can read more about it here). [...]

Your scripture citations are a bit off. The first ref for the Demoniac encounter is listed in Luke 8:27ff (Compare with Mt8:28ff), and the second ref for the superscription on the cross is in John 19:19 (compare with Mk 15:26).

Rgds,
Toby