Inerrant Bible?

Philip writes:

---

I believe the Bible is inerrant, if only due to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ for a sin-cursed creation.

---

The Bible is the only source of information about Christ's death, burial and resurrection. A source cannot confirm itself.--Percy

Philip writes:

---

1) There are innumerable other sources of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in religions and in nature (already discussed under ID necessarily the Christian one).

---

Other sources derive their information from the NT, which are problematic. What you are left with is the testimony of believers rather than objective observers. If we are to give full credibility to Christian witnesses then we must do the same for witnesses of other religions, and you can't all be right.

---

2) I’m not sure what semantics are meant here. A source cannot always speak, true. But sources per se seem to confirm themselves, often scientifically. A rock ‘presents’ as a rock, etc. Philip as Philip, etc.

---

By "source" I only meant written sources. Your examples of "rock" and "Philip" seem more like evidence to me in the sense that you use them. I don't think the terminology I use is unique or unusual, but if it helps, I probably usually use the term source to refer to a written record/discussion/presentation of evidence and information.--Percy

Well, that was Brad-like. I think you just responded to what I hope was a reasoned argument with a sermon. Do you have any responses to anything I said?--Percy

Sorry, Philip, if this is a response to anything I said it just doesn't ring any bells. I said that if we are to give full credibility to the testimony of Christian witnesses then we must grant the same privilege to witnesses of other reilgions. If you're addressing this point I just can't see it.--Percy