Bible inerrancy is well supported

Since the first article you quote esentially argues that the Bible must be assumed to be inerrant - therefore begging the question it is hard to see how it can possibly indicate that inerrancy is "well supported".Indeed it is impossible for inerrancy to be truly "well supported" since we lack confirming evidence (and necessarily so) for many events. For others such as the literal reading of Noah's Flood insisted on by many inerrantists or Joshuah's invasion of Canaan the available evidence is against the Biblical accounts. SO it is impossible in principle and false to fact to say that inerrancy is "well supported".Indeed most defences of inerrancy rely on assuming inerrancy as the default. For instance there is no adequate defence for the discrepencies in the Nativity story- instead we have implausible scenarios invented in an attempt to reconcile the two different accounts. The evidence is clear - to point out just one of the problems, Luke's account of the circumstances of Jesus' birth is a good match for the tax census of 6 AD, there is no evidence for any earlier event which even fits as well - but Matthews account has Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great which ended 10 years earlier.

The stuff I mentioned is all pretty well known. Much of it has been discussed here quite thoroughly. If you want to start a discussion on any one of them then please go ahead. If you choose the Nativity accounts I suggest that you carefully read them side by side and note the details. You might like to consider for instance, where Matthews story, from the arrival of the Wise Men to the return from Egypt fits into Luke's account.[added in edit]
I should also add that if you don't know of these problems then you are not really in a position to state that Bible inerrancy is well supported. As I said they are all well known and anyone making a pronouncement on the state of the evidence for or against Biblical inerrancy shoudl be aware of them.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-16-2004]

I've already looked at pages on some of the sites you recommend, and I find them to be full of excuses, wishful thinking and often errors.If you really want to look for the truth then relying on the most extreme elements of one side of an argument is not the best policy.

I don't see why you would think that. All I did was report my own observations on those I had looked out and point out that taking a balanced view of the evidence requires one to look at a variety of sources with a variety of opinions. You will admit, I hope, that Biblical inerrency itself is an extremist view among Christians.

I am afraid that your choice of sites belies your claim that you prefer to look at logic and facts. Why refer to sites which are often weak on either but instead exist to support a particular viewpoint ?And why describe a "balanced viewpoint" as just taking the middle ground without regard to the evidence ? Why use such a strawman ?As I state inerrancy itself IS an extreme view. Since there are many issues on which the accuracy of the Bible cannot be known inerrancy must be a presupposition rather than a reliable conclusion. It follows then that any site committed to inerrancy is already biased - and therefore if there is any question of the reliability of the Bible in a particular issue it is necessary to examine all sides of the problem.You could say for instance that since an apologetic site reports that a papyrus document describing the procedures for a Roman census in Egypt explains why Joseph would have to leave his home at Nazareth to register at Bethlehem that that is a fact. However if further investigation shows that the relevant passage states that it is those that are working AWAY from home who must travel TO their home to register then we see that neither facts not logic support the apologists claim.

Well I don't intend to challenge Turkel ("Holding"'s real name) to a debate, since a) I have no need to debate it at all and b) Turkel is known for his use of abuse and rhetoric. And for doing it behind the backs of those he chooses to attack.More importantly your claim that I was using a "genetic error" is false as I have already pointed out. To be making a genetic error I would have to assume that the pages were in error based on their authorship - but I did not. In fact I stated only that I had OBSERVED errors in pages such as these and that other sources should also be consulted. To not do so shows not commitment to critical thinking - quite the opposite. Why not consult secular sites dealing with history on matters of history ?
Indeed the assumption that inerrantist sites are reliable because they are inerrantist would be a genuine genetic error. But this is very close to the view that Ken is promoting.