Summations Only

I don't see what "surrendering to the will of God" has to do with the topic. God could have dictated the Bible, word for word, in King James English, and the scribes could have written it down faithfully regardless of any ulterior motives or intentions. We have reporters today who faithfully report the news even if they don't believe a word of what the protagonists are saying.The problem with inerrancy is that the content doesn't match reality. Therefore, either the source didn't know what he was talking about or he was reported inaccurately. The reasons why he may have been reported inaccurately are not really relevant.

So give us references where He quoted from Nahum, Obadiah, or Esther. Or Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, or Haggai.(I got these examples from a Catholic website, by the way, so here's yor chance to prove them wrong.)

Just FYI, I don't think anybody's attitudes here are provoked by your posts. Our attitudes are mostly the product of long experience with attitudes like yours.Of course, we don't often experience somebody who writes as well as you do while thinking as poorly as you do.

Different orthodoxies have different major doctrines.

Then what did Luke investigate?

If "false gods" are made up, as many theists claim, did the "real" God inspire men to make them up?

Since we're talking about Bible inerrancy, the idea of "deifying" ourselves doesn't make much sense. Recognizing that the Bible is full of errors admits the frailty of the authors.

The issue is not whether or not there are errors. The point is that if we think there are errors and men are the authors, then we're not exactly "deifying" men, are we?

Sounds a bit like deifying oneself.

It may indicate that you sincerely believe in your religion; it does not in any way indicate that there's any truth to it.

That's exactly the point: how absolutely positively sure you are has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. You can be absolutely, positively sure of a lie. That's why every religion has its martyrs.

I know your point is the opposite. Your point is wrong.If belief was evidence of truth there, why are there so many people dying for so many different "truths"?

That's what I said. If you're going to quibble about "some" or "many", I'll concede - for the purpose of discussion - that a majority of people who die for their beliefs are Christians.But that doesn't address my point: As long as there is anybody else who is willing to die for his beliefs, the willingness to die for a belief is NOT a reliable indicator of the "truth" of those beliefs. It may give you a statistically satisfying conclusion but not an infallible one.

Don't forget that a lot of Christians have recanted too.

Limitations and imperfection are realistic - versus a noble agape sort of love, which is not. If there was a god, I personally think we could know more about him by looking at a duck than by reading the Bible.