Creavolution writes:
...a line of reasoning...
The trouble with religion in this world is that there are many lines of reasoning... therefore, I would call it spaghetti line of reasoning.
Unlike science, where knowledge builds on past empirical data and arguments are supported or not, the religious community as a whole does not have or even want something similar to resolve differences. I guess that is because differences cannot be resolved (maybe that's why many radical Islamists feel that they need a sword). That means there are no clear-cut conclusions that rate one line of belief over another.
The web offers such an opportunity to debate and build a tree of knowledge about what the Bible (and Quran) means and who is right on specific topics. Is there a web site where Baptists, Catholics, etc. can argue and settle differences of interpretation? No? Then, what does that tell you about the "inerrant" basis? OK, I know, I know,... it's not meant to be crystal clear in some areas...keep studying all your life and maybe God made some things nebulous to get Christians to study until death.
Therefore,
A fundamentalist arrives at a conclusion that the Bible is inerrant.
Later after some studying, some "apparent discrepancies" are discovered. However, the commitment that there are no discrepancies (inerrant) does not mean there really is a discrepancy, it just means you have to find an explanation that is possible (not plausible).
For example: What were Jesus's last words?
"Why hast thou forsaken me?"
or
"It is finished"
I would like to hear if Faith's explanation is the same as what I have heard.