More on Bible "inerrancy"

[_Z]

And to Fortigurn:

I have heard plenty of Christians claim that the Bible hasn't had a single translation or copy error throughout its existence. I am not exaggerating when I say that I've heard at least 500 different people make that claim. Try being a missionary in Missouri for a couple years. They often used the frustratingly circular logic of , "Well if its the word of God why would he let it be altered? He's all powerful and has the ability to preserve it so why would he let errors creep in?"

And so yes, several of the author's points blow the strict literalist argument to peices, but I still don't think it extends as far as he'd like it to. Besides, there's no arguing with literalists. The few times I tried to point out parts of the Bible that contained directly contradictory facts (such as the two conflicting accounts of Paul's vision) they turned stone faced and sicked their dogs on me. Seriously.

[_Some Schmo]

I would, as well, question the accuracy of the dates that he provided (which is why I characterized some of his facts as "questionable") but not because I have dates in mind that conflict them. I question them strictly because they were so long ago, the documents that are used to date them are likely flawed as the documents being dated, and because so many differing groups have a personal stake in what those dates are.

The fact is that Christianity in general has had a very long time to get its historical story straight, and nobody really knows anything for sure.

I tend to believe, however, the Jesus was just as mythical as the rest of the Bible, likely constructed from other similar myths, and Bible inerrancy is also just as mythical as the book itself. Anyone who thinks otherwise is thinking with their gut, not their head. Not a lot of brain power in the gut, I've noticed.