Since many who debate the issues will only have passing acquaintance with the justification of the claim of inerrancy I will share some issues I believe are important in assessing this claim.  In this I would stress that although I have read much on the subject and in the past even given the occasional lecture on the topic in University continuing education courses, I make no personal claim to Biblical scholarship and what follows is a summary of the scholarship of other authorities. I cheerfully leave it to the reader to decide if these are fair points.   In this I would stress that for me the questioning of inerrancy does not equate to a rejection of the Bible itself - but rather affirms a shift to a position of holding great respect for the Bible for the way in which it uses a unique collection of history, poetry, folklore, literature and inspirational writing to document a slow, at times uncertain, but clear development of understanding about the nature of God as Love and the desirable relationships we should be developing with our neighbours.

The first point is that although the Bible is usually considered as a single book, the word Bible is derived from Ta Biblia - the library or collection of books.   Originally the Bible was a collection of scrolls, a good number of which emerging from many years of oral tradition before they were consigned to the written record. The decision about which "books" should be included was only arrived at after much debate by early church authorities and leaders over a period of many years.  The key decisions at the various Church councils were sometimes acrimonious and those defeated in the testy debates when their favourite points of theology were excluded were sometimes dismissed as heretics or simply stormed off with their own separate version of the final documents.   Thus if you look at the bibles of the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, those of the Protestant Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church you will see not only changes in emphasis but parts of or even whole books omitted or included.  Many Protestant bibles for example totally leave out the books of the Apocrapha. 

Article VI of the Thirty Nine Articles, makes the claim: 'In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. (italics added) The Thirty-Nine Articles are the historic defining statements of Anglican doctrine. The articles were established by a Convocation of the Church in1563, under the direction ofArchbishop Matthew Parker , using as a basis the Forty-Two Articles written under the direction of Thomas Cramner and passed at the time of  Edward VI in 1553. Adherence to them was made a legal requirement by the English parliament in 1571. They are recorded in the Book of Common Prayer and other Anglican prayer books. While the articles no doubt reflect the faith position of countless followers of a number of major branches of the Christian church, historically for Article VI it is plainly untrue that there was never any doubt.  Not only was there much doubt and dispute from time to time, whole branches of the Church remain divided about the canon or authoritative list of which books were to be included and which rejected.  

Historically even with the less problematic New Testament books, some of the briefer Epistles (e.g. 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James, Jude) along with the Revelation were much longer in being accepted in some parts than in others; while elsewhere books which we do not now include in the New Testament were received as canonical in the first of the Church lists. Thus in the Codex Alexandrinus we find the writings known as the First and Second Epistles of Clement alongside the more recognised biblical writings.  Another early standard collection, the Codex Sinaiticus included the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the Shepherd of Hermas, a Roman work of about AD 110 or earlier.

 One of the more interesting relatively recent finds discovered in Egypt in 1945 was a collection of early Christian documents on ancient scrolls which we now call the Nag Hammadi texts.  Among the gospels discovered were a number such as the Gospel of Thomas. What scholars like Elaine Pagels now tell us is that there were a surprising number of different texts circulating in the early Christian period. Historically the scholars now accept that from being a the founding documents of  a simple, unified theological community, the sacred writings were the source of much debate as  Christians tried to agree amongst a complex interplay of competing scrolls and competing interpretations. That ancient Egyptian collection held fifty-seven different scrolls - attributed not only to Thomas, but dozens of others, including Phillip, John, and Mary Magdalene. It also included a message from Athanasius, the archbishop of Alexandria, which authorized a list of 27 texts and ordered the destruction of all the others.

 Yes, most Christians are now taught there were just four gospel writers - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.  But few modern Christians are aware that this is a consequence of much debate about the status of competing writings, and which were only eventually resolved by proclaiming four as the legitimate number.   And why?  It was because four pillars supported the heavens and four winds blew across the earth. Thus for example we find  Irenaeus,  bishop of Lyons in Gaul about AD 180 writing: (quoted in FF Bruce Ch 3)

For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the Church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit.

These days we might be sceptical about that rationale, and might wonder about the twenty three other candidates in the Nag Hammadi collection for what subsequently became the books of the New Testament that did not make the cut!  For example from the traditions surrounding Thomas and the historical tradition that he went on as an inspirational missionary to found the Church of South India, his gospel might be considered to have a real potential claim.   A further point of interest is that a number of modern scholars claim that his gospel was early - perhaps even earlier than that of Mark, and it contains interesting sayings and parables not found in the other gospel.  Yet the fact that Thomas is only talked about in the gospel of John and then only negatively would lead us to believe that Thomas had no real merit in the eyes of those whose gospels did make the final cut.   Thomas was the doubter, the one who needed to be convinced by touching the wounds of Jesus after the resurrection and the one who didn't accept that other disciples had seen Jesus.    He was missing at Pentecost and hence missed out on the gifts of the Spirit.  According to Pagels it seems probable that the bad press he had attracted may be related to an aspect of one of his heretical views, namely his interpretation that Jesus had the essence of a divine light which was at the centre of his creativity.  The reason why this was unacceptable to some in the early Church and at odds with the other gospel writers was because he also taught that we too had some of this light which we should recognise and foster.    This was clearly different from John who focussed on the uniqueness of Jesus as the only Son of God.

      The disputes continued for many years and thus we find Luther who tossed out Baruch for his preferred Bible also tried (unsuccessfully) to excise James calling his letter "the gospel of Straw".

 Although it is relatively easy to read the books of the bible secure in the knowledge you are reading the inspired word of God and hold to the assumption that therefore every word is entirely reliable, comparing passages about identical events and assessing what was written then against what we now believe to be true causes us to pause to wonder. In the Old Testament there are a number of stories which are strikingly similar to the stories of other peoples in the area.  Thus we have Moses being found in the bulrushes by the Pharoh's daughter which only becomes problematic when we remember that Sargon was also found in the bulrushes - noting this was recorded before the Moses story by several hundred years. The story of Moses and the bulrushes also has its prototype in ancient Mesopotamian literature. Preserved in Babylonian tablets the ancestry of Sargon, king of Akkad (2340 to 2284B.C.) is quoted thus:

"Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkade, am I. My mother was an en-priestess(?), my father I never knew. .....She conceived me, my en-priestess mother, in concealment she gave me birth. Set me in a wicker basket.... She cast me down into the river ... The river bore me... Aqqi the water drawer did raise me as his adopted son."

 A coincidence, or is this tale of Moses a borrowed story to show that Israel's leaders are every bit as good as those venerated by other tribes?  Then we have a flood which covered the whole world although modern geologists assure us that there is no geological evidence for that. While horizon to horizon floods have not been uncommon surely it makes more sense to see the Noah story in allegorical form than to insist on a story which hardly makes sense given what we now know about the size of the Earth and the millions upon millions of species that could not have been physically stored on such a small ark if the story were literally true.  

 If we insist on the veracity of every word we appear to have a new set of problems.  If the quaint laws of Leviticus have to be elevated to legitimate inspired words for all time then we are required to stone people for such crimes as having their temples shaved.   I had to apologise to one such literalist who had berated me for not being a bible literalist after my Sunday sermon because as I pointed out my diary was pretty full and I simply didn't have time to have him stoned for wearing mixed fibres (a woollen / synthetic fibre suit and cotton socks) or for his disobedient haircut until at least Tuesday week. 

 It's is not just the glimpses in the older parts of the Bible of a God who starts out small time and can be carried around in a litter, but there is also the more worrying question as to whether we can worship,  or even want to worship, a God who is petty and vindictive and one who for example insists that Joshua slaughters all the men, women, children and even animals after bringing down the walls of Jericho with the blast of a trumpet.  Unless there is a gradual awakening of understanding by the authors of the Bible though the ages, we would be puzzled how this tribal, and at times mean God, somehow metamorphoses into a God of Love.   Look at the following

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

In Psalm 137:7-9 we find the suggestion that God thinks that it is appropriate that the children of the Edomites have their heads dashed against rocks for what the Edomites did to the Jews.  This raises the question of whether or not this same God is really the God of the Edomites as well as the Jews or if tribalism is somehow getting in the way of the understanding.

And then the contrast: "The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)

"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)

"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)

"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

There is the question as to if Moses, claimed by many literalists to be the sole author of the first five books of the Bible, might really have been so inspired when his recorded actions show him to have great disregard for the laws he recorded. While Moses is credited with finding the ten commandments of which three, in part mutually exclusive, versions exist in the Bible (Exodus 20, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5), not only are there strong similarities with parts of the Code of Hammurabi there is no indication that Moses himself lived by these commandments.  "So they warred against Midian as the Lord commanded Moses and they slew every male". (Num 31:7) Thou shalt not kill? In fact Moses was angry that they had let the women and children off even although the Israelites had stolen the cattle, flocks and goods (Num. 31:7) he ordered that the male children be killed.  He made an exception of the virgin women whom he directed his men to keep ("for yourselves").  Presumably here was a case for overlooking ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery'. When he told the Pharoh that the Israelites were just going into the Wilderness and would be back in a few days, the truth was not in him. Thou shalt not bear false witness?  When the Israelites fashioned their golden calf they did so with gold stolen from the Egyptians.  Thou shalt not steal?

The contradictions in the Bible extend beyond hypocritical actions of God's chosen leaders to contradictions in fact.   Let us take a few of better known problems.

David numbers the people and buys the land for the temple in two different records.  The two accounts differ in more than merely the numbers and price and the readers are invited to compare the two passages for themselves.  But since David is directed to do the census in one passage by God and the other by Satan we can hardly claim this is a minor problem.

II Samuel 24: "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."

I Chronicles 21: "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

 The numbers of the different groups counted and the amounts he pays for the land differs markedly in the two accounts and the reader is invited to turn to the two passages and compare them carefully.

Christian fundamentalists often insist that the Bible is infallible in its various prophesies. However, in the book of Ezekiel, specifically Ezekiel 26:1-14, we find a prophecy (the conquering of the city of Tyre) that, according to Ezekiel 29:18-20, seems to have turned out a little differently to the way the prophet had predicted. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar did in fact conquer the city of Tyre as prophesied, but the spoils of the battle apparently were not as extravagant as Ezekiel predicted they would be, and the city has been rebuilt (modern day Sur, Lebanon) contrary to prophetic claims it would never stand again.

Another discrepancy found in the actual recorded words of the Bible is found in Mark 2:26 when Jesus asks the Pharisees if they remembered how David "went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering." According to 1 Samuel 21, however, the high priest was Abiathar's father, Ahimelech. Surely the only fair interpretation of these differences in detail between these two books of the Bible  is that there seems to be some error.

Even in matters like the two accounts of Jesus' birth and death there are contradictions. Whereas Matthew has the details of the birth revealed to Joseph in a dream, Luke has an Annunciation made to Mary by an angel.

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can the two lists be simultaneously  true? And in any case how can Jesus have a genealogy when a good proportion of Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no human father.

According to Luke on the eighth day of Jesus' life he was circumcised, on the fortieth day of his life he was presented to the temple in Jerusalem (both in accordance with the law) and having accomplished these Jewish family requirements they went back to their own city of Nazareth in Galilee. (Luke 2.39).  Unfortunately despite the assurances of the televangelists and the other proponents of biblical inerrancy  - at the time of these events according to Matthew Mary and Joseph had fled for their lives into Egypt to avoid the vengeful Herod's slaughter of the innocents and that is where they remained until Herod had died and where they remained before returning to their family home in Bethlehem (not Nazareth)  only transferring to Nazareth when they felt it was too dangerous to remain in Bethlehem.  Certainly at the very least Luke and Matthew cannot be absolutely correct in their accounts and therefore literal inerrancy cannot apply to every verse of the Bible.

Nor are things any better for the accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection.Justice Haim Cohn, a prominent contemporary Jewish scholar draws our attention to some obvious problems in accepting the veracity of the account of Jesus' evening trial in the house of the High Priest.   First according to Jewish law and custom, the Sanhedrin were not allowed to exercise jurisdiction in the High Priest's house or for that matter anywhere outside the Courthouse and Temple precinct.  No session of the criminal court was permissible after nightfall.  Passover or Pesach would not have provided the setting since no criminal trial was permissible on a feast day or the eve of a feast day.  In view of the formalistic and rigorous attitude to the law for which the Pharisees were well known a conviction must be proceeded by two truthful and reliable witnesses and in fact the charge of blasphemy was inapplicable since it was closely defined as pronouncing the ineffable name of God, the tetragammaton which under Jewish law might only be pronounced once a year on the Day of Atonenment - and then only by the High Priest in the Kodesh Kodashim, the innermost sanctuary of the Temple.

Jesus' last words

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

And for that matter who did his followers actually see at the sepulchre?

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain

Matthew records Jesus saying: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth."(Matthew 12: 40)   The creed accepts this unquestioningly with the phrase ‘on the third day' but hold on.......   This does not tie with the details in Matthew.  Surely he was buried after his death which occurred on the 9th hour (about 3pm on Friday).(Matt 27:45-46.)  He had escaped the tomb before dawn on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1).  By any reckoning this is closer to one day and two nights (36 hours) and not 72 hours or the predicted 3 days and three nights).

Judas died how?"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

or was it:....

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?ACTS 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me

Then there are the problems which surface when we use what science has discovered to test the biblical accounts.  Is there literal truth intended when in the psalms we read of the four corners of the Earth and the pillars on which the world (and the heavens) are supported. When we read in two places both Job and Jesus were separately taken to high places from whence they could see the whole world surely we now know that the other side of the world would not be visible unless the world were flat. When we read of Jesus stating that no-one knows from whence the winds come and whence they go that was probably true for his day but in this day of satellite assisted meteorology we might question if these are omniscient eternal truths.   Similarly a world in which God's punishment can come in the form of disease caused by evil spirits may well have been the only way of understanding disease in a prescientific age but there seems rather better understanding today in the form of microbiology with its insights about viruses, bacteria and genetics.  If the stars were conveniently small and close as was the picture for the contemporary Jews of the first century AD a wandering star stopping on top of the place of Jesus birth may well have seemed plausible - but when stars, at light year distances, appear to be directly over different places many miles distant we might wonder if prescientific understandings might need re-evaluation.

 To return to the point I made at the outset.   It is true there are so many examples of errors and oddities in the Bible there is reason to move away from a stand that every word is somehow inerrant.  However the total collection contains so much of value in the way it records a growing understanding of desirable values that it deserves our admiration.  Yes there may be contradictions, but the incomparable stories and teachings of Jesus about such essentials as loving ones neighbour, even if like the Samaritan the neighbours have inconvenient beliefs, still stand as unrealised ideals for today. Similarly we can hardly learn the path trodden by our forebears without knowing the flawed but fascinating accounts of the struggles of the early Jewish leaders and first Christians and for that matter, the sheer humanity of the great leaders of the past. Surely these are all essential parts of our history and little can be understood of Christianity without placing the Bible at the centre of our study and worship.