Does the Bible have to be 100% error free for the good news of Christ to be spread?
Can't something be inspired without being inerrant?
I think I remember Jesus saying that he was the word, not nessasarily the books written about him. Why don't christians believe that the gospels were the best honest account of those who wrote them rather than "the inerrant word of God"?
Isn't the important thing that we believe that Jesus was Christ and the way to God? Arguably if the bible weren't error free, but just the best account of those who witnessed and were inspired by God to write about it, then the whole thing would be left up to interpretation. Each person would have to take what they believed to be true from the bible and leave what they felt was error. This would undermine some of the authority of the church as far as organized religion is concerned, but so what? It seems to me that Jesus didn't care too much for organized religion because of it's corruption (Mark 12:38-40), (Mark 12:12-14), (Mark 12:15-17), (Luke 19:45-48) , etc. He also hinted toward taking the scripture so litterally that you lose sight of what is important (Matthew 12:1-8) , (Matthew 15:10-20), (Luke 11:37-54),(Luke 20:45-47), etc.
So the only reason that I can see for "The Church" to perpetuate the belief that the bible is completely error free is for it's own political stability. But I ask again, why do true Christians find it so inconcievable that the new testament was a good historical account of the teachings of Jesus, inspired by God but written by men?
