Why do we have to be paranoid about making sure there aren't any mistakes and so on in the Bible?

You see, I do expect human beings to make mistakes. I don't expect God to make mistakes.

When we consider the question of biblical authority, some people say, why do we get so exercised about it?

Isn't this whole debate about Scripture just a tempest in a teapot?

So basically, why do I think it's different as it makes?

Whether it's impeccable, in all that it teaches, it's a matter of faith.

We don't have to have absolute certainty.

Well, you know, I have to admit to this much that there should be no reason why we have to have

an infallible historical source for a reasonable knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth.

I can conceive theoretically that God could have worked out the drama of the person and life of Jesus

to the cross, the resurrection, everything, and have a bunch of fallible people writing their accounts of it

and making minor errors and discrepancies and contradictions here and there

and testing our faith at that point to see whether or not this is credible.

We don't demand infallibility from Herodotus or Pasadotus or Thucydides or Xenophon or Josephus

and they deliver far less than infallibility. We know that. Nevertheless, we give them great credence.

So why couldn't that be the same with Scripture?

Why do we have to be paranoid about making sure there aren't any mistakes and so on in the Bible?

And I can understand except for one cardinal point.

And that is the claims that Scripture makes for itself.

Now somebody walked up to me and said, look, I'm not exactly sure what I saw last week.

In fact, I have to doubt my own eyes because I've never had an experience like this before but for what it's worth,

my testimony that I would give in a courtroom.

...