Still not answered
A lot of good checking has gone into your post Pararousia; hats off for that !! I can always appreciate such good groundwork. Nice job there !!
I'd like to point out that I have heard all these arguments before, and have dealt with them thoroughly; the authors (who by the way, are scholarly religionists, and one [Young, quoted by the original author] a religious scholar)
touched on some correct
and incorrect conclusions. They argue from the top down; eg they are making an effort to protect an idea which came first--that the Bible cannot err. Their escape route for the many things which they wish not to deal with is found in the statement, "The solution for some problems must be held in abeyance."
A quick run-through
P (paragraph) 1: Inerrancy means that the Bible tells the truth.
This would absolutely have to include historical truth ! Inerrancy would include free quotations.
This is misleading. All quotations expressly or contextually claiming to be true historical events cannot be historically inaccurate and yet be inerrant. That is why I chose that sign example from amoung many, because it was said to have been written in Greek too, and all the writers had to do was to write down that Greek sentence. But of course, since they were only human, dealing with humans (it was all only an oral tradition at first), they forgot just how it was worded, if there had actually been any sign at all. It is a fact that every claim can not be historical truth. It is a fact that basically all Christians would avow that "God" has all knowledge and of course would have known what had been written on that said sign--so,...why didn't he let the writers know what had been written? Obviously "God" didn't, so the humans just made some mistakes--errancy.
P2: different style of writing. No problem whatsoever; why bother to mention that at all? (I'm talking about those commentators who try to defend the idea of inerrancy) Is it to give mass to their arguments? Or just for those who would have never considered the reality of different people have different writing styles?
P3: Translating from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek.
No real problem here either. As I've said before, room for translation margin must always be allowed when considering these points. It must also be pointed out that Aramaic is not that far from the Hebrew that the HS were mostly written in, and the syntax of both are not that far from that of Greek. Again, it was for this reason that I had chosen the sign board thing--it was supposed to have been written in Greek, so the margin for translation is nil.
The writers may have viewed the events from different standpoints.
I have seen this so many times, as is, without any attempt to explain in detail just what that would mean, that it makes me seriously question the proposer's scholarship. The ONLY NT narrative which has any possible direct degree of 'eye witness'-ablility is that of John--but even that most likely had other hands in it. The basic story had been passed around orally for at least some nine years before any writing extant or deduce had ever been written. The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were by NO MEANS eyewitnesses of the events in Jesus life. (although some argue that Mark may have been, there is no real evidence for that at all, and early church father's accounts dispute that idea.
HOWEVER, the GREATEST problem here is in this independent witness thing. Giving each writing (Mt., Mk., Lu., Jn.) to be a 'witness', those who argue as the source material you had checked did, ALWAYS have to appeal to independent witness--as they did there. If we acquiesce to that proposal, then we are agreeing that the witness was only human, not the work of some 'all-knowing, all-present and loving mind'. For if the later had been the case, in all knowable reality, there would only be ONE witness, not four !! I mean, why would "God" allow the people in the first century who only had the narrative of Luke, for example, to believe one event happened in a certain way, while those who only had Matthew, to believe that very same event had happened in a very different way? If we argue that it doesn't matter what the historical truth is, and so some of them being historically incorrect is o.k., we are STILL admitting to errancy.
P4: The grammer idea of Greek to English is o.k., but don't get mixed up in thinking that the grammer thing from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek is a big problem.
One source made a misleading statement there about John 14:26. In English we don't have feminine or masculine nouns, so the object pronoun need not be 'he' any more than it be 'she' for feminine nouns--of course it is one way of translating, but it is not definite, that's all, it could just as correctly be translated 'it'.
P6 & 7: Some must be ignored!!?
This is the scapegoat. The actual historical impossibilites--and there are plenty--must not be looked at or considered? If one wishes to show that the Bible is inerrant as a whole, there can be absolutely no inerrancies in at all. If there are even ten clear errors, then the whole is no longer free from error, and it cannot be claimed that the Bible, as a whole, is inerrant.
An example is given.
This example is NOT a problem of error. There are some more which those who argue such, produce which for those who have not looked into it so deeply, percieve to be errors--until they are explained as here. I am being honest when I say that I am fully aware of such, and yet know that there are many in the 'must-be-held-in-abeyance' area that no one ever touches. (and the few attempts I have seen do so in an illogical and misleading way.
Some good homework has been undertaken, that is a good sign !! And speaking of sign, you see, please don't forget or overlook:
1. The sign was supposed to have had a Greek sentence written on it, right?
2. Assuming
that much to be historical fact--like it would have been if you had written down that sentence I had asked you to--we have the conclusion that the Greek sentence was a historical event. (and as such, cannot be changed...just like the sentences I am writing to you, they are a historical truths)
3. If each narrative writer or participant had known for a fact just what had been written on that sign, they would have all agreed to the exact wording and word order without any mistake whatsoever--just like looking at a video tape of the event which clearly showed that sentence whereby their claims could be verified as being historically correct. (no misquotes wanted here in such a serious matter, right?)
4. If any superenatural, all-knowing mind which had known just what the sentence had been had caused each writer to write just what the sentence had been, then all the writers would have written the same and very sentence. Isn't that logical?
5. Regardless of similarities, no writer agrees with any others on just what exact Greek sentence had been written on that board, so we have to conclude that they didn't know, and had not been told. Can you not see the reality of this line of thought? We are talking about a supposed event in the course of history, the writing of a Greek sentence on a piece of wood, which we are holding to be true to that extent for the time being--that is, that a Greek sentence had actually been written there--and that if any two or more people actually, really know that exact sentence, they will reproduce it exactly the same.
Now, as a proponent for biblical inerrency, would you say that "God" didn't know what had happened in history? Would you say that it doesn't matter to "God" if the human writers made mistakes in their writings? Or would you try to argue that there had actually been four Greek sentences on that board?
It is for this very reason, that I always bring up the concepts of being reasonable (practical + logical), honest, and fair. . . when looking at what is locked in history by means of having been written down. I will present many other such examples on the 'biblical text' thread--little by little. All the examples I give are the ones which those who argue for inerrance put under the 'must-be-held-in-abeyance' catagory; meaning, don't think about them and don't text them, just believe that each one has to be historical truth thus not in contradiction with each other, and thus not in error.
I hope you keep posting, and this post is not an answer to the experiment I had asked, because you didnn't say anything about what happened--whether the sentence I had asked you to write changed overnight after having written it, or whether it was still the same, just as you had written it. I hope to hear from you more, with consideration for
ALL the points being made, please. Thanks for the post, and good work, I cheer you on in that respect...keep it up!! (but do make an effort for balance in scholarship)
I don't think it is anyone's intention to 'Bible bash', and I'm not sure everyone here is an atheist. Although this may seem to contradict my previous posts, I'm not an atheist - I just have a vastly different concept of 'god' than you do. Maybe I'll say more on that sometime. :bluush: 
kashii: 
And your explanation is what is called the "swoon theory"...I would suggest you watch Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ and then tell me how someone could not die! The Roman soldiers were well versed on killing people! But you saying such a thing doesn't surprise me either, because although you claim you want evidence, you simply wouldn't believe even if you were there at the tomb that day!