Critique
The main goal of the article is to demonstrate the arguments for and against inerrancy with the invalidity of some of the supporting evidence as to the main thesis. The author reached his purpose by constructively building his article starting from defining terms, historical background, refutation, and support. The thesis was chosen by the author in the phrase that «Not all arguments for inerrancy are valid», supposes that some of the arguments are invalid meanwhile he pointed out only weak arguments, or at least he did not mention an invalid supporting argument. In his article, the author had not obvious suppositions aside from God being the source for Bible inspiration but in the context of this article, it is not a debatable factor for any party in the first place. The arguments of the author seem logical, although the way he explained the historical argument was not completely explained and at the same time he stated almost immediate response to this argument.
The evidence the author used is mostly chosen definitions of both of the groups which support their arguments, while the most proof evidence is the bible citations which were not used in all arguments but were undeniable in the parts he used them. The strongest part is the author’s notion of the biblical part in both the supportive and the opposite of the arguments providing explanations. Although the author tried to stay neutral through the article his acknowledgment of sympathy to inerrancy at the beginning of the article put a slightly bias direction in the article which he should mention in the conclusion instead.
Personal Conclusion
Inerrancy as a term is not defining point for the debates in the article. For all of the debaters, there are no atheists or adherents of another religion. The major impression of the article is that even for the opposing group (who are indeed Christians) the arguments contrary to their doctrines are desirable. Even their arguments are mostly in the search of scientific proof rather than losing the aspects of belief. Personally, it should be agreed that the weakness of the slippery-slope argument, and personally I can not understand the idea of how the doubt in one or more interpretations of a context which is in general almost identical, could possibly undermine one’s belief. It could be agreed that orthodoxy and the hold to inerrancy are relevant to each other though I do not think there are degrees to evaluate orthodoxy and the author is not in opposition to doing so. The main concept of the religion are unchanged and the argument of lacking the original autographs even mentioned by Davis as seldom used, but what most important that the author mentioned they are not contrary to each other and taking verses mentioned by the author (Timothy 3:16, Peter 1:20-21 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), in addition to the God as the resource of inspirations and God does not lie it can be interpreted as God does not contradict to himself. The validity of the Bible as God’s resource and inspiration is out of the question, the difference is whether you are searching for technologically proofed evidence or you see the miracle in the words of the Bible.