I’m responding here to Mr. Hilton’s post arguing for the fallibility of Scripture. It was, in my humble opinion, an excellent post. The arguments for the fallibility of the Bible are made often for emotional reasons, perhaps out of embarrassment that Christians still believe that some 3000-year-old document is historically accurate, or out of disgust for the schisms caused by contorted interpretations. Instead, Mr. Hilton argued from academic reasons. To make sure I understand his arguments, I will reproduce here a few of the salient conclusions from his post.

First, canonicity: the question revolves around what books you include in the Bible. View Full Post