And before I get dinged for arguing nitpicking points and semantics and not arguing "big picture" things, let me explain why I bring up small inconsistent details like this.

I've talked to Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Some of them, in answer to the question "Why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?" will say "Because God inspired it." Then when you ask "Why do you believe God inspired the Bible?" they will say "Because the Bible says so." And when I try to explain the concept of circular reasoning, they either dismiss it out of hand or just stare blankly. Others will answer that they believe in God on faith alone, and believe that he inspired the Bible on faith alone too, and the rest of their beliefs stems from this reading of the Bible as a book that cannot be wrong. And, if you can show that the Bible is at a minimum not self-contradictory, then it's a justifiable position (if you accept the initial faith-based assumption) to accept its teachings as authoritative.

*However*, if you can show that it *is* self-contradictory, even minorly, then logically you can't base your whole belief system off the assumption that it *is* inerrant anymore and still have any claim to Truth.

Is it possible that parts of it are inspired and parts of it are not? Sure. But then you have to decided WHICH parts. So if either Acts or Matthew is right but not both, then you have to throw out one of them. But which one? And how much? Just those particular verses, or the whole chapter, the whole book? It's impossible to tell at that point. The only logical foundation you can start with and still claim any sort of Truth is that the Bible is 100% correct. So my point is, if I can show that any one part of it *isn't* correct, the entire rest of it has to be called into question.

I know most people hate nitpicking questions and would rather focus on big picture items. But my point all along has been that the big picture depends entirely on the nits I'm picking. The claim to Truth of the big picture is called into question by the exposure of just a single error.

-- Dave