But of course, that interpretation of 2 Timothy is a post hoc defense of biblical inerrancy. There are much more obvious reasons for religious authorities to emphasize the absolute authority of religious scriptures (particularly when they also claim exclusive authority to interpret those scriptures).

It's also important to note that "inerrancy" means very different things to different people. I remember one evangelical preacher who informally explained it as essentially "God made sure that nothing got into the scripture that he didn't want in the scripture," which is a much weaker claim and is essentially synonymous with what it means for something to be scripture.

> Of course not. Genesis, Revelation and Job are 3 books of the Bible that don’t document events as observed. I believe (not 100%) that all the rest do.

The Book of Ezekiel has a lot of pretty wild stuff, but I guess you can say it's supposedly documenting Ezekiel's visions (but isn't that also true of The Revelation?). The Book of Daniel is also apocalyptic literature, much of which was likely not intended to be read as a document of observed events. There's also a ton of poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.) that I wouldn't consider "documents of events as observed."

Psalms and Proverbs are published record essentially. I meant more “written by the people who experienced the events.”

Prophecy falls into that camp. Much of the Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus himself though.

Unfulfilled prophecy is tougher.

I generally refer to Bookenders as people who focus on creation and the end of the world.

The message is everything in between and fascinating.

The problem seems to me more fundamental than that: if the Bible potentially contains errors then you need some process or mechanism to figure out what those errors are if you're going to use the Bible as a guide to action. What could that process or mechanism possibly be? It obviously can't be the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of books though. Taken one verse at a time, out of context, errors with interpretation are easy. Context is huge.

That’s really the root of it. If you read the entire Bible, you’ll see common themes that are reiterated over and over. You’ll see patterns of human behavior that haven’t changed in thousands of years.

Reading the entire Bible provides so much more context. There’s not nearly as much left up to discussion after that because you’ll have a much better understanding of e everything.

I mean, nobody talks about it but one of the biggest themes of the entire Old Testament is idolatry. We think about that today as worshiping gold statues but it’s just as easy to frame in terms of political parties, our own anger and biases, etc.

Another is the dangers of pride.

You may enjoy some of Pete Enns' books. Namely "The Bible Tells Me So", Which dives into biblical inaccuracy head first. It's not a "Oh well, if you apply some mental gymnast it's okay" book. It's "Here's a bunch of reasons inerrancy makes zero sense and here is why that's okay and doesn't mean God isn't real".

You may be interested in a detailed breakdown of authorship of various parts of the Bible [0]. In summary, to a first approximation, only the books written during the Babylonian Exile and during the preaching of Peter and Paul were written during the events that they describe, and most other books were written much later. The Gospels are decades after Jesus' life and death, and all of the Bronze Age stories are set centuries before they were recorded.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible