Dennis McKinsey single-handedly disproves Biblical inerrancy in his book, "Biblical Errancy" - your team should read it.

McKinsey did real work, and a serious objection deserves a serious reply. But a catalogue of alleged problems is a set of claims to be tested one at a time, not a verdict that has already been reached.

1. A list is not an argument. Volume creates the impression of conclusion. Five hundred allegations feel like five hundred proofs, but each item still has to be shown to be an error rather than asserted to be one. The case is only as strong as its individual entries, not as long as its index.

2. A contradiction must be impossible to reconcile. Two statements contradict only if they cannot both be true at once. Many entries turn out to be complementary details, different emphasis, or the same event seen from another angle. The test is whether a reading exists that makes both true, not whether the two sentences look different on the page.

3. Inerrancy is a claim about the originals. As classically defined, inerrancy concerns what the biblical authors wrote — “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Copyists' slips and translation choices are downstream of that claim, so a variant in a manuscript is not a counterexample to it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy draws exactly this line.

4. Genre explains most false difficulties. Poetry, hyperbole, rounded numbers, and ordinary observational language (“the sun rose,” Joshua 10:13) are not errors. Read a psalm as a laboratory report and you will manufacture contradictions that were never there. D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies shows how often the problem is the reader's method rather than the text.

5. Some difficulties are genuinely unresolved. The troop numbers in 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 do not obviously match, and honest scholars have not reached a settled answer. The right response is to say so plainly. An inerrant text can contain a problem we have not yet solved; what it cannot contain is a demonstrated falsehood.

6. The test is answerable difficulty. No ancient document survives without interpretive problems, and demanding zero difficulty would eliminate all of ancient history along with the Bible. The real question is whether the difficulties have reasonable answers and whether the central claims are well supported. “The sum of your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160) is a claim about the whole, and unresolved is not the same as refuted.

7. The objection assumes a standard it cannot ground. The demand that a book be perfectly consistent is a moral absolute — you believe no one should fudge evidence. That is a strong claim about how minds ought to work, and it is precisely the kind of binding obligation a purely naturalistic account has trouble justifying. The critic is borrowing the Christian's confidence that truth is a duty rather than a preference.

8. The alternative carries its own burden. If the Gospels are set aside as unreliable, some other account must explain the empty tomb, the disciples' transformation, and the rise of a movement that worshipped a crucified man. That account will face evidence too. The choice is between competing explanations, not between a document and nothing.

9. The textual basis is exceptionally strong. The New Testament survives in thousands of Greek manuscripts, far more than any other ancient work, and the variations among them are overwhelmingly minor. Bruce Metzger's handbook and Daniel Wallace's manuscript work document both the variants and the reconstructions. A book this well attested is not a book we are guessing at.

10. Read the responses as well as the objections. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe worked through hundreds of alleged difficulties book by book, and others have replied item by item. Anyone testing the claim that no one has answered McKinsey should start there. The honest position is the one that has read both sides.

Alleged is doing real work in that title, and it has to be earned case by case. Christians should read the objections and answer them; skeptics should read the answers before declaring the case closed. That is slower than a slogan, and it is the only method that reaches the truth.

Sources: Norman Geisler; Thomas Howe; D.A. Carson; Bruce Metzger; Daniel B. Wallace; Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Related challenges:
• The existence of so many Christian denominations indicates the Bible to be inherently unclear. If truly God’s revelation, could we not expect that He would reveal Himself clearly?
• So you believe in a book full of contradictions, one that endorses slavery, incest, murder, drowning babies, genocide and stoning homosexuals?
• Now if Jesus is God and God cannot be tempted, does it not follow that Jesus cannot be tempted? Yet Matthew 4 clearly presents the temptation of Christ, and thus embroils us in another BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. Doesn’t it?!