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

McKinsey spent decades collecting difficulties, and there are real ones in his list. The problem is that a catalogue is not a disproof — "single-handedly disproves" is doing work the book cannot do.

1. A list is not an argument. To disprove inerrancy you have to show that a specific text affirms something false. A thousand entries each asserting a problem is a thousand claims requiring a thousand arguments. Length feels like force, but it isn't. The question is whether any given entry survives contact with the passage in context.

2. Inerrancy is a narrower claim than critics assume. The doctrine, as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines it, is that Scripture is true in all that it affirms, in the original writings. It does not claim that copies are perfect, that translations are inspired, or that every sentence is literal. Objections aimed at copyist variants, translation choices, or wooden literalism are aimed at something inerrantists do not assert. The text itself claims divine origin: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching" (2 Timothy 3:16).

3. The manuscripts are a strength, not an embarrassment. We have roughly 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, plus early versions and quotations. That abundance is why variants are visible at all; it also lets textual critics reconstruct the original with a high degree of confidence. The vast majority of variants are spelling and word order. No doctrine depends on a disputed reading.

4. Differences are not contradictions. Two witnesses describing one accident differ in detail and emphasis and are not thereby lying. Ancient writers arranged material topically rather than chronologically and compressed speeches, which was standard practice, not deception. A contradiction requires two statements that cannot both be true — not two statements that are hard to fit together.

5. Harmonizing is what we do with any two sources. If two accounts can both be true under a reasonable reading, preferring that reading is not intellectual cheating; it is how historians treat any pair of documents. The alternative — assuming the worst reading of one side and the best of the other — is a method, and it is not a neutral one.

6. Description is not prescription. The Bible reports lies, polygamy, and murder without commending them, and often condemns them a chapter later. A large share of skeptical catalogues consists of narrating what a biblical character did and calling it biblical teaching. Proverbs 18:17 applies to the genre: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

7. Some difficulties are real, and that should be admitted. Numbers differ between Samuel and Chronicles, and Matthew and Luke arrange the genealogy and nativity differently. Harmonizations for some of these are strained. Inerrantists have offered solutions for most, and godly scholars disagree about the rest, so honesty means saying the doctrine has unresolved pressure points rather than that every puzzle is closed. The psalmist's confidence is in the whole: "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

8. The turn: the standard would destroy the critic's own sources. If any apparent discrepancy, variant reading, or editorial arrangement disproves a document, then virtually every ancient text fails — including the sources the skeptic uses to argue about the Bible. Historians don't apply that standard because it makes history impossible. The objection needs a rule strict enough to break Scripture and loose enough to keep its own evidence.

9. The real question is the resurrection. Inerrancy is a secondary doctrine. Christianity stands or falls on an event: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile" (1 Corinthians 15:17). That claim is historical and investigable — empty tomb, appearances, the transformation of the disciples, the conversion of a hostile Pharisee. Win the argument about the resurrection and the doctrine of Scripture becomes a follow-up question, not the main one.

Read McKinsey if you like; read the responses too, and read the passages in full rather than in excerpts. What you will find is a book with genuine difficulties, most of which have been answered and some of which have not. That is a different thing from a disproof, and the difference is the whole argument.

Sources: Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Big Book of Bible Difficulties; Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy; Michael J. Kruger; Dennis McKinsey, Biblical Errancy.

Related challenges:
• So you believe in a book full of contradictions, one that endorses slavery, incest, murder, drowning babies, genocide and stoning homosexuals?
• The Bible is a collection of fairytales written by illiterate goat herders back in the Bronze Age. The Catholic Church cherry picked which fables to include to mind control non-thinking tithers.