The idea of Biblical inerrancy is everywhere under siege these days, and it’s coming from within the circle of Christian believers, that is, the seminaries and liberal Christian colleges. To me, it’s an inevitable conclusion when you look at the evidence.  But if the Bible is considered errant, does that leave us with just another classic ‘text’, like Shakespeare or Chaucer? I don’t know any believing Bible scholar that believes Scripture should be treated like any other ‘classic text’. Most do consider the Bible as authoritative, just not inerrant. The idea of an errant Bible is threatening to many Christians, but I believe it strengthens, or even redefines faith, around the core that matters. 1) An inerrant Bible inserts un-necessary obstacles to belief. If…