I recently heard someone emphatically assert that Biblical inerrancy is a Biblical doctrine.
Many approach this topic by discussing the specific passages that talk about the “Word of God” or “writings/scriptures.” None of these says that the texts in question are inerrant, and some of them do not in fact seem to be talking about texts at all, but about divine speech.
But there seems to me to be a more basic and simpler logical point.
When the texts that now make up the Bible were being written, there was by definition no collection of writings that included them, such as modern Bibles are.
None of these texts predicts that they will become part of such a collection, much less provides a list of contents for such a future collection.
And so how can any of these texts be talking about the inerrancy of the Bible when there was as yet no Bible with the contents that Bibles have today?On the problems with Biblical inerrancy from a “Biblical” perspective, see “The Bible Isn’t Perfect And It Says So Itself” on the blog The American Jesus. And see also these images I made previously which illustrate other problems with Biblical inerrancy: