It is entirely untrue that if we line up all scholars and theologians and have them discuss whether or not the Bible in inerrant and preserved, that there will be an even divide. In fact, there is no divide at all. There is essentially a splinter; much like an elephant realizing he has a freckle on his ass. That’s about the “divide” on the matter! That little dot, there’s the so-called divide.
Even in the most conservative setting — take Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, for example — no one genuinely thinks scriptures were preserved. Like Dan, they say the message has irrespectively been preserved, but the text clearly has not.
Consider that either the text has been preserved and resurrection isn’t part of the Gospel because Mark’s version teaches us absolutely nothing about it, or the “long ending” was original to the text (which no scholar believes), or the original ending of Mark has been lost and resurrection was given some kind of theological significance in that lost portion; which is the position of folks like Tom Wright, retired Bishop of Durham and a leading Pauline scholar.
But there’s no need to talk about preservation or inerrancy when the pretence is 1) that there isn’t an overwhelming agreement that the bible is full of errors and contradiction and so on, and 2) that there’s not that same overwhelming agreement that preservation of the text isn’t just doubtful, but just not there; variant texts, missing portions, redaction, additions and so on. The person arguing counter has other motives for disagreeing than because of evidence and diligent argumentation and rigorous study, in every single case I have encountered.
The hypocrisy is utterly amazing because anyone arguing this way does so dishonestly in order to cast doubt on what we are justified to believe about scripture. The irony is that such a person claims to be doing so in order that we can talk about scripture without having doubts. That is insane and a complete effort to make truth relative not to facts, but to put poor psychological need.
Listen, it’s not that what’s true is by what’s believed most; ad populem is a fallacy. What matters though is that the reason scholars and theologians overwhelmingly agree that scripture has not been preserved and that it is errant is because there are overwhelming reasons why no rational person would genuinely think otherwise!
This one isn’t “just a thought”; this one is a clear matter of facts.