As I sometimes do, I write a response to the article's author to tell them my concerns with their article.
I did just that in this particular case and just received a response and thought those who have participated on this thread would like to read what he said to me.

Quote
I think you've missed the point. You failed to see the main argument. Again, even if there were no scriptures at all Christianity would still be true. Think of the earliest church, they had no Scriptures at least only portions of the maybe. The testimony of the gospel was by word-of-mouth. Therefore, at this time even without the Scriptures Christianity was proclaimed them people believed based on the historical reality of the advent of Christ.

We need to keep from getting the cart before the horse. The Scriptures testify to the historic reality of the Gospel. Though I believe they are at are in errant, they don't even have to exist for Christianity to be true.

And remember, I historic event does not have to have an inerrant testimony for us to be obligated to believe it. Otherwise, there would be no historical reality outside of the testimony of scriptures that we are obligated to believe. This would include the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the discovery of America, and many many other historic events.

In the end, my argument is that people have no rights to leave the faith based upon their assumption that there may be an error or two in the scripture. And for us as Christians to give the impression that this is the case, distorts the Gospel by making the Scriptures the center of the gospel rather than the historic reality of what Christ did and who he was.

I hope that makes sense, my friend.

Tom