Originally Posted by asaris

I learned those definitions of inerrancy and infallibility as particular to views of scriptural authority, so I'm not at all surprised that they apply differently in different contexts. However, I tend to assume a greater commonality of definition than is generally the case, so I'm a bit surprised at the latter :). The point I was trying to make was simply that the view of scripture you cite is in fact a fairly typical view for most evangelical Christians (a group distinct from fundamentalists, but generally fairly conservative and sometimes lumped in with them).

As far as the last paragraph, what I mean is that it is typical of Christian writers, even those who believe that the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant, to give the work more respect than it would give any other book. For example, I have a lot of respect for Michel Foucault, and take his work fairly seriously. But I'm perfectly willing to substitute my judgment for his where it seems he's wrong. When it comes to scripture, I'm much less willing to do this, unless it seems very clear that something's just plain wrong (see, for example, Paul's view of the relative value of marriage vs. celibacy.)