I agree for the most part, however I think the last sentence might be questioned; "God-breathed" implies that the level or degree of inspiration is such that errancy and fallibility are, I think, necessarily excluded. I shall explain. All Scripture is breathed out by God (ESV). Every writing is God-breathed (YLT). When we look at the Greek word theopneustos which can be translated as "God-breathed," what degree of inspiration are we seeing? We see far more than a 'natural inspiration' in which men got some bright ideas on their own and wrote them down. We see more than 'dynamic inspiration' by which men were merely 'specially enabled to do their best,' because man's best is not good enough to lend divine authority to writings. 'Conceptual inspiration,' in which God might have given men concepts or ideas which the men then wrote down in their own words without further divine guidance, similarly falls short in authoritative weight. Some scholars have advanced a 'degrees of inspiration' theory which suggests that certain parts of the Bible (such as moral teachings) contain supreme revelation from God while other parts (such as matters of history and creation) contain only relative inspiration. John F. Walvoord points out a problem inherent in this view: "The weakness of this point of view, of course, is its subjective character, namely, that no two will be of one mind on the degree of the inspiration of any particular passage. The ultimate judgment is transferred from the statement of Scripture to the decision of the reader. A variation of this point of view is the moral or partial-inspiration theory which holds that parts of the Bible are inspired, but others are not. Scripture from this point of view is considered authoritative in matters of morals, but not in scientific matters. Here again, the interpreter is faced with the impossible task of distinguishing what portions of Scripture are inspired and what are not, and the ultimate authority rests in the opinion of the reader and not in the Scripture itself." A striking 'overshoot' is found in the 'mechanical theory' or 'dictation theory' of inspiration, which suggests that God dictated the Bible word-for-word and that the humans who performed the writing were little more than stenographers. Although certain portions of Scripture clearly were dictated (such as Exodus 20:1-17), most of Scripture could not have been so dictated because of the 'human factors' on display in the writings; we see the writers expressing their hopes, fears, feelings, and prayers, and such passages would lose their meaning had they been 'dictated' by God. (Unfortunately, this 'mechanical theory' is often erroneously associated with evangelicals. But very few Christians of any stripe subscribe to this theory nowadays.) The best theory of inspiration (and the one most commonly held by evangelical Christians, btw) is the 'verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture' theory. Walvoord states it well: Those who uphold the infallible inspiration of the entire Scriptures as they were originally written by the human authors contend that nothing other than verbal inspiration—that is, divine guidance in the very choice of the words used—is essential to a complete and Biblical view. In terms of formal definition: God so supernaturally directed the writers of Scripture that without excluding their human intelligence, their individuality, their literary style, their personal feelings, or any other human factor, His own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy, the very words of Scripture bearing the authority of divine authorship. Though human authors are recognized in the Scripture itself and their human characteristics, vocabulary, and modes of thought are often traced, the supernatural process of the inspiration of the Bible is deemed sufficiently operative so that the human author in every case uses the precise words that God intended him to choose, and the resulting product therefore contains the accuracy and infallibility of Scripture just as if God wrote it Himself. Usually added to the description of this theory of inspiration is the word plenary, meaning full, that is, that the inspiration extends equally to every portion of Scripture and that all parts therefore are equally infallible and equally authoritative within the limitations of the context. This point of view does not regard the human element in Scripture as introducing human fallibility. Any tendency to error was overruled and the human mind influenced so that even in its human experiences there was divine preparation and sovereign arrangement to produce the desired Scripture. This particular understanding of "God-breathed" is well supported by God Himself; we can read for ourselves Jesus' view of the O.T. Scriptures and what He said about them. I have cited them previously, but the words of Jesus always bear repeating. Clearly, Jesus assigned 'verbatim' inspiration quality to the Old Testament when He said this: Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Jesus referred to the Psalms (specifically referencing Ps. 82:6) as "Scripture" that "cannot be broken." Moreover, He viewed the O.T. as so authoritative that one single word (a word that some people would argue about today) decisively settled a disputation with unbreakable authority and finality: Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Dare we view the O.T. with a lower degree of "God-breathed" inspiration and authority than Jesus did? Dare we regard it as subject to human fallibilities or shortcomings when God the Son said that every letter, indeed even every accent mark, of the O.T. Scripture is permanently in its proper place by the will of God? Dare we suggest that God would permit His written Word to be less than perfect, less than infallible, or less than inerrant? That is how God the Son regarded the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, we have no such direct evidence from the the lips of Jesus. But I ask these questions: 1. Having so inspired His Word through the pens and minds of His people for so many years B.C., what would prevent God from continuing to so inspire His servants (now also His children) to produce His Word with precision, integrity, and flawless results? Would He transmit the Gospel message with less care than He did for the prophetic foreshadowing of it? 2. Since God inspired Paul to write that all scripture is God-breathed, if we should find that the N.T. fails to meet the same 'God-breathed' inspirational standard as the O.T., wouldn't we have to cease regarding the N.T. as "scripture" on the same level as the Old?