It may beyond the scope of this present writing to attempt to definitively tackle the skeptics' adamant conclusions on the subject of possible Bible authorship/inspiration and inerrancy. We must however approach our need for these doctrines to be true as it is most essential to the proper operation/justification of "like precious" faith.
Quoted resource: strongs 'G1124'
2. Pherō̄ fer'-o - Moved
Quoted resource: strongs 'G5342'
(See: Topical study dict:all Inspiration )
3. Holy Ghost
A multitude of men and women wiser than I have written extensively on these crucial theological doctrines, some of them I'd do better simply referring you to. But so that we are all on equal grounds understanding this difficult conceptual vocabulary I will be using, let me quote Matthew George Easton:
Quoted resource: easton 'Inspiration'
Logically , we "like precious" believers absolutely need this definition of divine inspiration to be true for our discussion of the "like precious" faith to hold water; and the critic is fully aware of this. The critic needs not strain to replace all the substantive change afforded by this inspiration with his own invention, he merely needs to shoot down ours. "To the unclean of heart all things are defiled" a wise man once wrote, such seems to be the case of with modern criticism.
Until it can be definitively proven that either God did not write this or that God does not even exist both sides are left playing a game of logic, one side buttressed by the evidences of the many lives the inspiration seems to transform, the other by the lack of God and godliness this present uninspired corruption seems to suggest. Which would you rather?
The point of the debate I would be more defenseless to is the issue of fallible private/corporate interpretation of what otherwise I believe to be divinely inspired holy writ. Peter is obviously not saying that prophecy and scripture are not subject on our part to private interpretation; they are laden with our efforts privately and corporately to better understand them. What he and the other bible authors are claiming is that the actual communications themselves are "God breathed" not "man thought of".
I am not so sure that this fallible handling of the infallible writ is altogether a bad thing as it forces us to try interpretations, to prove/test interpretations, to in fact make us all the more dependent upon direct relationships with our Lord and Savior. The problem is that man is going to take what ever he is given and find an immediate way of corrupting it one way or another. If he is to abandon his relationship in the quest for these intellectual ramblings he is likely to do nothing but spin his wheels.
God could have given us more or less detail than HE did. Perhaps that would have helped resolve some of this, but likely not. Whether opting for more or less, both are viable options for a righteous God to take, absence however is not (not if HE is going to judge). What we believe as "like precious" Christian believers is that God is very much righteous and HE has very much not been absent and that HE has favored a slightly minimal option which first and foremost draws from us the simple presumption of HIS righteousness (which is due in any loving relationship and longterm commitment) and from that a deeper quest in sincerity into HIS righteous in-errancy and truth.
Let us say for now that God has breathed to us the essentials to find our way into His further influence in the Holy Writ. His influence confirmed by Writ and Spirit can show us all the more. So much better is this than the critics' vacuous alternative!