Paul? Who says so?

[Ftracy3]

I guess this is a broader question about the "inerrancy" of the New Testament and what the basis for that belief is. First let me say I'm VERY new to this and I accept the basic events described in the Gospels, including the resurrection. But what I have reservations about is the interperetation of the rest of the books (or the gospels themselves) as inerrant and holy. I read Paul as someone trying to interpret his own experience and what has been reported to him by others. He gets into some minutiae now and then so who's to say his interpretation or judgement is absolutely correct? It's certainly informed, but is he himself inerrant in his writings? And if so why?

Maybe I"ve just missed the obvious in my self study, but please steer me in a direction toward some written resources that explain all this satisfactorily. I"m somewhat aware of how books made it in or out of the new testament. But if we rely on a simplistic argument that God would make sure that everything in the Bible was accurate, then what about all the people who were sharing Gospels before some of those works were voted off the Island? It seems like the final compliation is a "best educated guess" of what belongs. And some of what I read in Paul he seems to be arguing a point as opposed to stating an absolute fact. Thanks for any response.

[Protoman2050]

B/c Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit (this means that the concepts and ideas in his writings are from God, not necessarily the exact words). Peter said he was an apostle in 2 Peter 15-16.