Tom,

I approach the doctrine of inerrancy by distinguishing between two complimentary definitions for inerrancy. The first being inerrancy as it pertains to the veracity of the actual text of scripture. That would entail the original manuscripts written by the prophets and apostles. Their letters, epistles and so forth were originally inerrant, ie, free from any error factual, historical, etc. However, the nature of handwritten documents is that they will transmit copying errors. It is impossible to escape this phenomonen. However, the uniqueness of the scripture is that God saw fit to have His people make myriads upon myriads of copies and even though all of those copies have transmitted copying errors, the application of textual criticism allows us to ascertain what the original document stated almost to 100 percent accuracy.

Then second, there is inerrancy as it pertains to the actual message contained in scripture. That being the message of the gospel, the historical redemptive story of God's work with His people, etc. Though I have a translation that may have some errancy in it due to translating from original documents and so forth, the nature of textual criticism is such that I can be certain God has preserved his inerrant word and I can proclaim an inerrant message.

As for the examples you give, pretty much all of them can be answered reasonably from the text or with the application of principles of textual criticism. For example, Genesis one lays out a chronological, day by day account of creation, where as chapter two specifically addresses the creation of man on day six. Chapter two is basically looking back at what God had created and the dominion he gave to man. the chapter is not meant to be chronological like the first chapter.

I hope that helps. Your questions may be good foder for my blog.

Fred
www.fredsbibletalk.com
www.hipandthigh.blogspot.com

"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns