"Gospel-only" is a distortion of what i said, FK. Gospel-first would be more like it. The rest of the Bible are visions and audible experiences of mortals receiving words from God. The Gospels are not dreams or trans-related visions...but real living word of God walking on earth. There is a qualitative difference. Nothing comes close to the Gospels. They are the filter through which everything else in the Bible is judged and brought into harmony.
Again, the Jews did not recieve full revelation until Christ appeared. The OT was a gradual revelation. It doesn't mean it wasn't true; it just wasn't full. The revelation of the OT leads and foreshados Christ with various "types." the presence of Logos in the Ot becomes apparent only after the Gospels were written.
Well, did God allow misinterpreted visions, etc. to get into His Holy Word or not? I think not. I take the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels as gospel, but remember that they were remembered from at least 30 years prior. Do you remember word for word conversations from 30 years ago? I don't remember them from yesterday! :) Therefore, I think there was plenty of help from God to get it exactly right. That's the inspired part. Likewise, the rest of scripture was also made exact and correct in the same way.
Again, the Jews did not receive full revelation until Christ appeared. The OT was a gradual revelation. It doesn't mean it wasn't true; it just wasn't full.
All of that is fine, so why then would you declare OT accounts as patently false on their faces because they appear to contradict the NT? How can you say that Joshua destroying everything in Jericho never happened by God's command, yet it was still "true"? The Jews wouldn't have had a chance to see it as you do now. That would make most of the OT a great tease to the Jews of the time. They didn't have the Gospel lens that you insist upon for truth or falsehood. Why would God SO mislead His chosen people?