No, you are not.
You are denying an inescapable conclusion, positing a different argument, and treating that argument as if it were mine.
The is no "underlying" argument.
One can not say Scripture is inerrant, but somebody's interpretation can not be inerrant, unless the person saying so claims inerrancy. Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
Your poorly worded statement has a polemical context, and while i do not deny one can state somethings which are without error, based on evidence, I do deny that one must claim to be protected from error for their interpretation to be without error (Paul quoted a pagan writer as expressing truth). Or that in claiming to be stating Truth they are doing so after the manner of Rome with her infallibly declared assured infallibility.
The is no "underlying" argument.
Well, when you start posting things supporting an argument then you can let us know what that is.