God utilized the literary genres that human writers used, the human knowledge that they had, to reveal to mankind what HE wanted to tell man. Thus, the Bible, while having historical writings, is not MEANT to be a historical piece of work. It is a theological work with a historical background. Even the historical writings are done with a theological spin or interpretation on them. "Why did Jerusalem get overrun by the Babylonians?" Because the Jews had sinned - NOT because Babylon was more powerful militarily. Rather than worry about the human shell of the Scriptures, we should look to God's intent of the message.
Another example is "Was the earth created in 6 days?" It depends on whether one takes the inspired writer's litarary genre as a scientific tract, or as a literary work of art that conveys the message that God wanted to reveal - that He is the creator of the universe who loves the pinnacle of His visible creation, mankind.
In the end, the Scriptures are inerrant, NOT because EVERY piece of information is absolutely historically accurate, but because EVERYTHING that God wanted to tell mankind is infallible. We don't presume that God was trying to write ancient Jewish history - but Jewish theological development and God's actions among His people. THIS is inerrant. Through the community and the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Scriptures help convey God's Word for the people of TODAY. Thus, the Book, in the hands of the community, continues to give God's intended message to His people, the Church. This is why it is so important to read the Scriptures WITH the People of God, the Church.
Regards
Do you believe that God couldn't have created the earth in six literal days? Would that be beyond His powers? I can't prove to you that He did, or if there is an interpretation of which I am unaware that says He didn't. The bottom line is that I certainly do not dismiss the idea because it "sounds" fantastical. I will assume it is literally true until someone can give me a scripturally sound reason why it should be interpreted otherwise.
In the end, the Scriptures are inerrant, NOT because EVERY piece of information is absolutely historically accurate, but because EVERYTHING that God wanted to tell mankind is infallible.
Why do you presume that God would employ error to teach us, TODAY, infallible truth? Parables and the like are self-evident and a legitimate means of teaching. The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.
In addition, it becomes especially dangerous to start throwing out scripture as being factually untrue, but "spiritually" correct because how are you to know where to draw the line? Did God literally part the Red Sea? Was there a spiritual teaching in this act by itself? Did God really appear to Moses in the form of a burning bush, as opposed to in some other form? Is there a spiritual teaching in that? I think that once you start throwing out these Biblical accounts because they do not match with what our scientists say today, then you have to throw out a huge portion of the text, and there is no way to know when fact stops and fiction starts.