Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter
The trouble is that... “inerrancy” has become a shibboleth—a gate-keeping word used to exclude people rather than to draw authentic Christians together for worship and witness...[inerrantists] attribute inerrancy only to the original manuscripts, which do not exist... [In so doing] [t]hey kill the ordinary meaning of the word with the death of a thousand qualifications...I'll go further to say that the belief in the Bible as God's word is not common. I prefer Karl Barth's view that the Bible is a media that bears witness to God's word rather than to say the Bible is God's word.
...If the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy but only the original manuscripts were inerrant , then only the original manuscripts were authoritative. The logic is impeccable and irresistible. And if “inerrancy” is compatible with flawed approximations, faulty chronologies, and use of incorrect sources by the biblical authors, it is a meaningless concept...
...I just don’t think... [inerrancy is]... the best word for what we believe. What we all believe that really matters is that the Bible is inspired, authoritative and infallible in all matters of faith and practice. Our difference lies in the fact that I don’t think a word is all that important; what’s important is our common belief in the Bible as God’s word. (emphasis are mine)