Aron,
Within the context of this thread, and of the Bible, I think that there is a definite place for logic and reasoning. And there is a place where it fails. There is he place where scripture itself calls to "come reason." And there are the places where there is great mystery that is left as such.
And even where Paul says that there are things hidden in ages past that are now made known, even that was not everything. It was something specific. Lee liked to make each of those things into grand metanarratives. But, for example, the rather grand statement in Colossians 1:27 "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" is not as revelatory as some might think. First, is the last part referring to the riches or the mystery? (I'm sure that someone who knows Greek well might be able to tell.) But is the statement that follows really about the full mystery of God, or about the entirety of his riches? Probably not. And it is encapsulated in something that has a "known" factor, but is still not fully known or understood. "Christ in you" is something that is at one level simple, yet at another is not so simple.
We sometimes refer to it as complete, yet at others as incomplete, as if we have let him into the foyer and he will slowly move into the rest of the house over the remainder of our lifetime. And in this life, it is a hope. And while hope is not necessarily irrational or incomplete, it is not the same as certainty and complete knowledge. Oh, we are certain — or as certain as a fallen human can be. Yet we have an expectation that we do not understand. All we have is the present, and some notion of what is to come.
But enough on this. I believe it is sufficient to say that there is a lot in that. Yet there is also a lot in that which we still do not understand.
In the meantime, those who argue for inerrancy, especially in the typical evangelical way, are leaning toward a version of inerrancy that is setting them up for a crisis of faith. They assert that the Bible is true and accurate and without error on all things on which it speaks. So if you find a verse that says you can dig brass, then we have to assume that there was a time when brass was not the combination of metals not found naturally in a combined form in the earth, but was found already combined. And since that is not true, there is an error in the Bible. Inerrancy is now destroyed and Christianity is in chaos.
The terms under which inerrancy is said to exist by those who need to have it and define it are far beyond the claims of scripture itself.
Profitable for teaching. Is the Bible concerned with the table of elements and the methods by which things like iron and copper might be alloyed into something else? Or is the passage in question a statement about the bounty of the land in question? And when it comes to teaching, what are you looking to the Bible to teach? Science? Technology? Or the person of God, his relationship to man, and the life that he has chosen/ordained for his people?
Reproof and correction. About science? About history and timelines if past events? Or about living life as one regenerated to be the active image-bearer of God?
Instruction in righteousness. Not in understanding about precisely how the cosmos, the earth, and man came into being. As little information as there is on the subject, it is as if God simply said "I did it. Now let's move on.)
But when someone tries to assert inerrancy, they are almost always starting with a specific interpretation of a specific passage. They are not talking about the Bible in general. They are talking about their interpretation. They might deny that. But since it is almost always attached to an interpretation that is declared to simply be "the word of God," the whole discussion becomes a ruse. It is an alternative way to turn an interpretation into the "pure word of God."
The Bible clearly says a lot. But the things it is clear on do not need an inerrancy clause to be true. Inerrancy clauses are part of the arguments by people who need to find the remains of a wooden ship high in the mountains of what is now the vicinity of the borders of Turkey, Iraq, and Armenia. If those remote sightings that no one seems to be able to get close to turn out to be illusions, then where is their faith?
If it turns out that the earth was created millions of years ago (by God) and a form of intelligent design through directed evolution turns out to be the way so much of the life on earth came to be, what will happen to the faith of those who are clinging to a literal, six-day creation? What if Adam and Eve are stand-ins for something long before, like a general rebellion among many humans, some of whom recognized their error and some who did not? What if the two trees are symbolic of the directives God put before mankind at that earlier time? What if the fall as we know it was not part of a time long after the fall of Lucifer, but was part of that rebellion? Is the simplistic description of a civilization that came to be, then was destroyed (by flood or other calamity) with only a paltry few surviving, importantly described in accurate detail, or in metaphorical language? If we are meant to have a knowledge that can be argued in the manner of a scientific inquiry, we are missing too many details. The only stories of what happened before that calamity were either what Noah and the few with him could keep up with, or what God distilled into the short telling. In any case, over a thousand years, plus the account of the creation and fall are only 6 chapters in Genesis (assuming the literal 6-day creation). Not much detail on which to hang too many hats. And virtually no details if the longer creation timeline is ultimately true.