Did I claim anything about mutually exclusive. I stated all three cannot be error-free. In order for that to be true they would have to have the same text.
I disagree. Whether it says that either god "moved upon" or god "hovered over" the face of the waters doesn't introduce an erroneous difference unless those things are mutually exclusive.
But Genesis does concern the Biblical model of Genesis and if they claim "the Bible" is error-free, then we must then determine what bible.
If we're considering Genesis, and all canons contain Genesis, then it doesn't matter which canon you pick (unless some translation difference causes some mutual exclusivity).
They claim the bible is error-free. In order to address that it is necessary to know what text they are claiming is "The Bible". According to the RTB model there are no errors. I agree with you that there are, no matter what version is used.
If there are errors no matter what version is used then we don't need to know what version they are using to say that it does contain errors.
The assertion of an error-free bible necessitates a particular version they believe is error free.
It doesn't necessitate limiting it to one version.
Also it is necessary to know what they mean by "error-free". There are many levels of inerrantists.
That being true; your claims that they have to be talking about one particular version, and that we have to know what it is, are rendered false. Perhaps they have some novel concept of "error free" that includes multiple canons of different translations.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.