OK,
The KJV (and each other version for that matter), especially when read mathamatically (if you will), contains both transcriptional and translational errors. Yet I believe my KJV is precisely inerrant with the surreal truths it portrays to much of the English speaking population.
At the cross, for example:
Matt. and Mark state Christ's last words as "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me"
Luke states: "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit"
John: "It is Finished"
Also the cross' encription: "King of the Jews" is stated differently by each of the fab four.
Resurrection and ascension events are also stated differently: e.g., Mark states Christ was "received" up, Luke "carried" up, John "ascended" up.
But together they portray a total picture of what goes on when a Redeemer redeems sinners from sin. That picture is inerrant.
Now a passionate redeeming portrait-painter knows that his inspired portrait is not a sum of the parts, rather it is an irreducible complexity, a gestalt, a collaboration of strokes, emotions, ideas, associations, and other metaphysical aspects, that cannot possibly be broken into mere empirical components.
Many of God's transcriptional and/or translational utterances may appear erroneous while the excellent metaphysical product produced by them is indeed inerrant, KJV or otherwise.
The question I ask you is: What ultimate truth per se do you perceive (or apperceive) is inerrant?
If you deny the existence of redemptive events, than the Bible is just another book of contradictions (like macro-evolutionism). But, if you truly experience blessed redemptive events in your life, then, a conservative Bible may become inerrant for you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a sinner like the rest of you evos and evangies, probably the chiefest. But my Bible didn't become inerrant until "eating crow".
Do any of you want to proudly declare you have not sinned? Inerrant are you? Who here does not require redemptive events, anyway? I surely require them!
™ Version 4.2