"...The KJV...contains both transcriptional and translational errors... Yet I believe my KJV is precisely inerrant with the surreal truths it portrays..."
Ok, maybe we this is simply semantics:
Inerrant - 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors.
Error - 1. An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true. 2. The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge. 3. The act or an instance of deviating from an accepted code of behavior. 4. A mistake.
Clearly definition #1 of Inerrant, and definition #4, if not #'s 2 and 4, of error make it clear that inerrant means without errors, that is, mistakes. Yet in your first sentence you say that it does indeed contain errors.
For you, the "truth" of the bible transcends these mistakes. That's understandable. However, the fact that the truth is more important than the mistakes does not mean the mistakes don't exist.
For a lot of scriptural literalists, the Bible is indeed without error. Any and all apparent contradictions can be explained. I saw at least one post that speculated about multiple planes of existence, allowing God/Jesus to say different things to different people.
I admire your ability to look past typos and find meaning. I am curious though, does your take on the bible containing errors also mean that you are open to accepting some portions, and not others, and.or are there sections that you see as parables, as opposed to literal stories. Say, A&E in the garden of Eden, or Noah and the Ark?
Citizzzen
The message is ended, go in peace.
™ Version 4.2