If oyu agree that Jesus can use stories ofr teaching purposes whether or not they happen to be literally true then surely that also applies to Genesis, as well as the Parables. How then can you claim that Jesus would have to be a fraud for citing Genesis to teach, if it were not literally true ?
There are plenty of Christians who will assert that God created via evolution and neither of the passages Jesus is cited as reporting even deals with that - nor with the age of the Earth. So how can you tell from that that Jesus beleived that all of Genesis was literally true ?
Next to the question of whether Jesus believed that the bible was inerrant - you cite no evidence for that or even the assertion that some noted liberal theorlogians beleive that. Instead you cite exaggerated claims of the evidnece for the existence of Jesus (which is in fact poor with only two sources of even minor value outside of the Bible) andof the absence of evidence for "monkey men" or "missing links". The real fact there is that more and more fossils are being discovered, and the evidence for human evolution is very strong.
Historical errors in Daniel ? Well perhaps we had better split off that if you want to go into details, but we cans tart with the fact that history records that the Persions took control of the Medean Empire before conquering Babylon while Daniel puts events the other way around.
And I've saved the best for last. You have copied an essay attacking the conclusions of mainstream Bible scholars - the result of deep study of the Bible. Yet you say that Christians studying the Bible must come to the same conclusions ! Well which is it ? Are the scholars right and Sarfati's essay an attack on Christianity ? Or are you wrong to say that Christians cannot disagree ?