Biblical Inerrancy: What is it? How does it work?

I have decided to write out my understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This isn't from a theological textbook, or a history textbook, but from my mind - a layman's understanding. This is partially to clarify my thoughts, but also to aid others to reflect upon their own beliefs.

Biblical inerrancy is the idea that the Bible is inerrant. Okay, great, good definition. What this really means is that the Bible is free from error. Different people consider different issues as under the category 'error-free'. I think a majority of Evangelicals that believe in inerrancy, the ones I know at least, hold on to a pretty strong version of the doctrine. That is, the Bible is free from error in issues of theology (who is God, what is God like, who is Jesus), morality (what is right, is lust bad), history (was there an exodus, did Jesus walk on water), and science (did God create the universe in 7 days, is the earth the center of the universe). However, others hold to weaker versions of this doctrine. Often, the first thing to go is scientific inerrancy, after that goes historical inerrancy, then typically moral inerrancy, and the last to go is theological inerrancy. My feeling is that many evangelicals have let go of scientific inerrancy, and some have at least softened a bit on historical inerrancy, but most do not part with moral and theological inerrancy.

Why do some believers think that the Bible is inerrant? Well, they would argue, it is divinely revealed by God. God spoke, or moved, the biblical authors to write; therefore, what they wrote is error free. Because it is divinely revealed, it has access to divine perspective, and thus would see all things truly. Moses wasn't around for creation, no problem - God told him everything. John wasn't in the room when Pilate was talking to Jesus, no worries - God revealed the conversation to him. So on, so forth.

Thus, believers who hold onto inerrancy stand defiantly with their 'biblical truth' over against the tools of scientific or historical inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research and discussion has built up the modern theory of evolution. Yet biblical inerrantists still think the world was made in 7 days. This is based on a ~2500 year old text, the product of an ancient civilization. Biblical inerrantists think that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are real, and all the stories in the Bible about them are real; this is based on a text written at least a thousand years after they lived. But to one who believes in biblical inerrancy, this is no problem. God revealed all truth to the biblical authors, and they wrote this down.

But the real dagger of biblical inerrancy is that those who champion it do so on basis of "faith": "I have faith in the Bible that it is true". I don't get this. Why do you have faith in an ancient collection of diverse texts? Inerrantists make it seem that if I have a "real faith" in God, I would also have faith in the Bible. This, of course, plays into the related idea that faith in God is mainly intellectual assent (believe in your mind something to be true), not fidelity, trust, or loyalty (the way we use "faith" in daily human relationships). So faith in the Bible becomes equally important as faith in God, and both are equated with intellectual belief. The result - if I don't believe the Bible is true, I'm only quasi-Christian. If the Bible isn't free from error - my oh my, how could it be relevant to our religion!?

I don't bite. Most of my life isn't based on mathematically certain truths. None of my interpersonal relationships are based on certainties. Why should the transcendent relationship be any different?

It is possible to be a Christian yet not believe the Bible to be inerrant.