As I stated before this inerrancy discussion has plenty of legs left. Glenn responds to some criticism from Jeremy by asking why is a non-inerrantist more likley to allow personal preference to interfere in interpretation that someone who holds to inerrancy? Glenn is quite right in pointing out that we all have to do the hard work of interpretation regardless of what our particular position is. In fact I would go as far as to say that inerrantists have a harder time of it because of the need they feel to reconcile passages which (appear to) disagree in minor details. For the non-inerrantist this is normally going to be a waste of time.
But Jeremy seems to think that it is just a matter of opinion which "parts" of the of Bible are intended to teach truth and which parts are a result of the texts time and culture bound character. Jeremy paints in his post a misleading charicature of those who do not hold to inerrancy. No serious exegete that I know thinks you can just put a red biro around various parts of the Bible that you think might contain mistakes or errors or even just irrelevances. Rather the whole text is inspired, and the whole text has a message. The important thing is not to confuse the medium with the message. The mistakes are not in the Bible (hence why I would never say the Bible is "errant" or contains errors - pace Glenn) but in the interpreters who think that the medium is part of the message.
The clearest and most obvious example of this is Genesis chapter 1. This passage clearly is teaching about God and the relationship of creation and humanity to God. There is huge theological weight to every verse in Gen 1 and it is (in my belief) totally and utterly true in all that it teaches. But there is no indication in the text that it intends to teach us about evoution (or lack of it) or the age of the planet (or lack of it). Yes that is a hermeneutical decision you have to make, but you do not make those decisions based on preference, you make it based on the way the text demands to be read in its literary and historical context. The poetic form, and seven days structure are the medium within which the message of God's creativity, sovereignty and grace are taught to us, not the message itself.
Jeremy also argues that because inerrancy now means almost anything given how widely it is qualified by different people that if you feel unable to affirm it then there must be something wrong with you. My only answer to such a startling suggestion is that I don't believe we should just redefine words to suit us for the express purpose of fitting in with a certain group of people (in this case those who affirm inerrancy - regardless of what they actually mean by it!). If anything he proves my earlier point that talk about inerrancy is just plain meaningless.