Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[vulcanlogician]

@OP: The survey question is very poorly worded. I'm an inerrantist, but as worded, I would choose the inspired option. "To be taken literally" is bad wording. The Bible contains poetry, songs, dreams, visions, parables, etc. These by their nature aren't meant to be taken literally.

The Mark/John contradiction (if it is a contradiction) seems to be a matter of vague wording. If I was more prepared, I might argue it further, but for all I know, you could be right. FWIW people on the internet disagree with your assessment. Since there are two definitions of day, that just confuses things more. In the end, it's rather arbitrary. Anyway, I have developed an argument that doesn't rely on pointing out contradictions in the text.

Let's go back to the drawing board. I understand what you've said in the quote above. But, since you are a self-proclaimed inerrantist, you must hold that the bible does not contain any errors on factual matters. When it is intentionally using metaphor (ie. If thy right eye offend thee) it is not meant to be taken literally. But when it says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear," this is as good as a commandment from God, correct? (If you disagree, please explain.) Even if the stuff in Paul's epistles aren't commandments per se, then at the very least, his proclaiments about the nature of God (ie "God is love") must be true. If neither imperatives or factual claims are to be taken as correct, "inerrancy" loses all meaning. So, as an inerrantist, you must accept that at least one of these is true (if not both). I'm going to assume you think both imperatives and factual claims are inerrant-- correct me if I'm wrong. (And by imperatives being "inerrant" I mean that they correctly express the will of God.)

Anyhoo, my argument deals with where you get this idea of inerrancy in the first place. Take Paul, for example. Why is it assumed that when he wrote letters to various congregations that he didn't make one single mistake? Paul certainly never referred to his own letters as inerrant. In Timothy, "scripture" is likely meant to refer to the Jewish law alone, not books in the NT yet to be written. 

I've heard that it is Paul's status as an apostle which makes his writings inerrant. If this is true, where do you get the notion that apostles are inerrant? Look at Peter. In Matthew 16:22, after Jesus reveals that he is going to be the sacrificial lamb, Peter objects. He says that he is not going to let Jesus die. Jesus' reply?

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

The point I'm trying to make here is that Peter, an apostle, made a mistake in interpreting the will of God. He erred. So why, when he sat down to write Peter 1 & 2, is he assumed to make absolutely correct determinations of God's will? There is no way of separating what is "genuinely inspired by God" (assuming such inspiration is a real phenomenon) from the apostles' opinions and personal perspectives. With this in mind, one can easily conclude that Paul might have made mistakes too.

To summarize the question: Where do you get the notion that apostolic writing is without error when it is clearly shown in the Bible that apostles were capable of error in in discerning God's will?