I would just caution to speak with clarity on “errors in the Bible.” There are ways to talk about inerrancy that can make the points here without trigger those in other camps.
There is a coherent doctrine of inerrancy. While you are not saying the Bible has errors, it seems that you are critiquing his insistence on avoiding imputing error on the testimony of Scripture. This is a good interpretive goal. I hope you would agree. This is an appropriate guide to correct interpretation.
One thing that helps is to understand the statement of the doctrine of inerrancy. It is not that there “is no errors” in the Bible. For example, the Serpent tells Eve that “She will not die” if she eats of the tree. Even the most ardent Inerrantists affirm that this an error in Scripture. Rather, the doctrine is that there “is no error in what Scripture affirms,” or in what it “intends to teach us.”
You argument is actually an affirmation of inerrancy too, but taking a better option. You write…
You are articulating here the principle of “accommodation.”
When we identify Scripture using the understanding the people of the time, we can legitimately assert that this is not what Scripture teaches. If it is not the affirmation or teaching of Scripture, than we are not imputing error on to the testimony of Scripture. So this article is an argument for inerrancy. My problem with the AiG article is that it does not consider this option.
The reason I raise this is that “inerrancy” is an important word.
Its proper use aids your argument and it is a strong rhetorical ground. It is called “commonspace” in rhetoric. In this sense, it helps to recover a correct application of inerrancy in your argument, rather than question the “assumption” that the Bible does not have errors.
Not only is this correct on the doctrine they value most, it is also more persuasive.