I am sorry but we really have to rubbish this whole notion that Scripture can only work if perfect. It is based on the ridiculous notion that we are not able to decide what is real and what is not. I can tell the difference between theology and science. So if there is something that does not match up to current scientific knowledge that will not affect the theology in any shape or form. And just because there are errors in science does not invalidate the theology behind the narratives involved.
The apocrypha was added in the forth century at the Council of Carthage at the same church council that first identified the 27-book New Testament as canonical.
Donāt you agree?
And the apocrypha was still in the 1611 KJV more than 1200 years later.
You seem to have misread or misinterpreted Metzger. He clearly stated the early church leaders viewed the canon as inspired, and many other documents as inspired.
If you have scholarly work disagreeing with Metzger, you should present it.
As for: āShould I or Dale at any point argue that the Patristic writers used inspiration as a criteria of canonical status, feel free to quote Metzger to your heartās content.ā
I note you did not present that argument. You can find many non- or wannabe scholars say inspiration is unique to the canon. But I welcome your showing such an opinion from someone whose training and knowledge approaches Metzger, who supported his views with early church leadersā quotes.
Nobody here is advocating that. To affirm the canon, i.e. Christian Scriptures, i.e. the Bible as the word of God is to affirm that it is inspired revelation from God and authoritative for the Christian faith. It does not imply inerrancy; it does not imply the every word was dictated by God or was quoting God. Those are extra ideas that people bring to the concept of revelation, but they arenāt entailed by it.
I just want to reiterate what BioLogos resources say about this issue:
The Bible holds an essential place in Christian faith. The Bible claims to beāand the Church has recognized it asāthe Word of God. The Church through the ages has acknowledged this status by referring to the Bible as its canon, which means that the Bible is the written standard for its faith and practice.
I encourage people to check out Tremper Longmanās article, which addresses many ideas that have been touched on here.
Rather than leave this thread with annoyance (the internet equivalent of flipping a table and storming off) as I did in the last post. I instead want to thank everyone for their contributions and trust that the conversation will continue to envolve without me (Iāll still be muting this thread).
Your example is not like for like. Calling something history does not evoke any authority, likewise algebra. Clearly the specific name of āThe Word of Godā is more evocative and / or provocative.
Ahh, but to some it is the core of their faith. If the bible is not what they claim then their whole modus operandi for quoting and proofs goes out the window, big time.
Iām laughing ā well, chuckling, anyway. 
This one is rather large: