Inerrancy means that what God intends to communicate in Scripture is infallibly true, not that our preconceived notions of what the text *must* mean are infallibly true.

Inerrancy means that the Bible's recorded speeches are accurately conveyed, not that everything in the speeches is true (Satan's speaks in the Bible, after all).

Inerrancy means that all of the parts of the Bible cohere and complement one another, not that their diversity is flattened out into uniformity.

As long as I'm subtweeting, the notion that Job and Ecclesiastes complicate a simplistic reading of Proverbs is standard fare even among inerrantist OT scholars. Proverbs provides general principles. Job/Ecc explore what happens when there are exceptions and complications.

Furthermore, why does *inerrancy* require that Death can't be a person in Job. It is paired with Abaddon, who is explicitly treated as an angel in Revelation. Probably because we don't inhabit the spiritual worldview of the Bible.

Inerrancy is a beautiful truth that we should carefully guard. But when it becomes a shibboleth for a predetermined set of narrow readings and a bludgeon to burn down your former colleagues, it becomes something ugly.

Let me be preemptive: Seeking racial justice and reconciliation is not liberal. Neither is learning from Gadamer and returning to a premodern hermeneutic.