To which we could say it absolutely is not. I challenge anyone to sit down with the Gospels and try to put together a coherent account of what happened at Jesus birth or death from the "harmony of the Gospels." If you think it will be easy, or can be done with the proper approach, you are kidding yourself. If you think you can explain why Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple at the beginning of his ministry in John but at the end of his ministry everywhere else, go ahead. You'd have to say he did it twice. If you think you can reconcile Luke's account of Paul's conversion in Acts, and Paul's account in Galatians, go for it. You won't the first nor come up with a satisfactory solution. Of course, some, who need the belief of inerrancy to be true will satisfy themselves but it still will not be true.

It is not my purpose to prove these points one way or the other. It is merely my point to show how these ideas are what hold a belief in place that perhaps is not, in fact, the truth of the matter. There are hundreds of sites dedicated to both the defense of the Bible as literally true and sites showing how this is not really the case. I happen to be of the "not really the case" persuasion after spending decades sincerely developing a belief that I thought was true and was found wanting...for me. In reality, I consider it neither my business nor responsibility to any longer convince anyone of anything they simply are neither willing to consider nor able to "see."

For me, the joy is in the search for meaning and, yes, I still want to know the truth as it really is. That path has never changed in me and it began when I was a very young and precocious kid.

... it's quite true that the best of the philosophers are of no use to their fellows; but that he should blame, not the philosophers, but those who fail to make use of them. (Plato, 380BC)