Pastor Larry,
First, you said you would not be exaustive about revelation, truly. You miss the deeper questions that concepts of revelation require. When we speak of revelation it cannot be simply propositions about God, but revelation must be the revelation of God Himself. How can you or I be presented with blanket propositions without seriously limiting our own individuality and personalities. Record of revelation and actual revelation are much more than a distinction without a difference. Either a set of words are revelation or Jesus is the revelation only witnessed to in words. No matter how highly we place scripture as a source of our theological reflection, it cannot replace God as the source and content of revelation itself.
Secondly, if truth is defined as Christ himself, then truth does require exhaustivity when we speak of God--because He, unlike 2+2, contains all truth because He is Truth. Additionally, if the bible is proposed as the only source of truth, while at the same time being proposed as "incomplete" revelation "about" God, then the door is open for other forms of revelation. Maybe Muhammad was right?
The enlightenment brought attacks on Scripture that needed to be defended. Therefore inerrancy became an issue. This historical development of doctrine is well known phenomenon of theological history.
Be careful here. The father of the development of doctrine "phenomenon" concept was John Henry Newman--if you would like to espouse it in its absolute sense maybe you should recant your statements in another thread and convert. The development of doctrine as it is conceived and used in contemporary historical theology is not the same as Newman's concept was--his concept reflects your idea of what this means. Instead, contemporary scholarship proposes that the mindset needed to produce a doctrine of inerrancy was not possible before the enlightenment. The pre-enlightenment sea of theological ideas were much more fluid. If you will read what I actually said above, your position has only been given for 200 years, then I think I have been very accurate and well informed on the issue.
Thirdly, you were looking for someone to point our your inconsistant hermenutic; well here goes. If you espouse concepts from a modern American mindset (demons don't sour your milk, people actually have psychological disorders caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, water is not evil) or use Greek, medieval, and modern philosophical concepts to explain your theology and read it back into the bible (Christ has two natures and one person, 3 persons one essence, the bible is the revelation of God) or force scripture to espouse these and any other presuppositions you bring to it, then you are not relying on an inerrant scripture, but upon your inerrant interpretation of that scripture--or errant whichever the case may be. What frustrates your quest to find yourself and your notions about what the bible is in the bible is that the bible is product of an ancient time and an alien culture. If it is not allowed to be what it was, has always been, and will always be, then you no longer have the bible (the record of revelation), but Pastor Larry's philosophy of the bible and its contents.
My proposition would be that there is no hermenuticly principle without bias, thus we need the church and her tradition to always keep us in dialogue. Without the dialogue to show us our biases, or us to show the biases of others both past and present, then we have nothing other than a personal philosophy about a dead document.
The fact that we are here in this forum discussing the bible can only produced good fruits. We are showing each other the biases we perceive. I don't know about you, but I enjoy this conversation. You make me look deeper about what I think and make me struggle with my own biases. If I would guess, at the end of this exchange we will neither one be converted to the others opinion, but I do hope that we have caused each other to think critically and at the same time still be Brothers, for we do have the same purposes here--knowing the most we can about the God we worship and love so that we can be better servants for Him.
Grace and Peace, Danny