The Bible contains error.

I feel it necessary to make the following statement before I go any further: I am no Biblical scholar, and I am not a Bible expert. However, I do believe there are some simple answers to the many attacks on the Bible's authenticity. Due to the structure of my opponents argument, It seems that In order form me to win this debate (And to prove the Bible to be inerrant) is to properly refute my opponents arguments by answering his questions. My opponents argument can be summarized as the following:"1) God exists and is morally perfect.2) So God would not command one nation to exterminate the people of another unless He had morally sufficient reasons for doing so.3) According to various OT texts, God sometimes commanded the Israelites to exterminate the people of other nations. 4) God did not have a morally sufficient reason for issuing these alleged commands.5) So everything every book of the OT says about God is not true. [1, modifications mine]"After this argument is presented my opponent goes into great detail expanding on each point as to demonstrate the authenticity of his statements. I must thank my opponent for not allowing his quotes to become his arguments and for giving his own opinion and insight into the matter at hand. However, my opponent has done something I find to be rather interesting. Whether it be direct or indirect, I do not know, but my opponent has allowed me to peek inside his mind, giving me the opportunity to understand my opponents motivation behind his beliefs. My observation is as follows:My opponent believes that the Bible is errant due to the conflict between the nature of God and God's actions. (This idea is presented throughout my opponents statements and is an occurring trend) I shall present a small particle that has helped to guide me to this conclusion: "This is the crux of the argument. What can be said for it? The most obvious answer would seem to be since commanding genocide is incompatible with the nature of God he did not have morally sufficient reasons because he simply didn't command it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a satisfactory answer to at least some people (mainly inerrantists). "I thank my opponent for the opportunity to analyze this statement. Notice the importance of this phrase. My opponent says that "This is the crux of the argument. " This argument that is so important is the (4)th premise (AKA Premise Z 'PZ'): "God did not have a morally sufficient reason for issuing these alleged commands. " My opponent has made it clear that this is the main and most important part of the argument. As we continue throughout this piece of organized thought, we can see that my opponent makes the next phrase "the most obvious answer" my opponent is now making it clear that he admits there are other answers to this question of "Premise X". My opponent then takes it a step further to identify his reasoning as "most obvious" therefore, there must exist a less obvious answer. I will call this less obvious answer "Answer Z or AZ". As we continue through this "crux of the argument" we can see my opponent make a final statement: "commanding genocide is incompatible with commanding genocide is incompatible with the nature of God". My opponent goes on to say that some will dismiss this claim by saying that God didn't command it. I will not take the easy way out as I believe God did command this. Now take into consideration that the mysterious "AZ" must answer the question of why God would make such an outrageous command. As this final comedy (To be taken in the 16th century sense) comes to a close we begin to see the cross hairs focus on the final crux of my point. If you haven't already figured this out, it is the most obscure part of my opponents statement: "the nature of God". My opponent has done well to define the Nature of God as: "An all Good and Morally Perfect Being". Now I could become the pointless philosopher at this moment and charge my opponent with defining the terms "Good" and "Moral", but I shall save my opponent the stress of defining such powerful words. Instead, I will point out that there is another attribute to God that has not been accounted for. This "Missing Part shall be called Nature Y or NY". This "NY" is that along with being Good and Morally Perfect, God is also "Just". While I hate to use anything modern to define something archaic, I will have to allow the use of the good old Merriam Webster dictionary which defines "Just" as: "having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason or acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good" When we take this into consideration, the answer lies in the subject matter. Because my opponent is also a Christian, My opponent must definitely know the context of the verses he has provided. For those reading that aren't quite so sure, the context is that God commanded the destruction of those tribes because they had sinned in such a way. God commanded His people to rid the world of those races because (1) They sinned against God and (2) Because God wanted His people to not fall to those evil sinners. If we add "NY" or "Just" into the equation, we find a perfectly obligating reason as to why God had to command the destruction of those tribes. God must conform to reason and conform to what is morally right. Now let me establish this final point. This final point or "A-Z" is my conclusion. My conclusion is "It is/was morally right for God to command the extermination of the tribes because the tribes had sinned and all sin requires a punishment. Therefore, God was morally obligated to punish those who had sinned". Now the only points my opponent could challenge this ideas is (1) On the basis of if punishment is necessary and (2) If punishment is actually a moral quality. I believe that to make any of these claims, my opponent would have to really take a step downhill. If my opponent chose to take option (1), he would have to argue that Sin (I assume my opponent 'being Christian' knows the definition of sin) does not require punishment (An idea contrary to Christian belief); if my opponent chose option (2), he would have to argue that it is morally wrong to administer punishment. I would like to see my opponent choose option (2) if he must choose an option at all so that I could provide my very intriguing argument. So if you take all of these into consideration, you will see that there is no contradiction. *And you will cleverly notice my "A-Z" "Beginning to Endness of God"*. While I believe the argument provided by my opponent to be indirectly irrelevant compared to the ideas I assumed my opponent would produce, I have properly addressed them nonetheless. I therefore urge my opponent to provide an argument concerning either the scientific, historical, prophetical, or internal evidence within the Bible rather than an argument concerning the Nature of God.