Biblical Errancy

Greetings. This will be new territory as a subject of debate for me. I hope I can do justice to this important teaching of the orthodox Christian faith. I do accept your terms of limitation - "A(sic) error that poses actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine." While there are numerous variants in the different streams of over 25,100 extant manuscripts of the New Testament alone and while there are scribal errors and emendations or expansions in the various copies, the important doctrines of the Christian faith are held intact throughout. The Christian doctrine of "Biblical Inerrancy" is in regard to the original autographs. "Error of consequence" would be "concerning all things necessary for His (God's) own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture …The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: And therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold but one) it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly." (The 1689 London Baptist Confession) and therefore has full and final authority. This is not to say that outside sources cannot be used. Further, the essential doctrines which must be believed to be numbered among God's children - The Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, The Physical Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Monotheism, Doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is the only way to salvation, Jesus' Virgin Birth – are those doctrines of consequence which I assert to be free of "genuine error and Contradictions that are WITHIN the text of the 66 books of the Bible". And these truths cannot be truly known outside the Inspiration and Authority of God's special revelation i.e. The Holy Bible. My preferred Bible version is the NASB. However when approaching Biblical interpretation all the tools available including the original languages of the vast amount of manuscripts, the comparison of the numerous translations and versions, and Biblical exegesis within the historical, grammatical, common sense hermeneutical method must be employed as not all passages of Scripture are equally clear. I would like not only to attempt to refute the alleged contradictions that you present in the next phase, but also ask some questions of you at this time since there is space. If this is acceptable to you then we can proceed or if you would like to amend, the ball is in your court. A point of interest. You said: "This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My BoP is to find the errors of consequence and my partner's job is to explain them a way."(emphasis mine) I would consider us as opponents rather than "partners" in a debate. First Question: This was just a humorous attempt to "poison the well"- suggesting that my explanations will just be rationalizations ["explain them a way" (sic)], right? Either way it is indicative of the fact that at the very outset you are predisposed to preclude all explanations of the texts in question out of hand, which is not a surprise. You may not be persuaded, while that would be great, being an Apostate to Christianity and "really don't want to re-convert", my task will be to give plausible interpretations comparing other applicable texts while maintaining consistency with the overall teachings of Scriptures which receives acceptance within the Christian worldview since it contains those scholars which give themselves to textual criticism, Biblical hermeneutics, systematic theology etc. Would you mind telling me: What Christian church/denomination you were a part of? What caused you to renounce your profession of faith (fall-away)? Have you read the Bible? Do you have any formal religious training?