Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

R4.Con.1 - Is there a Biblical Basis that Requires Believers to Accept Scripture as Inerrant?In Re. R3.Pro.1 - "So you are using that fact that the Bible talks about some of the commandments being bad to disprove my claim."I am saying that Scripture - itself - claims that it was distorted. Perhaps in another place, Scripture claims to be inerrant - or Scripture demands believers to accept Scripture as innerant. Either way, Ithink that those two claims would have to be unsubstantiated. R4.Con.2 - If Scripture is Inerrant - but there are bad commandments - then Which commands would believers follow?In Re. R3.Pro.2 - "Next you asked then what commandments should you follow.".... If both claims are true, that Scripture is inerrant AND Scripture has bad commandments - then there is a dilemma that rises where it is impossible to know WHICH commandments to actually obey.R4.Con.3 - Even if the KJV is actually inerrant - even that translation does not require believers to accept its own inerrancy. In Re. R3.Pro.3 - "Next thing are you trying to say that the KJV"The KJV is a translation, of multiple, mixed, Greek Manuscripts. As a translation - it is certainly errant, (by definition) - nor did the editors ever conclude that their translation was "divinely inspired" evidenced by the many, many edits. R4.Con.4 - "Is Love God - Your Neighbor" Truly the Greatest Commandment? I concede that it is my fault for starting this "Red-Herring" - and it is a distraction, but you kinda brought up another objection regarding the "Inerrancy of Scripture".As you indicated - when both Jesus and Paul spoke about these two commandments - they do so in a "Legal" context, with a very explicit "Qualification", specifically : "The greatest commandment ... OF THE LAW." That doesn't mean the greatest commandment, "of all". There is a very emphatic qualification, here - especially given that Jesus was talking to lawyers.The end of John has a little dialogue - where the Disciples had a dispute, and they came to a very sound conclusion : "but Jesus didn't actually say ... - rather, he only said ... (John 21:23)" ... Showing that even the Disciples understood the importance of interpreting Jesus precisely, and that they did not have authority to "Read in between the lines".What I mean, is this : at the very least - the former commandments were incomplete, (the New Testament), and distorted, (Ezekiel 20). And, Because of the glaring omissions, distortions, and inconsistencies, those former laws cannot possibly be considered : "inerrant", (and in a context that claims moral superiority - I argue that "incomplete" IS pragmatically the same as "errant").R5.Con.5 - Regardless, What are the Textual Bases that Demand Believers to Accept the Inerrancy of Scripture?Regardless if Scripture is ACTUALLY Inerrant, (or not) ... is there a requirement, (derived from the texts) - that demands a believer must accept Scripture as "Inerrant" ? Is accepting the "Inerrancy of Scripture" a requirement for Salvation? Also, In the Temple Periods - what actually constitutes those "Scriptures", that are supposed as "Inerrant" (if the Bible wasn't compiled until centuries later)?