Do You *Really* Believe the Bible is Inerrant?

I have been asked this question a number of times. Shockingly, the last few times it has been posed to me, it originated on my side of the fence. More and more I am meeting self-professing Christians, who can sincerely recite the Apostles' Creed, unashamedly scoffing at the idea that the Word of God is in its entirety the Word of God. Rather than bore you with my standard line of questions, I will cite a response from Paul Feinberg’s contribution to Geisler’s compilation– Inerrancy.

While the evangelical who believes the Bible is not inerrant may want to free us from the burden of defending the historic accuracy of the accounts of Pekah’s reign because he cannot believe the accounts, the unbeliever cannot accept the historical nature of a resurrection. Why defend one and not the other? Certainly, the latter is much more difficult to accept than the former.

He goes on to write:

Suppose for a moment that I am an unbeliever. You have just told me that the Bible has numerous inaccuracies of a historical, scientific, and possibly even ethical nature, but that it is absolutely without error in all of those wonderful, “unbelievable” things about God and heaven.

Paul Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman Geisler, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1980), 280-281.

Doesn't the Bible says something about not building your house on sand?