Just Another Flawed Book

I read the transcript of an interview a while back that's had me thinking. Then a conversation at work last week really cemented the detriment of the particular mind-set the interview portrayed.
The interview was between Shane Claiborne (interviewer) and Tony Campolo (interviewee). I'm only going to touch on very little of the actual interview which was from 2005 (I believe), but I'll link to it in it's entirety (as I read it) at the end.
The interview is titled "ON EVANGELICALS AND INTERFAITH COOPERATION". The first exchange has Shane asking Tony (an ordained minister in the American Baptist Church and professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University in St. Davids, Pennsylvania) to define "evangelical".
Campolo: An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. And the third thing—we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I've defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus.
Well, I believe the doctrine of the Apostle's Creed, although I view it is a very compact, condensed definition of what I believe (without detail). It may explain the who/what, but doesn't even come close to explaining the why of Jesus Christ. I also believe deeply in being personally involved with the living resurrected Jesus. What bothers me is his second point. That "evangelicals" hold a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. As soon as someone claims inerrancy of the scripture, all arguments are over. Nothing you say, no matter how firmed in scriptural foundation the claim may be, can always be written off as scriptural error. If our salvation comes through an emotional experience and a faulty book, I'll have to pass. I mean, as far as we know, the whole story of the death, burial and resurrection may be a fabrication or embelishment. Who is the special person who gets to pick and choose what is factual and what is not? At times, I like to think that might be the job for me, but when you step back and look at the big picture, how many lives are in the balance when we decide what stays and what goes in scripture.
Two of the guys I work with, one Catholic and one Lutheran, have been told all of their lives that the scriptures are nice stories set in place as examples, but aren't necessarily factual. This is obvious by the lifestyles of these people. The Catholic guy knows the scriptures somewhat (in the typical Catholic way), but the Lutheran not at all. The problem is, whatever I might say to them regarding the scriptures is usually scoffed at. One of them asked a biblical question last week. I usually begin my answer with "if you believe the scriptures as literal...". For some reason, this time I said it it caused the Lutheran guy to say with a smirk "Of course. Is there any other way?" I understand that I only plant the seeds and God brings the harvest. All I can do is keep throwing it and hope that something sticks. Unfortunately, they are pre-programmed to take anything they might hear that might even vaguely sound scriptural skeptically. When I was young and learning the Bible, if I'd been told that I was a sinner and I was going to die and spend an eternity in hell; but Jesus, God in flesh, came to this earth to pay for my sins so that I could live forever - that the Bible said it and it was true; BUT where the Bible says that women shouldn't teach the men or that divorce is unacceptable...these are errors in the scripture. I would have walked away as the Lutheran guy has. I think we tread thin ice when we claim that the scriptures are full of errors and that we as humans can decide which is which.
Who knows, maybe I'm too shallow. Maybe too deep? Too uneducated? All of the above? I know, I've ranted on this before. There's a lot more to the interview than what I've mentioned. A lot more that I'd like to address here if I can make the time. I also have books by these two gentlemen in queue to be read (when I get the time). Maybe that will shed more light on what is true and what is not in the Bible. I'll let you know.

Interview link: here