BTW, I never said God=Bible, that's not even the point here.
The point is inerrancy. I take your points about the message being different from the medium, and the message of God having at least the capacity for inerrancy, depending on lots of other factors.
This is a very different thing from using Scripture verses as weapons to beat other believers over the head with, in order to convince them of a particular point of view, which is what many Christians do. Scripture is not intended to be used in this way, and neither is every single verse taken out of context inerrant in any context to which it is then applied.
For the simple reason that Scripture as it stands, in context, is nowhere claimed to be perfect. So out of context it becomes less so, not more.
My own view of Scripture, if we use a metaphor, is that it is a beautiful creation, like a temple or palace. Each part of the whole can be looked at individually, as a room or a contributing part, but it is best seen in context of the whole. If you take that building apart, and select from it a few favourite bits, and then ignore the rest in order to concentrate on your own selections, then you distort the whole. What we have is an allegory of the ancient temple. What modern fundamentalists do is to tear apart that temple in order to find the most destructive parts of it, and then use these parts to stone other believers.
None of this behaviour is sanctioned in Scripture. Each part has to be seen in the context of the rest, and the whole temple seen in the context of God, who inhabits it, as he inhabits each one of us. But he does not inhabit a pile of bricks, used to throw at other believers in the hopes of destroying them.