It is the official belief of the Southern Baptist Convention that the Bible is the perfect revelation of God and that it is the perfect source of moral instruction. From the SBC website:
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.
Here is all the response that that belief needs or deserves:
This is one of many details that varies between the four Gospels, causing them to contradict each other in their content and, to an extent, in their message. Biblical inerrancy is clearly an article of dogmatic, blind faith.
Here’s one more from the Old Testament for good measure:
—–
Related Posts:
The Bible (New Testament) as Evidence
The Wages of Altruism: Domestic Abuse
One Internal Contradiction in the Christian Worldview: God’s Omniscience vs. Free Will
Why the Philosophy of Objectivism is Still Relevant and Needed in the Age of Modern Science
Objectivism In Depth 
Pingback: Southern Baptists’ doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, versus the facts of the Bible: Meme images | On Reddit
Eric, I’m as much of an atheist as you are, but if we practice some intellectual benevolence, i.e. affording others the benefit of the doubt, we’d be motivated to learn how Christians defend these seemingly contradictory Bible verses.
(A) http://christianity.net.au/questions/luke-14-26
(B) http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/1-2.html
So out of context, the first is necessarily a contradiction. And the second seems contradictory due to a translation error.
There are some positions that are genuinely too absurd and ridiculous to seriously debate at any length. Biblical inerrancy is one of them, along with the flat Earth “theory.” This is why I put my dismissal in the form of meme-type images and left it at that. The purpose is to make Christians aware of what’s actually in the Bible and possibly shock some of them into thinking about the Bible’s problems and contradictions.
Those who are already aware and engaged in blatant rationalization of the absurd are beyond debate and beyond help. Intellectual benevolence does not mean treating tortured, gymnastic evasion as intellectually respectable argument. The benefit of the doubt should only be given if there is some doubt–i.e. if there is a chance that someone could honestly be taken in by the line of argument. With what you linked to, (especially B) there is no doubt, that’s pure, abject rationalization of a position that someone wants to hold for non-rational motives. (If one uses Link A as a defense of Biblical inerrancy, that would be an evasion of the fact that telling people to hate everyone but Jesus is a very bad way of telling them to love Jesus most in a religion that’s supposed to recommend loving everyone, and the fact that it contradicts the approach of other gospels.)