Good post, Narkissos.
I would just add that the presupposition of inerrancy privileges harmonistic interpretations (aimed at resolving "contradictions") over readings that deal with what a given text says in context and imho this results in an artificiality that is not present in the text itself. Such an approach would miss out on inner-biblical criticism and exegesis (that is, reinterpretation and disagreement within the Bible itself) and thus ignore the "richness" that I referred to earlier.
And what the writers themselves considered "scripture" is not necessarily what may today be considered "scripture". The author of Jude quotes from 1 Enoch as genuine "prophecy," and thus considered this book as inspired. And books today accepted as canonical scripture may not have been accepted as such by the writers (e.g. it is doubtful that Paul regarded his own letters as inspired scripture, distinguishing as he does between his own opinions and commands he had received from the Lord).