Pete, to you the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says it is inerrant (Which is the same to you as saying that God says it is inerrant.

Leviticus prohibited the Jewish people from eating a specified list of creatures which were declared to be "unclean". Then we come to the New Testament story of a vision of a sheet full of all those creatures, with God's voice saying that everyone was free to eat them. The "dispensationalist" interpretation of that is that God was repealing an old law. The much more natural sense of the story is that God is saying, "I made these things clean, just as I made everything clean in the first place; there was no reason for you to think I told you not to eat them."

Leviticus insisted that people be stoned to death for any of a number of offences, including adultery. When a woman was brought before Jesus for committing adultery, he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He was not saying "My Dad just gave me permission to change the rule on that" ; he was effectively saying, "You should be able to realize that that law was never morally defensible; my Dad would never really have dictated a law like that".

I'm sure anyone could come up with other New Testament passages which effectively say that various things in the Old Testament were misguided. If Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament, didn't regard the Old Testament as inerrant, why should you have to?