…then inerrancy must be abandoned. Consider the chronology:
We have a seventh century B.C. Assyria, under the rule of a sixth century Chaldean (Babylonian) king, invading a fifth century restored Judah, with an army led by a fourth century Persian general (Holofernes was the Persian general under Artaxerxes III in the successful campaign against Egypt in the fourth century B.C.). In truth, no major attacks were made on Jerusalem while under Persian rule in the fifth and fourth centuries (an unprecedented period of peace for war-weary Canaan).
Similar problems can be leveled at Tobith. Anchorites have tried to exonerate these two books, but their attempts prove my point. Jimmy Akin suggests either (1) the errors are traced to bad manuscripts, or (2) they are fairy tales. The problem with (1) is that Akin gives us no examples of this being the case, nor does he list any scholars who take that position. (I am not an expert on apocryphal manuscript traditions, but I doubt many are; I have, however, read a good bit on the Apocrypha and for a time argued for it, and I never came across that claim. There are no doubt minor manuscript variances–that is true with any document. What the Anchorite needs to show, though, is that there is a significant error or variation at this particular point. No argument was given, though). Affirming (2) effectively concedes the point. You can’t hold to inerrancy and call key parts of the Bible, which are presented as history, fairy tales.