My sense is that some people like to think that, if they can convince themselves of one inconsistency or inaccuracy in the Bible, then they can reject the Bible (and Christianity) in toto. Maybe this tendency is encouraged by the belief of many Christians in Biblical inerrancy; I don’t know. But the point is this: That’s not at all true, and no one would reason like that in any other context.
For example, if Julius Caesar’s account of the Gallic wars got some date wrong, no one would conclude, “Well, that does it: No need to read any more of this dreck or pay any attention to it.” If a news story about an earthquake in China in your local paper today mistakenly called some Chinese city the provincial capital when it wasn’t, you would not decide that, whew, I guess there was no earthquake after all.
I think what’s going on here is the desire by some people to rationalize not wrestling with the Bible: That wrestling would be hard work, and might require them to change their lives, and it would be nice if there were some quick and easy way to avoid all that.
But, sorry: It’s not so simple. If the central truth of the New Testament is true — if a man named Jesus claimed to be divine, performed lots of miracles, and was crucified to death; if after that he was put in a tomb that was then, three days later, empty; and a lot of people then claimed to see him and went to a lot of trouble and endured a lot of hardship based on that belief — well, then, you ought to consider becoming a Christian. And that’s true even if you think that (say) one of the Proverbs doesn’t fit in well with one of the Psalms, or even that Luke misquotes Mark someplace.