""I understand about the Catholic Church, bible being canonical, all of that and that there were a lot of time, politics, opposing religions bouncing around and all that. This is also sub-points to why I doubt the 100% accuracy of the Bible but I was originally trying to limit it to my '16% vs 84%' argument "
This is not an easy question, and thus gets asked all the time. But why? Because we who are taught about the God of love cannot reconcile this inside our heads. So we can't ever put this question to rest, even after 2,000+ years.
My personal take when things (be they church-produced, human written bible phrases or any of the myriad of church traditions) seem in direct contrast to the Two Greatest Commandments -- I ask which one is more plausible? That God erred, or that humans erred in their understanding, writing, reading, interpreting? Try this is for size:
1. We know God is love.
2. We know Jesus did not condemn other religions as a dead end's.
3. A human author writes that salvation comes only from Jesus Christ. There is no other way but eternal condemnation.
The Holy Spirit that allowed a pope to declare papal inerrancy as sacred church teaching/tradition is the same Holy Spirit that allowed human authors to introduce imperfections (inaccuracies, emotions, biases and outright contradictions) in writing / compiling the bible -- just another of many different church traditions.
Why should it be implausible that a human author honestly believed salvation can ONLY come from Jesus Christ -- when that was not Jesus' intention -- as shown by his obvious forbearance in condemning any other religion? That human author too had 100% free will to write as he thought best -- just like you and I.
Message: Do not cling to the bible as perfect. It isn't. It is inspired. But it is also a human product. Don't be like the pope who condemned Galileo for calling out facts that pointed to imperfect theological understanding.