It's quite a complex question, as people tend to blur together inerrancy with literalism, and older thinkers don't approach the question the same way as moderns (it's quite easy to find text 'proving' Augustine was a literalist or a million miles from literalism depending on your angle.)

​

Also to be honest very few people actually take every word literally (e.g. when Jesus is called the 'Lamb of God' they don't think he's actually a lamb). Similarly most take large chunks as literal (though some are more relaxed about this than others: e.g. Origen happily says the chronology in some Gospels on the resurrection is historically false to illustrate a deeper spiritual truth, some early Christians of a more gnostic stripe seem to have been almost exclusively focused on the figurative meaning). The debate as far as I can see often centres around

1. Are there some sections of the Bible where style etc. suggests they're meant as poetic myth rather than historical account
2. If the Bible is contradicted by scientific or other observation, do we respond (a) 'Turns out it was inaccurate here', (b) 'This shows it must be meant metaphorically' or (c) 'the science/observation must be wrong: however compelling it seems God's word is more reliable'.

I'll try to find some specific examples/references (away from my books atm) but you might get more detailed responses here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/