I’m looking for an objective definition, rather than examples. Your examples to me are simply minor issues. They have no impact on any doctrinal issues, so under my classification, they would all be minor points. You can even remove all those passages from the Bible and it would have no impact on doctrinal belief.
Simply pointing out a list of minor points do not invalidate the entire Bible. It would be like me pointing out all your typos, improper formatting, wrong terms used, false accusations, unsupported claims and then saying you are unreliable and everything should be discounted. I have to dig past those things and get to the core of what you are communicating. If I simply respond back to your posts and only point out your typos and formatting errors without ever addressing your main points, then it is not really discussing what is trying to be communicated. Instead, I spend little time mentioning these minor issues, but focus on the main points of what you are conveying.
Also, I still feel there’s this expectation from skeptics in this thread that inerrancy is held to, even though the OP explicitly rejects inerrancy.