The arguments about biblical inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration can get very detailed, so I like to summarize the basic Christian — and biblical — claim as I did in the title.
Many Christians (the confused kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) think the Bible is partly inspired — that is, that some of what God wanted ended up there but at least some of it was man-made and contrary to what God wanted. Consider the claims that Paul was a misogynistic “homophobe,” for example, and that he was wrong about women and homosexual behavior.
But think about who is making the bigger claim. It may appear that those claiming complete inspiration for the Bible have a greater burden. But when you carefully consider the theologically Liberal claims, it becomes clear that their view is much more difficult to support. They need to show which of the 31,173 verses are inspired and which are not. That requires a verse-by-verse case for what does and does not belong. That is a wildly bold claim, much more so than mine.
And it is no small matter when it comes to theology. After all, if Paul was so wrong about basic human sexuality, how can you be sure he got the saved-by-grace part right?
Obviously, the original texts contained what the writers wanted to write, but those who don’t think they all turned out as God desired have to demonstrate how they know what God “really” wanted and where. But they have no standard but their worldly views. They make themselves god in trying to adapt what He said to fit their belief system. Bad idea.
Those who don’t believe the title display some form of Dalmatian Theology, where they claim that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.
Again, the original texts of the Bible turned out exactly as God and the writers desired. Now go read and enjoy the timeless truths God gave to you in his word!
P.S. The claim is for the original writings and not the translations. The translation process was very robust and defensible, but not inerrant. Also note that the case for Christianity does not rest on the inerrancy of scripture. Even if the Gospels had minor errors from the witnesses (they don’t, but work with me here), it wouldn’t mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. The evidence strongly points to that truth. We can defend inerrancy, but I don’t think we have to do that before sharing the Gospel.