I think one reason there’s such a battle over the view of inerrancy is people think there’s only two positions. But it’s a false dilemma. Just because someone denies Biblical inerrancy does not mean he’s necessarily claiming the autographs has errors. It is not either one accepts Biblical inerrancy or Biblical errancy. One does not need to accept either.
We might as well argue if the Bible is indistinguishable or inextricable or inconspicuous. The debate would be meaningless.
I agree with John Frame that we should drop the term inerrancy to describe the Bible.
“Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including “infallible” and “inerrant” and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God’s Word being true.”
https://frame-poythress.org/is-the-bible-inerrant/
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985473#p985473