Which Bible is Inerrant?

most of the christian (protestant/lutheran) bibles have an ot nearly identical to tge jewish tanakh, just arranged chronologically according to setting.

i think it's in one of the macabees texts. i suspect the reasons for it's non-inclusion in the tanakh to be political. but i forget the details.anyhow, i think it was included in the septuagint. but i could be wrong on that too.

yes, inERRant and ERRor tend to be mutually exclusive. why don't they teach root word skills in school anymore?anyways. that's why a lot of apologists do their gymnastics routines. once we allow for the fact that someone made a typo, that means the bible is no longer inerrant. it's no longer EXACLTY the product that god intended it to be. man had something to do with it, and that allows for all kinds of errors, many of which are much much more greivous in nature than a simple scribal mistake.and so to prevent that from happening, they often pervert the reading so far from the actual text that it's just silly. the people who claim to be literalists are not, because otherwise they'd have to deal with the fact that bible is literally wrong in many areas. and it literally contradicts itself in many others.me? i'm fine with the bible having errors. it's just a book, not my god. i think recognizing its inherent fallibility is a fundamental step along the way to truly understanding it. believe it or not, it actually helps to make sense of the book, and not in the dismissive "oh it's full of holes let's ignore it" kind of way.