The most intellectually pleasing and logical view is that the bible texts in the canbnon are inerrent in the original manuscripts which are not extant.
define "original manuscripts."
for instance, do you mean the original documents most like the current composition of the texts? or do you mean the sources those documents were compiled from?
what we have as a "bible" is a library of collected texts. the first one in "modern" form was probably around 300 ad or so, compiled by the council of nicea. it was compiled from separate documents, which existed previously. but it goes a step futher -- many of those documents were actually collections of other documents. psalms, for instance, is five books. many jewish bibles today even have the headings that separate WHICH book of psalms you're in. some books got added on to (kings as an added epilogue, for instance), some books got split up (samuel-kings is one book, over four scrolls, luke-acts is probably also one book).
but we can even take this a step further. some books are scholarly works, collection of disparate facts, with citations, from other sources. kings and chronicles BOTH cite other histories. are these sources the originals?
how far down are the originals? under how much human meddling, authorship, editting, collecting, dividing, and trasnlating are they buried? how much of them actually make it to the surface?
i think the truth of god's word endures through the human factor. not so much in a literal sense, but in a meaning sense. i think god can tell us things with it even if the whole things is completely forged and there are no originals.
™ Version 4.2