The Bible describes God's Word as truth. Now that word changes meaning in different cultures and different ages in the same culture. Today's people ask, "What is truth?" They infer that your truth is not their truth and that truth is in the eye of the beholder. In a post-modern era that means that many people, even Christians, do not believe in absolute truth, i.e. truth that can never change. So, those who wish to relate the positive word "truth" to a post-modern era use a negative synonym "inerrant" to explain what they mean by truth. That is an acceptable use of language and an understandable step in logic.

Against

The concept of inerrancy too often goes way beyond the simple expression "thy word is truth" to a concept that the Holy Scriptures contain no error, factual, historic or doctrinal. Inerrantists admit that there are translation errors, but are divided over other which other errors to accept or deny.

Hence, what is often cited is the inerrancy of the "original" manuscripts, the so-called autographs. The only problem with this theory (yes, it is theory) is that we do not have the original autographs. They simply do not exist. The earliest copies of New Testament Scripture in existence for instance date about 300 years after the fact. They are copies of copies.

Harmonizing

The fact is that both sides agree. They see the Scriptures as Holy because God inspired the redactors, authors, editors, copiers, printers and translators. They are also truth in the same sense that inerrantists claim that they are true. However, inerrancy introduces a word and a concept that only causes division. If we strip away the unscriptural word "inerrant" (yes, the word inerrant is not even used in the Bible - and that does not make the Bible errant) and look at what we actually agree upon, we will find that both sides of the issue actually agree: that the Bible is God-breathed.

As for me, "thy word is truth" is good enough. I don't need to "improve" on the Word of God. LOL.