Bad reasoning: The Word inerrancy does not appear in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is errant?

This is actually my fifth posts in my series responding to some arguments against inerrancy.  I was mistaken last week to say that I only had two posts.  Today’s objection we shall look at is as follows:

However, no where is it written, in any verse of any chapter of any book of either Hebrew or Christian Bible that ‘scripture’ equals ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’!  What it does say is that God’s words are flawless (Psa 12:6), His Law is perfect (Psa 19:7), that His word will not return to Him void (Isa 55:11), that His words will all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18) and that all scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16).  However, it should be crystal clear that not every word written in the scriptures (whether Jewish or Christian) were the very words of God, so they do not all have the same claim to flawlessness.

Here’s my response:

1. This individual’s argument in the first sentence is that the Bible itself never says the Bible is “inerrant” or “infallble.”  But this kind of argumentation if we go beyond the surface is not without its problem.  It is not so much whether the words “inerrancy” or “infallibility” needs to appear as a word in our Bible but whether the concept is taught in the Bible.
2. This  kind of argument actually parallel those who argue against the Trinity because the word Trinity is not in the Bible.  See here how I answer the objection, “I don’t believe in the Trinity because the Word Trinity is not in the Bible.”  A lot of points I made there apply here to our discussion concerning the problems with this kind of argumentation.  Does this individual want to buy the same kind of argument used against the Trinity?
3. As I said in point 1, it’s the concept and not just the theological terms that are important and ironically her second sentence actually affirms the Bible’s teaching on the veracity of the Bible: “What it does say is that God’s words are flawless (Psa 12:6), His Law is perfect (Psa 19:7), that His word will not return to Him void (Isa 55:11), that His words will all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18) and that all scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16).”
4. She punts what she affirm in her second sentence by arguing that it is “crystal clear” not every thing in the Bible has the same character of flawlessness: “However, it should be crystal clear that not every word written in the scriptures (whether Jewish or Christian) were the very words of God, so they do not all have the same claim to flawlessness.”  Her only verse offered as something so obvious and deniable is from 2 Timothy 4:13 which she believes undermine the Doctrine of Inerrancy but we have already responded to her here.
5. I also want to note how self-refuting her argument is.  Again she said “no where is it written, in any verse of any chapter of any book of either Hebrew or Christian Bible that ‘scripture’ equals ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’!”   If she thinks this kind of reasoning is sound, how does she handle someone objecting that “no where is it written, in any verse of any chapter of any book of either Hebrew or Christian Bible that ‘scripture’ equals ‘fallible’ or ‘errant’!”  Using her reasoning, we now see a refutation of the position that denies inerrancy and infallibility.
6. Let’s go even further with the point made in point 5: Are there verses that contradict God’s own testimony that God’s words are flawless (Psa 12:6), His Law is perfect (Psa 19:7), that His word will not return to Him void (Isa 55:11), that His words will all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18) and that all scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16)?  We don’t want to just commit the same word fallacy she made, but whether the concept of an erring Bible is even taught in Scripture.
7. A friend recently wrote a post “Did Jesus believe the Old Testament was historically true?” that offer some example of Jesus believing the Old Testament as historically accurate that should also be considered as data that one should take into account in discussion of inerrancy.

This is just another bad argument added to the others we have responded to on our blog.