So when evangelicals say that the Bible is inerrant, what do they mean? A more pressing question perhaps is, What is the Bible for evangelicals? Do they mean the original autographs? Do they mean the complete collection of manuscripts that we have at this moment? Do they mean their translations of this collection of manuscripts? Do they mean the Vulgate? Or Erasmus' translation? Or the Geneva Bible, the Lutheran Bible, the King James Version? While there's problems with all of these options, most evangelicals will probably be willing to admit that the reconstructed text (as found in the latest versions of the Nestle-Aland or the UBS texts, and, I suppose, the Biblica Hebraica Stutgarttentsia) are the closest thing we have to the Bible- at least as it was originally.
Below is a picture of the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition. The top text is the text which the textual critics have sifted through all the manuscripts and determined that this is most likely the original text. The bottom text, on the other hand, is the textual apparatus, which lists the variants in each verse.
If you notice, in verse three alone there are at least six possible readings. Which of these readings is inspired? Which is inerrant? Moreover, how is this reconstructed text (as a whole, by the way, never appears in any extant manuscript(s) anywhere) infallible? Each page has dozens of different readings, as you can plainly see above. How can we say that the Bible is inerrant? It's perfectly possible that the reading in the body of the text is the incorrect reading, as my Greek professor would be happy to argue in the case of Mark 1:41 (moved to compassion and becoming angry are quite different things).
I'll probably update this later with more complete thoughts. But see if y'all follow me till then. Let me know your thoughts if you have any.