Second, there are not “a thousand” qualifications; there are only two: (1) only the original text is inerrant, and (2) only what is affirmed as true in the text is true and not anything else. The rest of the so-called “qualifications” simply address misunderstandings by noninerrantists.
It should have been sufficient to say simply, (1) the Bible is the Word of God. However, because some have denied the obvious, it is necessary to add another sentence, (2) the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, when some use “inspired” in a human sense, it becomes necessary to say, (3) the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. But since some deny that such a book is infallibly true, it is necessary to add, (4) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God. Then when some claim that the Bible is infallible only in intent but not in fact, it is necessary to clarify that, (5) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God. Even here some have argued that it is only inerrant in redemptive matters; hence it is necessary to add, (6) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God in all that it affirms on any topic. When someone denies the obvious, it is necessary to affirm the redundant.
Geisler, Norman L. “An Evaluation of McGowen’s View on the Inspiration of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 665 (Jan-Mar 2010): 34-35.