In his recent book, “Jesus, Contradicted,” Michael Licona defines biblical inerrancy as follows: “The Bible is true, trustworthy, authoritative, and without error in all that it teaches.” Licona claims that this definition allows us to reject the traditional view that “the Bible you and I read is only inerrant to the extent that it mirrors the originals.” Licona asserts that the “flexible inerrancy” he articulates “applies to both the originals and to our present Bible.” This paper accepts Licona’s definition of biblical inerrancy but challenges his claim that inerrancy is properly applied to “the Bible you and I hold in our hands.” The paper presents two case studies, one on the translation of the text and the other on the transmission of the text. First, the paper considers 1 Cor 7:21 in the RSV and NRSV and observes that these two translations directly contradict one another, not in peripheral details, but in fundamental teaching. Thus one cannot claim that both the RSV and the NRSV are inerrant. Second, the paper considers 1 Cor 14:34-35 and demonstrates that, despite their presence in all extant manuscripts, these two verses are plausibly a later scribal addition that contradicts Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 11:3-16. Thus one cannot assert that the modern text is inerrant without cutting short the complex debate over the authenticity of 14:34-35. The paper concludes with Augustine that biblical inerrancy is properly applied only to the autographs. Even those who hold to a “flexible” definition of inerrancy cannot escape the caveat, “in the autographs.” Copies and translations should be considered “true, trustworthy, authoritative, and without error” only to the extent that they mirror the teaching of the originals.