Do the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16:9-20 disprove the inerrancy of the Bible? I have encountered a few instances when Bible critics and Muslims have tried to use the Adultery Pericope (John 7:53-8:11) and the extended ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to disprove the inerrancy of the Bible and claim that the Bible has been corrupted. While I do agree that there's a lot of controversy surrounding these two parts of the Bible, there also seems to be strong arguments both for and against retaining them in the Bible, hence no one seems to be able to state for sure if these should be retained or removed from the Bible.

I don't intend to start a discussion as to whether they should or should not be retained in the Bible, but what I'd like to ask are these:


What is the best definition of 'inerrancy of the Bible'? What is meant by 'corruption of the Bible', if at all it is?
If at all the Bible is errant and/or corrupted, what constitutes an element or portion in the Bible that would render the Bible errant and/or corrupted?
In light of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, are the arguments of the Bible critics and Muslims justified when they cite the Adultery Pericope and Mark 16 controversies as evidences of the Bible's errancy and corruption?


I know not all Christians subscribe to the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, but I do, and I'd like to hear from others more learned than me who also believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God with regards to the above questions.
The Adultery Pericope and the Long Ending of Mark prove no more than that they were additions to the gospels as originally written. They, by themselves, do not prove or disprove the inerrancy of the original compositions, and certainly not the spiritual essence of the Bible. 

Since you believe in biblical inerancy, you would already have a definition for 'inerrancy' that suits you. However, Wikipedia says that biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".  Wikipedia goes on to say that some equate inerrancy with infallibility and others do not, and states that biblical inerrancy should not be confused with Biblical literalism.