How's this for a syllogism: 1. For a sentence to make sense, its negation must also make sense.
2. To claim 'the Bible is errant' is nonsense.
3. Therefore to claim 'the Bible is inerrant' is also nonsense.
Rather, the Bible is authoritative in a very different way - and not at all less so for it.
Briefly, the first statement is a mainstay of Wittgenstein's that basically says that it is meaningless to negate something that is meaningless. A nonsensical sentence is not worth disagreeing with, because in so doing one actually joins in with that sentence's nonsense. The second statement is what I hold to be an authentically Christian statement - to say 'the Bible is errant' is not wrong but in fact meaningless nonsense. It betrays a very fundamental misunderstanding about the kind of thing the Bible is and how it functions truthfully in the life of the community of faith. And the third statement brings the two together: to argue that the Bible is inerrant is to validate and participate in the nonsense of Biblical errancy. In answering that foolishness according to its folly in this way we are made just like it (Proverbs 26:4). We need answer it, lest they be wise in their own eyes (26:5), but it seems a naming of the folly for the nonsense it is would suffice.