Most conservative Christians who hold to bible inerrancy, qualify that inerrancy only extends to the originals of scripture, not the copies.

Where does the bible make that qualification?  It doesn’t.  In fact it extends inspiration to copies:

 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2Ti 3:15-16 NAS)

In context, the inspired scripture mentioned in v. 16, is identical with the “sacred writings” Timothy knew since childhood.

Timothy, alive in the first century, did not know the originals, he only knew copies.  Moses wrote 1,300 years before the first century, Isaiah wrote his original 700 years before the first century.  Nobody says the originals of Moses, Isaiah, etc, continued to exist into the first century.  Nevertheless, Paul says the writings Timothy knew since childhood, were “inspired”. 

So he can only have meant that the copies Timothy knew since childhood, were inspired.  If Paul was ascribing inspiration to copies, then we have choice. 

1 – the copies of the OT Timothy knew since childhood were inerrant (because in Christian thinking, inspiration equals inerrancy), or

2 – Paul called the copies “inspired” while knowing that they contained various errors.

If # 1 is true, it is more than a little suspicious that OT originals that survived into the first century, didn’t continue being publicly available into this century.

If # 1 is true, then why can’t Christians locate a copy of the scriptures that are just as inspired as the originals?  KJV Onlyists think they have found this in the KJV, but they don’t count.  Did God only wish to extend inerrancy to just the first century copies?

If # 2 is true, then according to Paul, a scripture can be inspired by God despite it containing error, in which case millions of conservatives who think inspiration logically necessitates inerrancy (Geisler, Archer), are wrong.