While we have no wish to dismiss flippantly the notion of verbal inspiration there are several indications that this doctrine may not correspond entirely with that of the apostles and early believers.
First there is the issue of translation. The earliest believers read and quoted from the LXX with impunity. There are several instances in which NT quotations of the Old Testament (LXX) are different from the reading we find in our Protestant bibles (where the OT is translated from the Masoretic text). In some instances the differences are quite large, although perhaps never to the point of contradicting the point being made. While the early believers would have been fully aware that the LXX was a translation this does not seem to have caused any occasion for pause. This makes one wonder how important the idea of verbal inspiration could have been to the early believers.
Secondly, with regard to statements about the `original autographs’, since we do not and never will have possession of these original autographs any assertions about verbal inspiration or any other properties are purely hypothetical. It seems to me that there is little point in basing any aspect of our doctrine of scripture on hypothetical documents. Any doctrine of scripture we espouse must deal with the actual documents were are dealing with and the actual means by which they have been transmitted. Moreover, since the early believers seem to have made little or no attempt to preserve these autographs it is unlikely that they were held in particular regard, over and against copies made from them.
Thirdly one might mention errors of grammar on the part of Paul, but this is perhaps a trifling point.