Infallibility is the output conclusion, not the input assumption.

The purpose of these videos is not to make any case for infallibility. They only make the case that we know with very high confidence exactly what the original authors were claiming.

That takes away the intervening 2000 years and lets us confront the Bible as a collection of eyewitness accounts whose credibility we must assess.

After reading those accounts, many people simply find the authors believable. Specifically, they conclude it likely that God really did take on a physical body and supernaturally prove beyond their own initial doubts that He was who He said He was.

It is only after you decide to believe those witnesses that you face the problem of how to treat an accurate rendition of the testimony they left behind. If you have already accepted that Jesus was capable of supernatural acts and that he instructed his disciples to pass on His teachings to their successors, then it is a relatively tiny leap to believe their claims that they had supernatural oversight in writing their documents.

If you somehow believe that Jesus rose from the dead, yet do not believe that He preserved an accurate account of His teachings, then you are still faced with the question of which of these two defense strategies you want to rely on at your Final Performance Review.

1. Explain to Jesus that your bad decisions are because you trusted Him to get accurate instructions to you and you attempted to obey the best instructions you could find.
2. Explain that you found it more likely that He allowed false teachings to come down to you so you simply disregarded all His commands that you didn’t like.

Hmmmm. Your call.

So, in practice believers wind up assuming infallibility because there is no one alive with the authority and credibility to countermand a teaching in a way that we trust to stand up in the Lord’s court.