To be sure, all of the terms in question, infallibility, inerrancy, verbal inspiration, the statement that the Bible is the Word of God, can be used improperly as well as properly.

By improperly/properly, I mean in non-conformity/conformity with the intended referent.

My primary concern is that we use these terms in a biblical fashion. Here are some examples of what I mean. If infallibility of the word is defined in terms of Isa 55:1-11, both stand or fall together.

Furthermore, infallibility of God’s word has to be defined in such a way that a sequence of prophecies and events like that reflected in Jeremiah 34 and 52:7-11 remains within the realm of possibility. That is, prophecy “A,” intervening event, prophecy “B,” intervening event(s), fulfillment, which does not correspond to either “A” or “B.”

Put another way, it’s not my fault that many readers, a ton of evangelicals among them, seem unable to define the infallibility of God’s word in a plenary sense, that is, with reference to both text and subtext, to use familiar lit-crit terms.

Jonah was not so stupid. He knew that when he preached 40 days until doomsday for Nineveh, there was an unspoken subtext which meant the word of God he preached was infallible, but also conditional.

It is possible to speak about the infallibility of the word of God that is faithful to the biblical witness.

Second example. Verbal inspiration. Well, inspiration is a term used in the Bible in reference to other parts of the Bible. Presumably, it can be used for all of it, with the proper qualifications of course.

But what about verbal inspiration? It was James Barr, no fundamentalist he, who mounted the best defense I’ve seen of this concept. Defensible linguistically and theologically. Are you familiar with it?
I don’t have the reference handy. I have a vague memory of having read it in a document of that instrument of the devil (please note tongue-in-cheek), the World Council of Churches.