I've just had an interesting exchange with someone who claimed to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and then went on to quote a very dubious translation. The subject of inerrancy has had a mixed past - some have claimed that the Bible's inerrancy applies without qualification, others point to the original manuscripts (all of which are now lost) and others to the subject matter (eg. the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith, but not necessarily with regards to science or history).
If the variety apparent in modern translations didn't make one ask questions about inerrancy, the footnotes which say things like ,"some manuscripts read alternative text", "some manuscripts lack this verse" or "some manuscripts add additional text" may prompt further thinking. I have said before that I believe that the Bible is both inspired and inspiring, but neither of these require any version of inerrancy.