The Wikipedia article on Biblical inerrancy says this:

Another often used adjective to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet, he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" Lindsell (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective."

...which to me is as clear as mud. Wikipedia has a separate article on Biblical infallibility so evidently the Wikipedia community think the two are different concepts.

From what I can make out, inerrancy is purely about the lack of errors; infallibility also speaks about usefulness. Perhaps software is a good analogy to use; a piece of software can be bug free (inerrant) but utterly useless (not infallible). The Bible is both bug free (inerrant), very useful, and completely trustworthy (infallible).

The Wikipedia article on Biblical inerrancy says this:

Another often used adjective to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet, he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" Lindsell (1978) states that "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective."

...which to me is as clear as mud. Wikipedia has a separate article on Biblical infallibility so evidently the Wikipedia community think the two are different concepts.

From what I can make out, inerrancy is purely about the lack of errors; infallibility also speaks about usefulness. Perhaps software is a good analogy to use; a piece of software can be bug free (inerrant) but utterly useless (not infallible).