Declaring a "copyist error" or "scribal error" is a way to say that in the original, inspired manuscript of the Bible, the reading was different than the one we see most commonly now, and that difference can be attributed to a mistake made by a scribe copying the text, at some point.

These kinds of copyist errors would rationally occur most often on details which are not immediately logically significant - meaning, almost always, spelling or numerical errors. It's unlikely for them to affect large portions of a sentence, for instance, because that kind of mistake would be more likely to be caught on review than would an error affecting a single character.

In general, I have no problem with Christians who use this to explain various alleged contradictions in the Bible. I try to only do this if there is no other obvious solution, but I also understand why some resort to it more readily. It does not speak to a weak view of inspiration, or preservation, because of a few reasons:

• God expects us to have some sense. In every instance I am aware of, it is easy to logically rectify the scribal error, using context, to know what the original reading was
• The presence of a copyist error speaks to the fallible men who copied the text at some point, not the inspired text itself. The inspired text is there, and a proper reading of it exists in the manuscript tradition, but it may be far less common than an errant reading which, for whatever reason, became more prolific historically
• The nature of copyist errors makes it almost impossible for them to have an effect on any actual doctrine. At most, someone is temporarily confused on what amounts to an insignificant detail, until they can tell the proper or more probable reading after a few minutes of gathering context

God has preserved the text of the Bible in a way that allows us to have confidence in what it originally said. Depending on our sources, it just takes a little more study, and sometimes cross-referencing, to make that picture clear, and arrive at the original text.

A List of Potential Copyist Errors

Here is a list potential copyist errors, along with an article discussing alternate explanations for them, if I have one:

• Numbers 25:9 with 1 Corinthians 10:8 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 6:23 with 2 Samuel 21:8 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 8:4 with 1 Chronicles 18:4 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 10:18 with 1 Chronicles 19:18 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 15:7 ⟶ Should almost certainly read "four years", especially considering David only ruled for 40 years total (2 Samuel 5:4-5), and his son rebelling against him is being discussed. Some propose that "40 years" here is a Hebraism for "a long time"
• 2 Samuel 23:8 with 1 Chronicles 11:11 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 24:9 with 1 Chronicles 21:5 ⟶ article
• 2 Samuel 24:13 with 1 Chronicles 21:12 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chronicles 9:25 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 5:15-16 with 2 Chronicles 2:2 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 7:15 with 2 Chronicles 3:15 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 7:16 with 2 Kings 25:17 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 7:26 with 2 Chronicles 4:5 ⟶ article
• 1 Kings 9:23 with 2 Chronicles 8:10 ⟶ Some see a link between these verses and 1 Kings 5:16 with 2 Chronicles 2:2, noting that adding the totals from within each book comes to 3,850 officers both times, which would mean each author is consistent within their own classification of the officers that Solomon had. Alternatively, if there were 550 officers, it's also true that there were 250 officers
• 1 Kings 9:28 with 2 Chronicles 8:18 ⟶ If 450 talents of gold were brought to Solomon, it is also true that 420 talents of gold were brought
• 2 Kings 8:26 with 2 Chronicles 22:2 ⟶ article
• 2 Kings 24:8 with 2 Chronicles 36:9 ⟶ article
• 2 Kings 25:8 with Jeremiah 52:12 ⟶ article
• 2 Kings 25:19 with Jeremiah 52:25 ⟶ If seven men are taken, it is also true that five were taken
• 2 Kings 25:27 with Jeremiah 52:31 ⟶ Some suggest that Jeremiah is speaking about a final release from prison, and 2 Kings about being taken out temporarily for questioning
• Luke 3:36 ⟶ "Cainan" the son of Arphaxad is never mentioned in the Old Testament (Genesis 11:12), and may be a glance error from Luke 3:37