A lot of heated arguments have revolved around whether the Bible is infallible or not. Some of the heat is over how best to interpret the Bible rather than the actual words on the page, but other fights are over whether to take its council at face value or not.
The way I try to look at it is that the basic text of Scripture has stood two millennia of time as our best record of how God interacted with first Israel and then the world at large. Folks who discount that tend to get themselves into theological trouble, even if they say they don't want literalism and legalism getting in the way of bringing Jesus to the world.
We tend to be cocky, thinking that if we want to do X and tradition would have us do Y, then tradition must be wrong and out of date. "If loving X is wrong, I don't want to be right" to twist an oft-covered song a bit. However, X might well be wrong and the traditional view might well be right, especially if we don't have enough information of the downsides of X or the advantages of Y to make a well-informed decision.
The Bible forms a large core of our cultural and theological tradition. Going away from it tends to get you in trouble in the long haul.
Even if there might be a few verses that might be poorly translated or a few others that might not feel inspired to you, it would be safer to assume that they are legit and useful than to assume that you know better than that.
Is it infallible? It's at least less fallible than last night's burrito burp. Overruling it leaves you in less-charted, often dangerous, territory.