Why would you think it would "imperil inerrancy?" Is it not the same meaning, whether we have "Dan," or whether we have "Laish?"
What do you think? I'm particularly interested to know the opinion's of this board's wise denizens regarding the idea of a later scribe redacting the text. Does the idea of "Moses' editor" imperil inerrancy?
There are other examples of this kind of thing. For example, at the time of Abraham, the king of Egypt would not have been called "Pharoah." The term "Pharaoh" [coming from the Egyptian phrase per 'a'a meaning "large house"] was not used of the king of Egypt until long after Abraham.
The important thing to remember is that there is no difference in meaning, and thus, it is not relevant. We know what the place name is, whether we call it "Dan" or "Laish," and we know that "Pharaoh" is referring to the king of Egypt, whether he was actually called Pharaoh by Abraham or not.
Faith Presbyterian Church
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Student