There is an alternative view of that story, which is one of my favorite miracles.
Instead of revealing an error by Jesus, it is more likely to be a revelation to us of the process of bringing something whole.
It reminds me of my trip to the eye doctor in the USAF back around 1974. The doctor held a lens in front of my eye and said “how does this look?” Then he held another and asked if it was better.
The miracle, and the process Jesus took, revealed that Jesus was altering the man’s physical attributes.
I don’t see that as an error at all, but as a generous revelation so that we might better understand the power and methods of God.
To relate this to the topic of the thread, we should note that God did not write the scriptures. People, fallible people, wrote the scriptures. They are not inerrant. They are not infallible. Yet they are valuable.
Bruce Metzger described it well:
“In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
This material may be protected by copyright.
By the way, isn’t this process Jesus took to bring the man’s eyes to functionality something like the process that God used in evolution? Different things were tried. Some failed and died. Others succeeded and thrived.