I assume this is addressed to me.
It would appear that you agree with "
Gill's Exposition", and also agree with TheWanderer's argument of a transcription error. I'm going to assume that you probably believe the bible to be true,
That is correct.
but wondering how you can do so when knowing that there are transcription errors. Maybe they don't bother you -- you sounded undisturbed by the idea. I might even guess that you're not a fundamentalist, which would make you a much better debate opponent than most.
I would classify myself as an evangelical, though I do get the fundie label from time to time. People are lazy like that.
I'm just not sure why I should be disturbed by the idea that there are (and indeed, there really are) errors in the transcription process. Patently, there are, or we would not have manuscripts that say different things (acknowledging for the moment that the VAST majority of differences are things that can't even be rendered in English, and even more aren't viable as original readings after critical analysis).
So why transcription errors? If the bible is "God-breathed", the one and only source for numerous stories about God, then why would God allow mistakes in transcription (and worse, allow them to become canonized)?
It's really the same question as "why doesn't God stop people doing evil things?" or "why does God allow life to be a thing if he knows everything we will ever do?" In other words, although there is a pragmatic/text critical response to your question, there is also a theological/philosophical one.
What would it mean for God to do as you say, and make it impossible for their to be errors in any copy of the text? Well, it would make it easier to do text critical work, that's for sure
But it would also remove agency and responsibility on part of the church. It would remove the need for care and study of the Word. It would unfairly protect the church from evil both within and without. It would require him most likely to make magic autographs that would last forever, which, if nothing else, is practically begging for unsightly relic worship (bad enough with stuff that is not demonstrably a 'miraculous relic' - like Mary toast!)
There are a whole host of theoretical reasons, none of which I can, of course, prove, but all of which are possibilities, depending on your presupposition about what sort of God it is that God should be. This is a fairly short answer on this point, but it is short for precisely that reason - it is largely an argument about suppositions, it is not one based on actual concepts that the Bible sets forth about God, and is also not one that actually looks to make sense of the other data available. It's rhetoric, albeit one I'm happy to engage more in if you prefer. I'd just rather get onto the second point:
The reality is that the problem is not nearly as big as you make out. First of all, it is EXCEEDINGLY easy, particularly today, to see where there are mistakes. The textual basis for criticism is HUGE, over 5000 different MSS in the case of the New Testament, for instance, which is way in excess of any other historical document. The actual amount of variety among these documents is relatively small compared to where the texts agree (albeit more so in the NT MSS than the OT), and the vast majority of variants are, again, either not translatable, or are not viable. Those that have an impact on the text are usually quite minor (for instance, the significance to the biblical revelation of who killed Goliath is, at the end of the day, not critical, and that's one of the more major ones!), and in almost all of these cases it is quite straightforward to work out where the changes are and how they arose, and to discern the correct readings from among the texts (as I hopefully demonstrated earlier in this thread). Indeed, given the wealth of material in the MSS (not to mention quotations and citations in other extant secondary materials), it's hard to imagine that the original texts are not in there somewhere.
It's striking that in practically every case, it is only minor details or events that demonstrate key variants, but all the major things, such as, say, the death and resurrection of Christ, do not suddenly disappear in a deluge of textual corruption. Arguably the two most significant alternations in the whole of the Bible, Long Mark and the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7, add SUPPORT to certain pre-existing doctrines (and in the case of Long Mark, add new ones), but their absence does not make those doctrines disappear. Unless you are into the snake handling thing (which really only became a thing last century).
The whole point of textual criticism is to not assume anything has become 'canonized' by virtue of being in an MSS. It is to go to, or as close as possible to, the original readings, which is where, if anywhere (I assume you don't believe this), the inspiration of Scripture happened.
Of course some Christians don't believe this, and argue, for instance, that the KJV or some other manuscript or translation has special revelation. But I think that's that's intellectually specious, and biblically has no support. Which is probably the last thing I would leave you with - just because some Christians may have a problem with admitting errors in transmissional history does not mean all, or even most, would. Heck, I can go all the way back to Irenaeus in the second century, who spent a large amount of his time having to argue with people about what the correct MSS were. He didn't throw out the inspiration baby with the transmissional infallibility bathwater. I don't see why we should start now nearly 2000 years later.
