Wobble,
I never claim to be perfect. I can make mistakes. I obviously did when I didn't make this as clear as I should have made it now upon reading my comment.
My reference to how accurate the extant manuscripts merely refer to what we find written at present, and what empirical evidence exists between both available copies and quotes from outside witness that show such agreement. And the "source" refers to the various traditions and reports that is evident according to current textual criticism (i.e., narratives based on the way a certain group or church of believers may have remembered them as opposed to the way the story was kept by a different individual or group).
I also don't mean to give the impression that I totally agree with current historical-critical methods. But I think such conclusions may hold more weight for the critical or academic mind than my personal convictions, so I usually play "devil's advocate" based on what is generally considered the best evidence to date by those who are a bit more studied and versed than I am.
True, we don't have the originals, but we also don't have anything emprically speaking that can present us with an unquestionable alternative. Either way, this should not be contrued as claiming belief in Jesus as the Messiah or otherwise. I am just pointing out that there isn't another text that you can check what we have against it.
But I do take issue with your obvious mistake, and not mine, on one point. I agreed with you that the Bible has no claim to relative authority outside of the communities that created it. I stated that on behalf of the Jewish testament and the Christian one. And I personally do not believe that the Bible is the key to knowing all that is on the mind of the Deity it makes claim to. Any deity who's intellect humans could have the key to is no deity in my book.
And just because the gospel texts are unchanged does not mean I have to believe in them. They can be as accurate as your fingerprint is to your identity and still would only matter to me if I wanted them to matter. They don't have to be false for me to reject them. God doesn't have to be false for me not to believe in God. We could have established fact in God's existence, but I don't have to give a hoot to God if I don't care to.
How accurate or how much evidence to support something as fact or discredit it does not mean I follow through anymore than medical science and all its reports can make a smoker who wants to keep smoking stop smoking. Are you saying you would believe the Bible, all of it, if there was proof to do so?
Personally I don't have to pretend that white wedding cake is false or doesn't exist for me to reject it. I hate it, it's yucky!
I personally don't follow gods or believe in books because they are real or are fakes. I live how I want to, and I do what I want, and white wedding cake be damned (and Watchtower reasoning too).
I'm Juan Miguel, and I ain't scared of no ghosts!