Btw, for XJ4EVR specifically, and ridiculers in general, remember an old lesson from our former cultish religion:
Apostates were bad evil people to be avoided. Not because what they said or asserted was correct, but because if it wasn't in the WT, then it was wrong. It could then be ridiculed, simply for not being in the WT.
So I hope you will excuse me if I point out that while XJW4EVR is correct in his assertion that Wiki doesn't pass scholarly muster for college papers, that shouldn't in any way cause the information contained therin to be rejected. This isn't college. and XJW4EVR has the ability to specifically address any point of disagreement or contention. Instead, he tries to demonize the whole argument by starting a sideshow argument on the merits of a Wiki quote.
Thats weak.
All quotes in that Wiki quote were referenced, attributed, and easily researched. Having read Ehrman and Metzger, I know that this is what they said. Also, frankly, the history of how the bible got to us is easily found, and one cannot help but see the naked politics behind the assembling of the now accepted bible cannon. Thats history.
Now I understand if you are a Christian how that information and the assertions Terry made might make you feel uncomfortable. So be it. Why would it make you feel uncomfortable though? Because the assertions are lies and are wrong, or is it because it causes one to cast a different light on their faith and the source of it?
In any case, XJW4EVR, we know that colleges don't want Cliffs notes, and using other people's research in their papers. So what does that have to do with Terry's treatment? This isn't college, its a commentary, a truthful one, about how the bible got to us.
So back to the my original point here: Don't use the JW method of ridiculing what you disagree with. Address it head on. Even one point Terry theoretically got wrong will weaken his arguement, right? So XJW4EVR, find that point, and lets go at it.
I expect better of former JW then to use JW debating methods.