Many years back when I used to pick up copies of The Humanist for cheap laughs, I recall seeing a small advertisement among the back-matter ads (for things like atheist joke books that offered such howlers as, "What would you name a Christian dairy in the Holy Land?"; "Cheeses of Nazareth!") that claimed to provide undeniable, irrefutable proof that Josephus had authored the NT. The offerer was the "Abelard Reuchlin Foundation." Well, these guys are still around, and the nuts have not fallen far from the tree.

It would be an overstatement to say that no one takes this group -- whose overall thesis is that the NT was authored by members of an aristocratic Roman family to keep slaves under control and submissive -- seriously. In fact I can find only one writer who has even bothered to address their claims in any detail, and that ironically enough was someone on the other side of the lunatic fringe, Nazi Christ-myther Revilo P. Oliver. All Oliver did was address a couple of technical claims they made (apparently their thesis ignores that the Romans used very few of what we would call "first names"); as for the rest, he didn't consider it worth his time. What few other challenges to these ideas I have found have been to merely describe the theory in one word or less; i.e., "bunkum". I also found a message board, with a message from a member of a Classics Department at Calvin College, which said that he had not looked at the Piso site on angelfire.com, but did say:

...I often use "angelfire.com" sites to illustrate to my students the danger and indeed the absurdity of using websites indiscriminately when they write their term papers. Some of the pages there are real doozies."
Go to the web site for the rest of the article.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.html

Is your dog God?

My faith rests firmly on the resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, then scripture is inerrant. He upheld the authority of the old Testament numerous times.

No you cant, for instance we know so much about the New Testament with the wealth of manuscripts we have. The more manuscripts the closer you can get to the original. Like I said, maybe the greatest textual critic to live puts it at about 99.5%. We get that close to what the writer actually said.

"the Bible Knowledge Commentary states: “The difference may be due to a scribal error in copying Chronicles for the Hebrew numerical symbols 300 and 800 look much alike”

Here is a possible solution.

Upon further contemplation and study, several possible solutions to this “difference” become evident. One of the most obvious is that of a copyist’s error. Even in the English language, only a small portion missing from the front of the numeral 8 would make it look like a 3. In similar fashion, the Bible Knowledge Commentary states: “The difference may be due to a scribal error in copying Chronicles for the Hebrew numerical symbols 300 and 800 look much alike” (see Walvoord and Zuck, 1985, 1 Chronicles 11:11). [For a general background on copyists’ errors, please see our foundational essay on that subject, Lyons, 2007.]

However, even though a copyist’s error poses a quality explanation for the differences, others exist. One of those deals with the possibility that the verses could be discussing two separate occasions where Jashobeam defeated a multitude each time—on one occasion 300, and on another 800. This does not seem the most likely explanation, but it is a possible explanation. Along these lines, a spear is mentioned in the verse in 1 Chronicles, but no weapon is mentioned in 2 Samuel. It could be that different weapons were used in his attacks.

Bart Erhman pretty much dedicates the book to Bruce Metzger.

I will give you a head start. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=899

The book is written by Bart Erhman, and guess who his mentor is, Bruce Metzger.

Scholars have ways of dealing with these things, in order to find out what was in the original.

It would not have been an error in the original text.

Thats a good probable explanation.

I dont deny copyist errors. That has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make.

Bruce Metzger one of the greatest textual critics to ever live put the accuracy of the New Testament at about 99.5%. That is how close we are to the originals.

"Is the New Testament we read today the same as when it was fIrst written? Can we believe that the accounts written by the New Testament authors have been accurately preserved in the Bible we read today? There is actually substantial evidence that the New Testament we read today is incredibly accurate and true to what was written by the original authors.
First of all, we have more manuscripts of the Greek New Testament than any other writing from the ancient world. There are 5,686 partial or complete hand written copies of the Greek New Testament. This is more than for any other book from the ancient world. Most classics from antiquity survive on only a handful of manuscript copies. Homer’s Iliad comes in a distant second with 643 manuscripts. There are only 9 or 10 good copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic War, 20 copies of Livy’s Roman History, 2 copies of Tacitus’ Annuls, and 8 copies of Thucydides’ History. If we count copies of the New Testament that were translated from Greek into other languages, then the number jumps to over 14,000! What is more, if we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament. (Most of those 11 verses are from Third John and none of them are related to doctrine.)
We also have earlier manuscripts. Most of the New Testament is preserved in manuscripts that were written less than 200 years from the original, some from as little as 100 years, and 1 fragment comes within a generation of the first century. By contrast, most ancient books survive in manuscripts that were copied about 1,000 years from the original. It is rare to have, as the Odyssey does, a copy made only 500 years after the original.
Finally, we have more accurate manuscripts. The New Testament is the most accurately copied book from the ancient world. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimates that the New Testament is about 99.5 percent accurate. By comparison, the Mahabharata is only about 90 percent accurate and Homers Iliad about 95 percent.
What is the conclusion of all of this? Sir Frederic Kenyon put it this way. “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in one or the other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world”
In other words, if we cannot trust the reliability of the New Testament, then we cannot trust any other document from the ancient world.
Did the New Testament writers record the event as they really happened? In other words, were they telling the truth? There are numerous reasons to believe that the writers of the New Testament were very meticulous about recording the actual words and deeds of Jesus without adding to or taking away from them. There is absolutely no evidence to support any theory that tries to assert that these events were simply made up.
1: Eleven of the twelve disciples and Paul died for the things that they were preaching and John was banished to an island. While it is true that many people have died for things that they believed that were not true, these men were in a position to know if the things they were saying were true or simpiy “made up”. If the whole thing were just an elaborate hoax, don’t you think that at least one of these men would have admitted it rather than be put to death for no real reason at all?
2: They left in embarrassing and unflattering things about themselves. The disciples are constantly portrayed as faithless, cowardly, unaware of the big picture, and often times downright dim-witted. Jesus even said to Peter “Get thee behind me Satan”! There was no attempt made by the authors to make themselves look better than they were. 3: The first witnesses at the empty tomb were women. (While the men were hiding for fear of the Jews!) In first century Jewish culture, the testimony of a woman was considered to be so weak that they were not even allowed to testify in court. If the authors were just making this story up, they certainly would not have included the testimonies of women.
4: The authors were very careful to distinguish between the words of Jesus and their own. It would have been very easy to clear up a lot of the controversies in the early Church (the role of woman in church, circumcision, baptism, etc.) by putting words in Jesus’ mouth, but this was never done.
5: The authors left in difficult and seemingly contradictory things that Jesus said. “Be perfect as I am perfect”, “lust is the same as adultery,” “love your enemy”, “the Father is greater than I”, and the fact that Jesus did not know when he would return are all left in.
6: The Gospel spread rapidly throughout Judea, the very region where Christ lived, died, and performed His miracles. If the things that the disciples were preaching were not true, these people would have known.
7: The authors did not attempt to harmonize minor details, which would have been a sign of collusion. In other words, they did not get together to “get their stories straight”. Any theory that states that the disciples made this story up has no evidence to support it. In spite of all this evidence, there will always be those who want to know if there are
any non-Biblical references to Jesus from the ancient world and if they support the New
Testament story. The answer is yes, but I would like to add that this is a little like saying
“Other than all of your eye-witnesses, what kind of case do you have?” This is what
outside sources (largely first century Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan) tell us about
Jesus.
1: He was from Nazareth.
2: He lived a wise and virtuous life.
3: He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar
at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king.
4: He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later.
5: His enemies acknowledged that He performed unusual feats they called “sorcery”.
6: His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading as far as Rome.
7: His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as divine.
I believe that all of the evidence, taken as a whole, is overwhelmingly in favor of not only
the New Testament texts we have today being accurate copies of the originals, but also
the originals themselves being an accurate description of the life of Jesus and the early
Church."

Thats ignorance. I will show why.

THere is really no problem with this. Scholars work these things out.

Yes there were copyist errors. The bible claims to be inspired in its original manuscripts. Lets go into this.

Thats a rather good one. Its a numerical discrepency. The Biblical claim is that the originals were inspired. This is different from the Quran which claims to be perfect in all its entirety.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.