You may refer to that as "rock solid" but it would be considered circumstantial and relitive proof by most scholars. The threshold for "rock solid" proof would something akin to god showing up in person on the white house lawn. I would settle for something far less like a complete copy of the origional manuscripts and seeing that they somehow miraclulaously match perfectly with the modern copies we have..not going to happen but would be nice. Whats more the bible is filled with scientific errors that directly contradict the known facts of physics. For example the bible says that the earth is the center of solar system and that the sun and everything in space revolves around the earth. We know for fact and have proof from satilites and astronauts who have visited space that the sun not the earth is the center of our solar syastem (Heliocentrisim) in fact the earth is rotating around the sun. No credible scientist would support the bibles assertion (in several places) that the earth is "fixed" and does not move.
I believe if you'll look closer, it says that the earth is the center of God's creation. My kids are at the center of my life; that doesn't mean they are in my abdomen all the time. It means that they are what I concentrate on. And the Bible, at least that portion, is written from God's point of view. Maybe from His perspective, everything does revolve around the earth. In relation to other astrological bodies, the earth does move. In relation to God, it does not. It's a matter of perspective.
I take all "Science" with a grain of salt. It is full of misstatements, and intentional misdirection. For instance, I don't believe in evolution. I believe God created the heavens and the earth in six days. I have seen proof that carbon dating past 2000 years or so is a fraud. So what you call rock solid and what I do are two different things.
I will do even better I will give you yet another example of a very important passage that was simply added in later. 1John 5:7-8 also does not appear in any of the early greek copies of in fact it does not appear until the 9th century (almost 800 years after Christ death). This passage deals with an explict statement of the trinity (actually it is the most explicit statement of the trinity) and thus would be considered an important passage by most scholars.
Again, what makes you think that the oldest copies we happen to still have are more correct? People are much more likely to leave things out when copying than adding to something. Perhaps the older copies we have were rejects because of words taken out. Anyway, I have faith that my God can do as He wishes with that book or any other.
And that's the basic difference between us. I don't have to have empirical evidence, admissible in court, in order to believe in the God of the Bible. I believed; I asked Him to show me, and He did. It isn't my job to convince you or anyone else. I am 100% sure, without a doubt. Because I sincerely believed first, without any outside proof, God gave me proof anyway.
As for "mistranslatios and errors" there are prob. thousands I have given you two examples of something much better, additions that were never in the origional text of Mark and 1 John. Again there are more but do you really want an exhaustive listing? I think even one or two on this scale (one dealing with the resurection of Christ and the other the trinity) should make my point clear and obvious. The point is that for whatever reason the bible or rather the individule works which later were collected together and called the "bible" were and are not somehow magically protected by god from man changing them or adding and subtracting from them over the centuries because he obviously has changed it.
Did you read the original text? I didn't think we had a copy of it.
If you need further proof that this is possible may I suggest reading Revelations 22:18-19. In that passage the author speeks of a warning given to him during his vision. The warning was against anyone "adding to or subtracting" what was written. So why a warning agianst something which is impossible to begin with? I mean god did not warn us against defeating him did he or against walking on water..or other such things did he? Of course not because that would be silly since our doing those things was not possible. Now before you go off and try to say that I am misunderstanding Revelations 22:18-19 let me point out two facts that people seem to try to arguee against this with..incorrectly:
1. The warning is not written as a hypothetical nor as in the form of a warning against "attempting" or "trying" to change what is written. The Greek (Konie) that was used in the book Revelations indeed uses language that indicates the actual doing of something not its meer "attempt" The Greeks had words for "attempting" or "trying" and those words were never used in the passage.
2. The warning does not only concern Revelations. If revelations could be tampered with there is no reasonable arguement for why the other books of the bible would somehow be more protected than Revelations. Especially considering the serious nature of what is discussed in Revelations. One would if anything think that work would be more protected than any of the other books. The fact is that there is no "devine" protection over the words of the bible. Therefore reading and interpretating the bible "literally" makes no sense.
Okay, either you take the Bible literally - in which case anyone who added to or subtracted from it is cursed, which means it is protected by God (protected by a curse); or you DON'T take it literally, there is no divine protection, and believing it is ignorant. So which is it?
I am not saying this because I like being argumentive but rather so others who read my words might consider this when they hear others such as yourself trying to convince them to accept everything as literal. I want them to realize that your approach is not supported by the facts.
So, I guess the question is, what are you going to believe?
Man's reasoning skills, human logic, what we can prove?
OR
God, who's thoughts are not like our thoughts, and ways are not like our ways? Who offers us eternal life with Him out of love?
You can't have it both ways. Or you can, but there's a point you have to choose, and say, "No, there's no objective, discernable evidence of a god, so there must not be one." Or else, "No, there's not objective, discernible evidence of God, but there's plenty of subjective proof. There's the wonder of nature, changed lives, miracles. So I choose to believe in You, God."
Personally, I wouldn't follow a God that I could totally explain. I want my God to be much bigger than I am. My God has reasons for things, reasons that I may never understand. And that's okay with me.