Friend, I am sorry to break the bad news to you, but there are no perfect copies of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Perfect in what way? For the NT, when you have over 25,000 manuscripts in Greek, Syriac, Latin and a few other languages, it is not hard to figure out. That is if you are trying to build the Bible from scratch as if no one in the history of Christianity has done so in past. We have those to consider as well. The Eastern Orthodox had no break in Scriptures as they have the very same Greek NT throughout history. Just ask them. You are basically ignoring historical custodianship. That is an agnostic, atheist, Jewish and Muslim assertion and not a historic Christian held belief. What the skeptics want to do is ignore our long church history of copyists and scribes preserving the Word. For example, the entire Bible was translated into Latin by St Jerome in the 4th Century AD from the on hand manuscripts then, both Greek and Hebrew.
When you have just one or two love letters from a couple it is hard to confirm if the two love letters belong together. When you have over 25,000, well it is quite convincing.
The Dead Sea Scrolls come in at a more than 90% match to the 10th century AD Masoretic text. The DSS has manuscripts from every OT book except Esther.
Practically all of the major manuscript copies that are in existence are available on the Internet. Read and compare them for yourself.
Depending on the textual scholar there is a 95%-99% recovery rate for the entire NT Scriptures:
What about Variances in the Early Texts?
As we know it today, there are around 138,000 words in the Greek New Testament. There are literally hundreds of thousands of variants where there is not uniformity of wording. On average, for every word in the Greek New Testament, there are almost three variants. The large number is due to the large number of manuscripts. Are these differences capable in changing the meaning of the intent of the original authors? No. An overwhelming majority of alterations are accidental and trivial.
Textual differences are typically divided into four categories.
· Spelling and Nonsense Errors. This is by far the largest of the categories and the majority of these are spelling differences that have no impact on the meaning of the text. For example, in the Greek, John is spelled two different ways. The same person is in view; but the difference is in whether the scribe decided to spell John using two “n’s” or one. Another common difference found in Greek manuscripts is similar to the two forms of the indefinite article in English: a or an. These variances are so insignificant that most textual critics ignore them. Scribes who were tired or inattentive often created “nonsense errors.” For example, Codex Washingtonianus contains an error where a scribe wrote the word and instead of the word Lord. In the Greek, the two words are very similar (kai and kurios) and the mistake probably happened due to mental fatigue. In the overall context, the usage of the word and does not change the meaning of the text.
· Minor changes and alterations that do not affect translation. This category consists of variations in the usage of a definite article with proper names. Sometimes Greek uses the definite article with proper names while English does not. For example, in Luke 2.16, some manuscripts identify Mary and Joseph as the Mary and the Joseph instead of just Mary and Joseph. In other manuscripts, the article was not used. Also, word-order differences account for many of the discrepancies. An example of this can be seen in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” “In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least sixteen different ways without affecting the basic sense” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012). Word order changes are frequent in the manuscripts, yet these do not affect the basic meaning of what is being said.
· Meaningful changes that are not “Viable.” One example is found in 1 Thessalonians 2.9. A late medieval manuscript (from the 13th century) uses the phrase “the gospel of Christ.” This is a meaningful change, but not viable because almost all of the other manuscripts use the term “the gospel of God.” Other examples are seen throughout the gospels as scribes often tried to harmonize the wording between the gospel accounts. When they did so, they “tended to add material to one Gospel rather than take away material from another” (Komoszewski, Sawyer, & Wallace, 2006).
· Meaningful and “Viable” Variants. This represents about 1 percent of all textual variants. In these cases, the difference in the manuscripts can affect the understanding of a passage. Daniel Wallace identifies three significant examples:
o Romans 5.1 – Some manuscripts read we have peace while others say let us have peace. In the original language, the difference in the word is found in one letter. “If we have peace is authentic, Paul is speaking about believer’s status with God; if let us have peace is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound,[3]” (Grudem, Collins, & Schreiner, 2012).
o Mark 16.9-10 and John 7.53-8.11 are omitted in the earliest manuscripts and do not fit well with the style of writing of the authors. Even if one were to take away these passages, no essential matters of doctrine are changed.
There are thousands of variants and disagreements among the manuscripts that are in our possession, and there is not 100 percent agreement on the language of the original texts.
As opined on and sourced above, you make a mountain out of a molehill.
That is why some of the newer Bible translations omit entire verses that are found in older translations such as the KJV, for example.
Not omit but footnote the variants. Which would you like to offer which changes Christian doctrine or throws it into question?
I suggest you do some serious research into textual criticism and the process by which the NIV on your bookshelf arrived there.
Frankly I have done extensive research and have come across the usual "liberal Christian" skepticism I would expect from such churches which deny the infallibility of God's inspired written words; have seen such from agnostic, atheist, Jewish apologists and Muslims. However, never encountered a Roman Catholic siding with such.
Unless of course your point was we cannot know God's inspired words without a magisterium telling it is so. Because your own catechism states the Sacred Scriptures are the infallible Word of God.
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 3
