I have read several Biblical scholar/analysts who are strongly credentialed and knowledgeable in the field. They are very clear about the transcription errors, the edits, the editorial choices in translation, and the simple contradictions — and on the dating.
IN early Christianity, there was a wide range of beliefs, and there were numerous versions of the stories going around. They didn’t get written down for a while. It’s not as if Jesus and the Apostles had their own steno pool.
That means nothing - and highlights a most curious phenomenon of willful ignorance that regularly occurs in Biblical studies. That is, one will wax on about the "fallibility" of the biblical writers while in the same breath accept without question the supposed infallibility of the so-called "experts" he or she has hand-picked to support the view they have chosen to believe.
Scholars have their biases, and unfortunately those prejudices are especially evident in biblical studies, where there is so much at stake. Those who reject biblical truth are not likely to teach and write in support of those truths - and in fact will spend their entire career attempting to tear down the authority of the Bible.
How many countless college students have had their faith undermined in "literature of the Bible" courses at secular universities by unbelieving professors who sowed seeds of doubt in their impressionable minds? After all, he or she is the professor - the expert - and surely they know what they are talking about?
In our society we have replaced the infallibility of Holy Scripture with the infallibility of the new Priestly Class: a secular and skeptic academia.
These are most serious matters: "Let not many among you become teachers, for they will receive a double judgment," and "Woe to anyone who leads these little ones astray."
TBP, knowingly or unknowingly, was attempting to do just that on this forum.
Just one more point worth mentioning: TBP makes much of the theory that the NT was written in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. Even accepting that as true would undermine his argument for the late date of the NT, for if we have an extant Greek NT fragment dating from around the end of C1 or early C2 - then that MS would of necessity be a translation of an EARLIER Aramaic MS. Thus we have pushed back the authorship of the NT to sometime in the first century - when there would still be witnesses alive who would certainly have pointed out any falsehoods or mistakes in the texts.
Full disclosure: I did not mean to present myself as an "expert" in this field, but rather felt an obligation to weigh in because of my training and experience to correct a blatant misrepresentation of the nature of the New Testament texts.
I have, in fact, long-ago shifted my attention to other areas of theology, as in my most recent book: The Paranormal Conspiracy - the Truth about Ghosts, Aliens and Mysterious Beings. Even so, the defense of the full authority of the Bible is something which is near and dear to my heart.