Errr...that would be because the Bible is the Word of God copied by the "word of men". The article explains it quite clearly as:
Mistakes and interpolations were certainly possible, but by comparison of independent copies these are discoverable. Yet remember that the Catholic Church does not say that copyists were inspired. Inspiration is claimed for the original Evangelists. In so far as later copies or versions exactly correspond with their original writings they give the inspired Word of God. In so far as they are not exact, they do not.
Of course, even the "Sola Scriptura" crowd have many scholars involved in NT textual criticism. It is hard to deny facts, but much harder to deny traditions for some.
You wrote: Errr...that would be because the Bible is the Word of God copied by the word of men.
So combining my question with your answer we get: If I find the Word of God to be contradictory, why should I should put faith in the word of men because the Bible is the Word of God copied by the "word of men.
That makes no sense to me.
You wrote and quoted: The article explains it quite clearly as:
Mistakes and interpolations were certainly possible, but by comparison of independent copies these are discoverable. Yet remember that the Catholic Church does not say that copyists were inspired. Inspiration is claimed for the original Evangelists. In so far as later copies or versions exactly correspond with their original writings they give the inspired Word of God. In so far as they are not exact, they do not.
I dont see that that explains it. First, comparison of independent copies is an argument for consensus (not bad in and of itself in this case but not the same as correctness) and that consensus could change with the discovery of other independent copies or new translations and interpretations of the current ones.
Second: In so far as they are not exact, they do not indicates the frailty of men and is not an argument for putting faith in the Word of Men to explain perceived contradictions in the Word of God.