I understood the statement, NJ, to be referring to the fact that Judaism and Christianity lack original documents or even first-generation copies for any book of the Bible as defined in anyone's canon.
LOL! The original works of Plato don't exist either because it hasn't survived decay. And yet, do we see anyone questioning the validity of the text or subjecting its fans to a harangue on why the original no longer exists.
Variants exist, too. Take the oldest extant copies we now have of a book like Isaiah. The oldest copies in this case are the Qumran scrolls circa first-century BCE/CE. These scrolls differ at many points from the later Masoretic text already standard as a source of translations. Multiple copies of Isaiah were discovered at Qumran and they do not agree at every point with each other, either.
No, they do not. But if you are so certain, I defy you to back up the claim. There is exactly 17 instances of disparity in the words between the Masoretic and the DSS. All of those words, minus one, are only variant in textual enunciation, like how an Englishman would spell 'honour' but an American might spell it 'honor.' There is no contextual change in the meaning of the words from the Masorettes to the Essenes documents. There is only one word that has caused a bit of a stir, and that translates to the word "light" in Isaiah. The DSS does not have it, where the Masoretic text.
You also have sources like the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the most recent years BCE and quoted by the first Christians. This translation, along with others from ancient times, is based on Hebrew originals earlier than those we now have. We thus have a window on how some earlier versions of the documents read. Some remarkable divergence exists betweeen the translatoins and any docments we now have. But ancient translations do agree with each other on some of these same points. This indicates that this does reflect content in the original documents rather than idiosyncracies of translation.
Again, the LXX has always stood up against scrutiny. It was always wondered whether or not the Masoretic and LXX differed on key areas, but when the DSS was discovered, it made it clear that very little deviation existed, such as which I already shared.
There's nothing 'esoteric' about taking this reality into account. Much of the information is supplied in the translators' forewards and notes in any reputable translation (NRSV, JPS, New Jerusalem Bible, NIV, etc). Further information may be found in the scholars' commentaries provided in standard academic study Bibles (Oxford UK, HarperCollins USA, JPS Torah Commentary).
What they supply is the translation evidence, i.e you'll see LXX = Septuagint, VL = Latin Vulgate, M = Masorettic text, DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls. They are quoting sources not giving you a disclaimer that the Bible can't be trusted as reliable document.
The point being made is that one cannot naively equate the Scriptures one quotes with the original content penned by the original authors. The original content is not content you have.
Again, you and Nighttrain must have some esoteric knowledge because the harmony between the texts has always been known as remarkable. Therefore, you must have some special insight that no one else has.
Fundamentalists up the ante when they claim word-for-word inerrancy in an ancient text. Now even the smallest variants in wording between ancient sources raise serious questions about whether 'God's words' are being reliably preserved.
I've taken inerrancy to mean that Bible is God's Word from start to finish and that God will always make it so that His Word is unfailing-- meaning whatever He says you can take it to the bank. We all know that humans are fallible, but God is not. Some extend the meaning to mean that Bible is free from error, but there is some error from the original. The deviations are so nominal, however, that its absurd to question its historicity. If anything, it should be lauded for its meticulous effort to keep it free from deviation.
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt