Why would I need to do that? No one has proven any errors in the 66 books we have now.
If we start at the beginning, let's look at Genesis. I posted a comparison of Genesis 1 and Genesis 3. Shall we begin there?
>> Would you not admit that the Comma Johanneum, added later, changed things considerably?<<
No, I wouldn’t admit that. There are enough corroborating passages that support it. John 10:30 and many others support those verses so I see no change or contradiction from other scripture.
Would you say that that the later addition was a correction, hundreds of years later, rather than a new implementation?
>> How about the baptismal formula in Matthew 28?<<
What about it?
>> The earliest copies do not contain the Trinitarian formula. Does that mean error?
Like I said, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. I don’t think you understood my post earlier. I said take the current 66 books which have never been proven to have any errors or inconsistencies and compare all other information to those 66 books.
That is ducking the issue. If Matthew was originally written with the non Trinitarian formula, and the Trinitarian formula, as with the Comma Johanneum, and the long form of Mark 16 et al, were added hundreds of years later by the Church, what is your take on that? Were the authors wrong and the Church right? If so, that appears to be at odds with your current position vis a vis the Catholic Church. How do you reconcile that?
Would you please show me where in Genesis 3 the creation story is?