"Problem is... we DON'T have the originals." That's a common misunderstanding of textual criticism, when it comes to the Bible, often peddled by pop-scholars w

"Problem is... we DON'T have the originals." That's a common misunderstanding of textual criticism, when it comes to the Bible, often peddled by pop-scholars writing for the masses, who make out that the sheer number of minor textual variants is a major stumbling block in getting back to the original text. On the contrary, the more copies you have, the better. It's the same with Google, you hope they make thousands of backups, and at different points in time. With textual criticism, you don't need the originals if you have thousands of copies to compare, in different languages. Likewise with ancient history, you don't need to have been there, to know that an event happened in the past. I would encourage you to read people like Bruce M. Metzger, F.F. Bruce, or Paul Barnett if you want to understand the logic of ancient history and textual criticism, or if you want to balance your perspective.