i did read both links and perhaps it will surprise you that i already knew about some of the passages that there is some doubt about authenticity.i,m surprised they did not throw in 1 john 5v7 kjv for good measure.such passages may be questionable but hardly affect the broad teaching of the bible.
last i read the wellhausen hypothesis is old hat that has lost credibility for some time.there will of course still be its supporters but i suspect more conservative scholars would give them a run for their money.
i,ve only done a very basic nt gk course and no heb.i do know however that heb words can have a range of meaning.the writer on huff may well be right on the word for jubilee but the passages concerned detail the specifics of the celebration.
some of the comments following the article also provided sometime scholarly perspective on the authors points.
some of the first articles complaints were a difference of interpretation ,some ,i suspect from trying to find ways to make it pc.
the teaching of biblical inerrancy only extends to the original autographs which though we dont have now ,we do have a lot to establish a good degree of accuracy.
i think we are drifting off topic but if you want to talk specifics lets do it one point at a time.
if i cant give an answer i will admit to it
circular reasoning to use the bible to validate the bible?
if we were talking koran or book of mormon your case would be stronger but the bible is a collection of books whose writers affirm each others writings.
that admittedly is not proof.it is presupposition - just like the atheists presuppositions of the GTE - a faith position!
wishing you a great new year at 23:45 31-12-12.