It's horses for courses isn't? Rather than taking the Bible in isolation, shouldn't we be comparing other texts from the time and see what their transmission purity is like? Also, even if the Bible's textual purity is not 100%, the things that have changed, do they affect any important Christian doctrine?

How has science changed over the same period of time?

Thats not the point Marc, nobody is taking the iliad as the basis for their life choices, nobody is justifying vilification and murder on the premise that MacBeth is the literal word of god.

If you believe the bible is the literal word of god, yet history shows it's been edited countless times, you become a puppet to the wishes of scribes who are long dead. Absolving oneself of responsibility for your own actions because some old book says so is the worst form of evil.

Nathan,

You've conflated two separate issues. Textual purity is one, the ethical/non-ethical aspect is another. You weren't following the argument but injected your own view about an entirely different point. It's similar to my discussing the degree to which rugby's code has changed over the years and suddenly Joe enters the debate and says that it's irrelevant because rugby is a dangerous game.

BTW, people DO use The Republic, Gitas, Koran, Stoic texts etc to base their life's actions.