Missed this one (saw your second one first); and the link to the introduction at the foot of part 1 was not working.
Interested by your view on hermeneutics, though this is not the focus of your posts, just a predicate in your argument. May I call it a “conditionally strong” claim to veracity, since your claim is for the original autographs only? this seems to allow for transmission errors that arise through transcribing error, transliteration error and translation at least?
Does this apply to all of the Biblical record: is a chronology as necessarily inerrant as the intercessory Prayer (John 17)?
Does it allow for errors through interpretive bias on the part of the reader? (e.g. does day in Gen 1 mean 24 hours? starting when? period? category of creative act? etc). If the reader can make the mistake must the transcriber employed by God have been free of bias? Can language be free from error?
If we ponder these questions, why does it follow that the truth of the atonement is at stake, a particular instance in which there is more than one witness?
Shall we save these for another time?