World-renowned Bible scholars, such as Robert L. Thomas, the late Norman L. Geisler, Gleason L. Archer, F. David Farnell, and the late Gleason L. Archer Jr., among many others, have fought for decades to educate readers about the dangers of higher criticism.
Bible critics, be they atheists, agnostics, Muslims, and so on, want to tell us that there are mistakes, errors, and contradictions in the Bible, not to mention hundreds of thousands of scribal errors. In fact, they would like us to believe that the Bible is filled with such things. They make this claim because …
The reason that this text is considered difficult is that one is compelled to think contrary to the leading internal textual principle: Which reading is it that the other reading(s) most likely came from? It is easy to see how “moved with anger” would have been changed to “moved with pity.” In that case, the scribe would have been softening the reading. It is very difficult to understand why a scribe would be tempted to change “moved with pity” to “moved with anger.”
Be honest in all things
Follow the truth regardless
Obey God not man
If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.
What is the fight for the truth worth if the person misrepresents (alters by adding to or removing from) God’s Word (Revelation 22:18-19) when the textual reading or the translation does not favor the theological position of a textual scholar or the Bible translator/publisher or an interpreter or a Christian reader. Do we prefer outright lies in the translations? Would Jesus want that?
P75 contains most of Luke and John, known as Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), dates from 175 C.E. to 225 C.E. It is textually very close to Codex Vaticanus. A handful from the 19th and early 20th centuries argued that Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts removed the Byzantine text readings. However, if this were true and the corrupt Byzantine readings were early as some claim, we would have those readings in P75 to prove it, as well as the other 60+ papyrus manuscripts dating from 100-300 A.D.