PC, the fact that you consider the CC to have given in a mile is exactly my point.
Look at it, the CC sits on a huge stockpile of biblical manuscripts and employs a staggering amount of scholars, I believe whose piety is without doubt (if you think either the scholars or the Pope aren't pious enough, well...)
So, if there was a way to show literal and historical exactness of the Bible, it would have been a field day for the Catholic Church. They would have been the first to be able to show it (they've been at it for a looong time), and thus they could have said "Not only are we the original church, we also show you the literal truth of the Bible."
But they didn't. In fact, they went the other way, and officially admitted that the Bible can not be considered literally exact. Why would an organization of such magnitude admit something like this, when it could spell a lot of doubt on their own teachings? Simply because they saw exactly the same stuff in the manuscripts that we are discussing here. Mistakes, bad translations, plagiarism, the gospels are full of them.
The Protestant churches, at least some, seem to be stuck in a race against each other of who can dislodge their common sense the most in order to look the most pious. "Hah, I believe the Bible is literally true, despite of all the evidence that's presented!". "Hah, heathen, I believe the earth is flat and the flood happened!!"
rumborak