Just incase you're afraid to access the above link, just to discover that you are referencing the works of authors who clearly don't agree with your conclusions; allow me to quote the eminent Dr. Ehrman, and then I will provide you with quotations of other credible Biblical Scholars on the issue:
Dr Ehrman states:
I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.With exactly how much certainty can we reconstruct the New Testament text?
“The resulting text is 99.99 percent
accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.” (Gary R. Habermas, "Why I Believe the New Testament Is Historically Reliable," in Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, edited by Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, 2001)
“only about one eighth of all variants [have] any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one sixtieth rise above 'trvialities,'...mathematically this would compute to a text which is 98.3%
pure.”ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š (Geisler, Norman. L. and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1968, page 365)
“Next to the New Testament, there are more extant manuscripts of the Iliad (643) than any other book. Both it and the Bible were considered 'sacred' and both underwent textual changes and criticism of their Greek manuscripts. The News Testament has about 20,000 lines...the Iliad [has] about 15,600. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Illiad are questioned. This 5% textual corruption compares with one and a half percent
of similar emendations in the New Testament...” (Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible, 1968, pages 366-37)And with regards to that approx. 1% textual corruption, what do the learned men have to say?
Phillip Schaff says of the variations, that not a single one of them altered “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching” (Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, 1960, page 177)
Warfield boldly declares that the facts show that the great majority of the New Testament “has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation; and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, 'the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact...nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost. choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.” (Introduction toÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1907, page 14)
Enjoy, there is plenty more where that came from.