Why Science and religious faith are in conflict.

[RoadRunner79]

And based on what evidence or reason, do you base any of that on?  If there isn't anything specific, then couldn't you deny anything with that reasoning?  We don't see any evidence of these many copies becoming one ( at least not that I am aware of).

Also, don't you think that would falsify the religion of Christianity?

---

Would you agree, that you need to be making a claim, in order for it to be falsifiable?

It is a fact, denied by no one, that copyists changed both the Old and New Testaments right up until the second millennium.  After that time in history, adding and/or changing the Biblical texts would be like someone trying to insert a new "lost" chapter into the Gospel of Matthew, or anywhere else for that matter; no one would believe that person(s) unless they had very good evidence for a very early copy of Matthew, which, of course, does not exist, at least not at present.

If you are talking about the fact, that there are variants in the manuscripts, then yes, I would agree.  However, if you are saying, that the text was constantly morphing and being added to up until the second millennium, then I think that I could find quite a few who would deny that.   Other than the short/long  endings of Mark, I at least am not aware of any evidence for anything like that.  And the early Church fathers rejected other works, for very much the same reason that you state after the 2nd millennium. 

Commenting on Bruce Metzgers and Bart Ehrmans revision of the "Text of the New Testament" Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason says the following:

Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare.  The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text.  The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 – the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.

and in the appendix of "Misquoting Jesus" Erhman says the following:

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

My claim is that miracles never occur; in fact, I hold that miracles (macroscopic violations of the Conservation Laws) are impossible, hence, the instantaneous healing and regeneration of an adult amputee's lost limb is impossible.  This claim, on my part, is completely falsifiable; if God exists, then, surely, it is not logically impossible for Him to heal an adult amputee?

While I don't hold that a miracle need be a violation of the laws of physics, I don't hold that they cannot be either.  It would depend on the circumstances of the case.  For instance, your objection seems to be mostly in the timing involved ("instantaneous").   I do agree (especially for a human) that this would be a miracle as humans do not normally grow back limbs instantaneously or otherwise.  But then even if it grew back over the course of months, I would think the same (and I don't think either need to violate the law of conservation).

Here is an article, which I think reflects my position on miracles.   I am skeptical, and I do think that some extort others with flimsy claims of miracles.   I am more so wary of those who claim that they happen all the time with them, and then proceed to ask for money.  There are many miracle claims, and some I think are difficult to easily dismiss.
https://credohouse.org/blog/j-p-moreland...an-amputee