Greetings!

I've been spending a lot of time recently studying the reliability of the AV and the Textus Receptus, but I've been unable to come to a conclusion. I'd like to make it clear that I am a Bible believing Christian and I trust in God's infallible and inerrant Word, the question that is being repeated over and over again for me is "Is Biblical inerrancy confined to the original manuscripts?".

I've spent a tremendous amount of time the last two years debating Muslims, and I always encounter their main arguments being that the Bible is full of errors. It is extremely easy to prove them wrong, because none of the possible Biblical variances permit such an extensive overhaul as Islam requires. But when answering them, I have found it the simplest and most convincing to show rebuttal lists to their 'contradiction' lists where many of the 'contradictions' are explained as translational errors, and most of them recommend using modern Bible versions.

Now after reading an article where a NASV committee member switched allegiance to the AV (in conjunction with other articles), I've become relatively convinced that the Westcott & Hort text is unreliable.

But questions still abound for me, and I'd appreciate it if someone could help me out on this. Whilst I've seen strong evidence against the modern versions, I've not seen any thoroughly convincing evidence for the reliability of the TR and AV. Another issue is contradictions. Due to my constant confrontations with Muslims both IRL and online, I need an answer to contradictions badly, if I am to stick with the AV. Also, 1 John 5:7 would be extremely useful, and am almost convinced (could be partly due to my personal desire) that it is properly rendered in the AV. But why then did the 1545 Luther Bible leave it out, as Luther also based his translation on the TR?

Any answers are much appreciated.

In Christ,
Jacomus