Your definition of corruption:
>Corruption means altered in meaning or message.
Two critical clarifications: 1.Textual change ≠ loss of original meaning. A text can undergo variants while the original meaning remains recoverable. 2.By this definition, any pre-print text with variants is “corrupted”, including: Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Josephus, Early Islamic sources (Qur’an readings, hadith). So your definition proves too much. If applied consistently, it collapses ancient literature as a whole. A historian would instead ask:
Is the original text and message substantially recoverable?
For the Bible, the answer is yes.
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal different texts. Some manuscripts correspond to the Masoretic Text, others to the Septuagint or Samaritan tradition. This shows that at some point different textual traditions coexisted.
Everything you said here is 100% correct, but it does not imply corruption. Yes, multiple textual traditions coexisted. Some align with MT, others with LXX or Samaritan. HOWEVER, the differences are visible, classifiable, and traceable. This is not evidence of theological tampering, it’s evidence of transparent transmission. If the Bible had been centrally corrupted, we would expect: suppression of earlier forms, forced standardization and disappearance of variants. Instead, we have all of them preserved side-by-side. That is the opposite of corruption.
>Great Isaiah Scroll is a very ancient copy which is largely reliable but not exactly the same as the Masoretic Text. It has meaningful variants as opposed to just spelling differences, a number of these variants affect interpretation. Stability of a text does not imply that it has been flawlessly preserved.
Yes: Some variants affect interpretation. No: They do --not-- change doctrine or prophecy. Examples scholars cite: word order changes, synonymous substitutions, grammatical smoothing and interpretive clarifications. What does not change: Messianic themes, monotheism, covenant theology, historical narrative. This is why Jewish scholars themselves continue to regard Isaiah as stable.
>Stability does not imply flawless preservation
Correct, and Christianity does not claim flawless preservation. This is a strawman.
Vaticanus vs Sinaiticus. They differ in thousands of places, this is not exaggerated. Bruce Metzger explicitly states this. Most variants are minor, but some involve omissions and additions.
Again, factually true, but misleading without context. Bruce Metzger himself explains: The overwhelming majority are: spelling, word order, minor omissions due to eye-skip. Only a tiny fraction affect meaning ==No doctrine is uncertain== This is exactly why Metzger, who rejected biblical inerrancy still affirmed:
The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants. So citing Metzger actually undermines the corruption claim.
“Doctrine unaffected” misses the point?
Textual criticism is about recovering the original, not whether faith survives.
Correct, but this helps Christianity, not hurts it. Because textual criticism has successfully identified: later additions, interpolations, original readings. That’s why: Mark 16 is flagged, John 7 is bracketed, 1 John 5:7 is removed. A corrupted text does not self-correct. A critically transmitted text does. If Christianity were trying to preserve false doctrine, why expose and remove verses that seem helpful to it?
>The logical failure: “variants exist means corruption”
Your argument is as follows:
<Variants exist
<Some affect interpretation
>Therefore the Bible is corrupted
This is a non sequitur. The original premise would have to be: 
>If a text has variants affecting interpretation, its original message is unrecoverable
That premise is false, and contradicted by: classical philology, textual criticism, your own acceptance of reconstructed texts elsewhere.
>Islam and whataboutism
Not actually whataboutism, this is important. Comparative analysis is not whataboutism when the claim is universal. You are saying that texts with variants are corrupted. So I'm entitled to ask: Do you apply this standard consistently?
>Birmighan manuscript claim
Birmingham fragment ≈ parts of Surahs 18–20. Does not prove: full Qur’anic stability, original compilation, absence of variants. It also aligns with the Uthmanic consonantal text, not pre-Uthmanic diversity and ignores early reports of missing verses, variant codices, and multiple qira’at. So even Islam relies on standardization, reconstruction and exclusion of variants. The difference is that Christianity preserves the variants openly while Islam canonized one form and eliminated rivals. Let me ask you this: --Can you identify a single original Christian belief taught by Jesus or the apostles that we cannot recover today due to textual variants?-- Not "a verse that's dusputed", nor "a passage that was added". Until you can answer this, the claim that "there is no doubt the Bible has been corrupted" remains unproven."