Why would an all powerful perfect God allow his Word, the most vital representation of himself, to be imperfect?
As someone already pointed out, you're repeating a very recent doctrine. Literally nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the most vital representation of God, and in fact you're using "Word" wrong - the Bible uses "Word" in that sense to refer to Jesus, not to the Bible. Let's quote John 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’” Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is the perfect representation you are looking for. The life of Jesus Christ is the ideal representation of God, not the Bible. Jesus didn't even write the Bible, nor did God. The life of Jesus Christ and his teachings were shared by the disciples and witnesses and spread through people, through the church, they weren't copied down into Official Holy Book (© God of Israel), they were instead spread through human relationships. Within a generation the disciples began writing it all down because they wanted a written record as well, but they didn't even feel the need to make an official "Canon" listing which books were a sanctioned part of the Bible until 150 years later. It wasn't necessary, because it was the people who followed Jesus and the community of Christians who kept the faith, not a lifeless piece of text. Even when the words of God have power, they have power through the people who say them and hear them and use them, not through the fact that they're written down somewhere.
He can create the universe but he can’t will essays to be written without errors? Even Spell check in Microsoft Word could’ve done that.
Free will, brother. What God "could do" and what God "does do" are separate things. If you want to imagine a God who violates the free will of every single person who ever copies down a Bible verse, then I guess you can imagine that, but it would be a radical departure from everything else we know about God. Just think for a moment of how ridiculous that would be, for God to exert forcible mind control over every single person in history who ever tried to copy part of the Bible down.
It seems you accept that there are grammatical errors in the Bible, why stop there? If those aren’t free from corruption, then why wouldn’t the actual content also be subject to it? Whose to say the people, events, and timelines mentioned in the scriptures are 100% accurate?
Once again, the acts and teachings of Jesus were kept by the community that followed him. They didn't suddenly happen upon a book lying around and say, "Hey, you see what it says in here? Maybe we should believe this." They taught the things Jesus did and said because they had seen Jesus do and say them. The next generation learned about those things from the people who witnessed them. And so on.
If some scribe in the early years changed a passage and made up some shyt that didn't happen, why would anyone else believe it? Anyone who knew Jesus's life would pick up that Scripture and say, "Um, this isn't the story, I've never heard this before." A made-up story about Jesus might be able to spread in some fringe area away from the main community of disciples, but it wouldn't be able to gain traction within the main body of Christians because they would have all the other copies of that text along with the regular sharing of the story with each other, so they would already know the actual version. You could get away with spelling a name differently, or changing the word order, but if you distorted the story to say something that was out of character with Jesus's nature and actions, no one would believe your random senseless story over all the other already accepted versions of the Gospel that were well present in the community.
There are 5,500 or so ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and scholars have zero disagreement about 99% of it. It's easy to compare the manuscripts and see which ones are the oldest, which ones are just random later aberrations, and have a clear idea of what the text is. Yes, there is 1% or so that is debated, but yet again 90% of that 1% is theologically irrelevant. I could give 5000 people a translation of 5000 different versions of the Bible and tell them to live their life accordingly, and which version they got would made rarely if ever make any difference in the results. Arguments about the tiny discrepancies in the text are just there to argue over, they don't make a meaningful difference in faith.
Once again, you're taking more recent ideas (Text is superior to human communication, God would only communicate through miraculously written perfect texts), and then applying them to people that never believed such things. Fundamentalists have done a number on the faith - they try to force their adherents to believe ridiculous things about the Bible, and then they trick skeptics into imagining that those ridiculous beliefs are the only way to understand Scripture.
im just bringing some of these ideas to visibility/clarity
