Some time ago I reported on the Codex Sinaiticus project and the media's problematic coverage. It is a difficult, technical topic to cover, but that does not explain all of the bizarre interpretations which appeared in print and online. Well, the topic is in the media again, and the coverage is as bad as ever. Thankfully Dan Wallace has compiled a very helpful list of media misconceptions:
“You might suppose it [the virtual reunification of Sinaticus] would upset those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, since the Codex shows there have over the centuries been thousands of alterations to today’s Bible. But they can counter that there are earlier, individual manuscripts of almost all the books in the Bible; the Codex just pulls them together into a single volume. In any case, fundamentalists have long been adept at ignoring the evidence of historical biblical scholarship” (ibid.). A whole host of faulty assumptions occur in this paragraph, such as that inerrantists and fundamentalists are synonymous, that the changes made to the codex in later centuries can have any impact on one’s belief in the inerrancy of the autographs, that the whole issue of canonicity is in some way altered by this codex, or even that knowledge of this manuscript is only now coming to light. All this really shows is that the author is ignorant of both inerrantists and Sinaiticus.
More there. Thankfully there are some exceptionally intelligent and talented individuals in the church who can help people sift through the nonsense.