Thanks John. Lotta work in your name that I respect. Here's to chime in a couple perspectives from c/Christianity, where we discuss these a lot.

I say the Bible is holographic, meaning that the whole of the message shines through even if you don't have much of it. For thousands of years nobody had "all" of it, only that which had been revealed so far. By the time the last was revealed the first had already received many textual variants. So nobody on earth has ever had "the whole Bible" consisting of all the autographs at once.

This means a little wrangling over nonessentials won't hurt us. Even if we limit ourselves to the verses undisputably in the 66 protocanonical books, we have all we need. If we add the dozens of (often repetitive) verses removed in the 19th century from the "common" Bible because of "higher scholarship" under Hort-Westcott provenance, we only have a couple extra windows on the basics. Yes, Jesus's statement about fasting was removed from Matt. 17:21 and in part from Mark 9:29, but nobody could remove "when ye fast" / "when thou fastest" from Matt. 6:16-17, nor could anyone remove the collective tradition of the connection from fasting to exorcism. If we add the (variously counted) deuterocanonical 7 books and 2 sections that were also lost in printing earlier in the 19th century, we don't add much, mostly conflicted narratives, but nothing that a single doctrine is drawn from. If we add the extra (maybe?) 14 books that the Orthodox count as deuteros but the Catholics don't as of the 17th century (but I think these were excluded in Trent in the 16th also), the same is true. The holographic Bible still prevails.

Besides the dozens of verses previously accepted by most all as protocanonical (just use KJV 1769 standard to solve this problem), in textual criticism I uncover several variant readings that nobody tells us about. Until recently nobody carried the variant Mark 16:9 "short ending", but it's profitable and well worth a footnote. There are a lot more such texts, but big publishers don't want to overload people with them when there are so many more familiar variants. Every time I find one like the short ending, I get a new clerestory view of one cultural detail not often taught; but I don't get any new doctrine. So these are just gleanings on the way but the Way itself is well-marked.

There are also a wealth of books that give great human history around the Bible that have never been received by the covenant people as God's Word. I love these and many church leaders recognize they're profitable to read if you treat them as human books. I'm partial to the Odes of Solomon, 1 Enoch, and lately Ignatius of Rome, and someday I'll make time for the Sibylline Oracles. The church often shies away from teaching about these books to protect against the risk of their misinterpretation, and this protectionism may be a bit too heavy, but those who run with false doctrine because of such books are certainly much heavier in their error.

Now let's speak Anne Frankly about the Jews, which is what got me banned at ConPro (looking for people to put in good words). I always say, feel free to criticize individual Jews, and feel free to cite demographic evidence, but don't blame the innocent of any people group along with the guilty. What you do here is to intimate rather than speak frankly, but that's unnecessary because all that people need here is to follow that rule. Don't say "the Catholics" do this, say inquisitor Matthieu Ory oversaw the condemnation of Servetus to death. Don't say "the Jews" do that, say Benito Garcia confessed to a ritual child murder in 1491 and was executed. The perceived right to stereotype is the whole problem, and the use of indirection to speak of these issues is just a symptom of it.

Of course a handful of Jewish leaders, supported by an astroturf mob of hundreds, called for Jesus's death, and invoked a hasty curse on themselves and their people. However, Acts 4-5 shows that many if not all of this mob became some of the first 5,000 Christians. So there's no "the Jews" there.

Of course no other books besides 66 of them rose over time to be received as the protocanonical Bible. Every one of these went through the ranks of the covenant people for hundreds of years until it was sufficiently tested to account it placement in the canon. Every other book the covenant people has reviewed has never risen to that level of success under the same scrutiny. They were never "deleted" from the protocanon, but there were always arguments about how much influence and range the deuterocanon should have. So there was no suppression of other books, there was just never the staying power and divine inspiration found in any other book that rose it to the level of protocanon. Rather, there was always a clear demarc between the protocanon and any other book not in it.

Of course child sacrifice goes very far back, but it's a perversion of the gospel of Gen. 3. God revealed that the seed (child) of the woman would be bruised for sin, and so the enemy twisted this into the gospel of personal affluence by seminal (self) destruction. Before Abraham, child sacrifice was rampant (leading to what historians call Canaanite collapse), but Abraham learned that there was a truer, older seed-of-woman model that transcended and shamed the corruption, and he participated in acting out the proof of this model. So the fact that the enemy corrupted Israel later with the same Nimrod doctrine that had always been so successful at cooption before in every other nation is not relevant for determining its origin.

In short, the enemy is spiritual, the demons and those they have captured (except as we plunder their hostages). We fight satanists, luciferians, defined by allegiance, not any people group defined by upbringing. Behind "it's the Jews" (allowing a little criticism of the Jews as cultivating a divide-and-conquer strategy as hinted by Ron Paul) is an even more rewarding proposition "it's the satanists". This also allows us to continue evangelizing those same Jews, of which about a million accept Jesus as Messiah.