"the modern Bibles are bounded (sic) to have contradictions because of copyist errors and translation errors."
The premise of the question is insubstantial.
I am assuming the question speaks of the Greek scripture only and that the OP accepts the veracity of the Hebrew scripture due to the meticulous way in which the Hebrew scribes kept the documentation of Moses and the prophets with such zeal, such accuracy that there can be no doubt of the provenance of those scriptures.
Therefore I assume the question deals with the Greek scripture.
Had only one copy (the original copy) of a particular book (choose any book) of the Greek scripture been found that single copy would be open to doubt.
No provenance would be provable from the point of view of looking back two thousand years and proving, beyond a peradventure, that this single piece of parchment had come from a particular pen at a particular date.
In the very nature of the Christian religion we are subject to falsity, deliberate attempts to destroy scripture, and - more often - to falsify scripture so hated are these truths received though chosen vessels, moved of the Holy Spirit.
But rather have we thousands of testimonies to the truth. Thousands of fragments, many larger copies, hundreds of uncials, hundreds of miniscules and sometimes entire books from different points of time.
Then we have the versions, the original Greek copied into Syriac, Old Latin, and other languages. Copied diligently, reverently, piously.
Then we have the lectionaries, thousands of references to the original scripture when quoted in the equivalent of the book of Common prayer, orders of service containing scripture references quoted in full.
Then we have the Patristic Citations, quotations of scripture by such as Polycarp, who probably, almost certainly, had personal knowledge of John the Apostle. Dean John Burgon collected, during his lifetime over 96,000 such references from the first, second and third centuries.
What an abundance of evidence !
Diligently collated by pious men, these records have been meticulously and scientifically weighed copy against copy, by men who devoted their lifetime to the science of Textual Criticism, discarding that which is faulty : copyist errors of all the common kind which stand out as being slips of the pen.
And what we have, what I have now on my desk, beside my bed and in my briefcase, the Stephens text of 1550, is the Greek text which is very, very close to that which a Christian would have had in the second century.
In fact I would go so far as to say that my copy is even closer to the original apostolic autographs for my copy has been diligently compared, weighed and corrected across hundreds of thousands of references, whereas my brother's copy in the second century might have been one which was subject to a local recension later corrected in the following century.
God has 'allowed' me to have this gift of inestimable value, on my desk, in my briefcase and beside my bed and I am immensely - truly immensely - grateful to him for such a gift.
Further Argument regarding the provenance of scripture compared to various Greek documents :
The fact is, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. Compared to the 5,366 Greek manuscripts "backing" the New Testament, there are only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece.
No one doubts the text of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, but we only have 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus' Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh.
The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). And The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation.
"Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals" (Bruce, pp. 20-21).
Bruce thus declared: "It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians" (p. 19).
In 1968, Bruce Metzger, a longtime professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton, stated: "The amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament…is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions" (1968, p. 86). Truly, to have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within seventy years of their writing is nothing short of amazing (Geisler and Brooks, 1990, pp. 159-160).
Textual Criticism and the Reality of Copyist Errors