well

this "Discrepancies" that were listed in the article really are not discrepancies at all the codex sinaiticus only contains the gospel of mark.  The book of mark does not have the line which reads "father forgive them for they know not what they do" nor does it exactly mention the ascension of Jesus. 

so i would say that the Codex sinaiticus is not a complete "Bible" but a part of it.

the bible is a collection of books. if one people's collection doesnt have some books that another person's collection has, it doesnt mean they altered the bible, they just have a different view of what the bible is. the bible isnt something handed down by God that man changed and manipulated to fit his own interests. Man wrote books, and different men find God in different books.

Jesus is kinda like Santa Clause for adults.

The bible is a collection of myths, legends, and political propaganda.

An obsolete relic is all it is.   Something people turn to because reality is just too ugly for them.

ummm it is not in dispute that the bible was written down by men; I mean you've got to be kidding me if you claim this somehow stuffs up the christian faith, THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT VERSIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO BEGIN WITH

Study the history of the Catholic Church. They offer courses to answer your question at colleges and universities across the country (whichever one you're in)! I hear even some foreign nations study this stuff too.

Some of it's interesting, the development of ideas and doctrine. What went in and what was rejected, when, why, by who.

I'm not a man of faith but I've studied Catholic Studies and Theology at major universities for way too long. I don't advocate actually studying this stuff. Bunch of lunatics. Don't get me wrong; good people! Lot of really good people. But lunatics.

"Something people turn to because reality is just too ugly for them."
The bible gets alot uglier than our own reality.