The Quran as revealed

Yes, at least in the dialect of the Prophet.  The Quran was revealed in seven dialects, but the Uthmanic writ comprised of the Quran in the dialect of the Prophet's tribe.  The other dialects were no longer used because some people were falling into disagreements on what was the correct way to recite certain ayats, even though they were all accepted.  But to avoid this problem in the future, Uthman (ra) decreed that only one dialect would be accepted in the official copies sent to various parts of the Caliphate.  His decree was supported by all of the Sahabah, including Ali (ra).

schmikbob wrote: And does this mean that the Quran is unaltered and undisputed down to the punctuation and grammer??  If it is unaltered and undisputed down to the punctuation and grammer, does that have any significance as to it's potential divine source??

Originally, when the Quran was revealed in different dialects, the grammar may have been different but the meaning would have been the same.  In addition, the Quran actually utilizes grammar as a literary technique known as "Iltifat".  It is recognized by Arab scholars as a unique technique which the Quran purposefully uses as part of its literary structure.     

schmikbob wrote: Are the paragraphs below correct then???   In 5:69 "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry) "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun." There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi'uuna has been declined wrongly. In two other verses, the same word, in exactly the same grammatical setting was declined correctly. 2:62 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi'iina ..." 22:17 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaaraa ..." You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

Judging from your response, I can see you are not familiar with "iltifat".  Abdel Haleem describes iltifat in the following way:

 "[It] was given a technical meaning as early as the time of Asma'ī. But already by the time of Ibn al-Mu'tazz (296/909) we find that the use of the term to denote, broadly, parenthesis, has become secondary; it now refers more frequently to what is defined as departure by the speaker from address to narration or from narration to address and the like (wa-mā yushbih dhālik). The phenomenon had been recognized and described by such earlier authors as al-Farrā' (207/822); Abū 'Ubayda (210/825); Ibn Qutayba (276/889) and al-Mubarrad (285/898), who discussed examples of transition in persons; but it was not until Ibn al-Mu'tazz, that it was given the name iltifāt."  

Regarding the difference between 5:69 and 2:62 and 22:17, he states:

"Thus, before and after 5:69 the importance of true belief and good deeds are stressed: in spite of any straying, even by the sābi'ūn, those who return to true belief and good work shall not fear or grieve. The context of 2:62 and 22:17 is quite different from this. Judging from the context of the situation, then, sābi'ūn in 5:69 could be said to require highlighting in the way suggested by Zamakhsharī, Khalīl and Sībawaih:^[67] even the Sābi'ūn will be forgiven if they believe. . . others will the more readily be forgiven, the Sābi'ūn being of all the categories listed the most clearly astray. According to this opinion, sābi'ūn has been singled out by a shift in the case marker for special effect. In this case it would not differ from 2:177 and 4:162, both of which had been understood as iltifāt."

So, as I suggested before, the use of "sabi'un" was done intentionally.  Iltifat was a literary technique which was identified by early Islamic scholars.  Abdel Haleem also lists the types of iltifat:

"These can be of the following types:

1. Change in person, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, which is the most common and is usually divided into six kinds.
2. Change in number, between singular, dual and plural.
3. Change in addressee.
4. Change in the tense of the verb.
5. Change in case marker.
6. Using noun in place of pronoun."

Based on his analysis of "sabi'un", it seems number V was the type of iltifat used in 5:69.  Therefore, it was not a "grammatical error" but an acceptable literary technique.

You're welcome.