[editor-surveyor]

The term "best manuscripts" has nothing to do with accuracy, or faithfulness to the originals. What they are referring to in most cases, are manuscripts that have been proven to have been tampered with in the ancient past.

Recently, fragments have been found, and dated to the mid first century, that refute those passages where the Newbible trust attempted to claim inaccuracy in the received texts. Isn't it interesting that the fragments found just happened to be those passages where changes were attempted? The Lord is at work protecting his word.

[LiteKeeper]

When you have 1000's of manuscripts with nearly 99.6% consistency, you have a very high assurance of accuracy. Your contention is spurious. Please provide documentation and evidence that what you contend is true.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

They were 2nd century gnostic manuscripts, rejected by the church.