Replies

"When you have 1000's of manuscripts with nearly 99.6% consistency..."

You have the KJV and TR. Those are backed by the "thousands of manuscripts with 99.6% consistency." The "best manuscripts" that the newbible trust referrs to are just two manuscripts: Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus (aleph, and B)

The material to which I referred was recently posted by Con X-Poser in post # 109 of this thread, did you miss it?

<< The "best manuscripts" that the newbible trust referrs to are just two manuscripts: Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus (aleph, and B) >>

Let's give them a little credit, there are a handful more, like alexandrinus, D, and some others (Mother Goose, Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales, etc.) , but Sin-in-the-attic-cuss and Vat-and-can-it are by far the two primary mss. (mess?). And they are the ones referred to as the "oldest and best", although they are neither oldest nor best. Oldest isn't necessarily best anyway, the actual oldest texts were USED and worn out. Plus, they don't apply the same logic to the MODERN, NEW English versions.

However, watch out for their sleight-of-hand. If they find one or two readings in a MT/TR text that might agree with the Alexandrian rags (which don't even agree with each other), abd that is quite possible with over 30,000 verses, they will claim that mss. as one of their own.

OTOH, if they find 100 MT/TR texts in substantial agreement, because of the agreement, they will consider them as ONE textual family, assuming they all came from the same source text (right! the CORRECT text!) and they will weigh those 100 on an even keel with ONE Alexandrian text.

Houdini, Doug Henning, and David Copperfield would be envious over such illusions.