Wasn't The King James Bible Translated From Only A Few Late Manuscripts?

Bible Versions Your Questions Answered ^ | 2001 | David W Daniels

[Commander8]

QUESTION: Isn't it true that the King James Bible was translated by only half a dozen manuscripts, and that none of them was earlier than the 10th Century (900s) AD?

[Commander8]

Bible-Believer ping.

[sharktrager]

Answer: This is true, but it misses an important point. It is true that the manuscripts used were copies of copies of copies written over many centuries. These "new" manuscripts match up with over 5,000 others, some just as old as those from Alexandria, Egypt. Over 99% of the manuscripts we have found, ancient and modern, show an amazing agreement with each other. This is a testimony to God's preservation of His words!

Contrast this to the Alexandrian writings, used by the Roman Catholic institution and almost all "modern scholars." The only 45 manuscripts called "Alexandrian," many copied in the same school, not only do not agree with the vast majority, but they do not match up with each other!

But God's preserved words, descended from the apostles and sent from Antioch (Acts 11:26), were so important to the true Christians that they continued to be accurately copied century after century!

How important could the Alexandrian writings be, if these "scholars" could not even get together one clear Bible?

God preserved His words. The King James Bible is the accurate and complete translation of them, from Greek in Antioch of Syria into the English language.

[Conservative til I die]

who cares

[Commander8]

You cared enough to reply.

[restornu]

Instead of choosing to be a friendly freeper, Commander8
still defiance over adding to (Chick) to the Thread Title, nor kindly post the complet text.

Maybe one of threads should be on being stiff-necked:)

[fishtank]

Incessant Thread Generation Alert !!!! Come Back GRANT SWANK !!!!!!!

[fishtank]

that'll do it..............