No, you are not supplying facts, you are making assertions.I discount them because they are not facts. Here are some facts from Samuel's Gipps, the Answer Book http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp
I have made far more than assertions. I listed the manuscripts that are available currently, many of which were discovered after 1830. I pointed out the work of Adolph Deissmann, published starting 1895. The post from Gipps' site adds nothing new. Of course Luther used the prevailing manuscripts of the day. Everybody did because that is all that was available. Of course the designation of the Elzevir's text as "Textus Receptus" came after publication of the KJV. Several others have posted the preface by the KJV translators, showing that they held a very humble view of their translation. I'm wasting my time providing evidence to you guys; you ignore it.
None of which contradict anything in the King James.
It has been pointed out to you that the Nestles text had to put back into its text some 300 TR readings because of the findings.
I pointed out the work of Adolph Deissmann, published starting 1895.
Deissman said nothing new, except that the Greek of the New Testament was 'Kione'
The post from Gipps' site adds nothing new. Of course Luther used the prevailing manuscripts of the day. Everybody did because that is all that was available.
And they were the correct ones. Nothing found has contradicted that.
Of course the designation of the Elzevir's text as "Textus Receptus" came after publication of the KJV. Several others have posted the preface by the KJV translators, showing that they held a very humble view of their translation. I'm wasting my time providing evidence to you guys; you ignore it.
As I said, I haven't seen anything that would contradict anything in the King James Bible or its texts.
But continue to lay out your 'facts' and I will do mine and let the 'lurkers' decide for themselves!