Manuscript Evidence Popcorn 2

What’s In Your Bible: Manuscript Evidence Popcorn 2

People say “We’ve found thousands of manuscripts since the King James and the Reformation Bibles were written”

Yes, but there are no new readings.

Every manuscript found after King James was written, only confirm what King James already had at their disposal.

Remember, they are saying “thousands of manuscripts” implying that there is overwhelming evidence that makes the King James flawed, but they themselves are only using 4 of the 6006 manuscripts.

Why aren’t they using the “thousands of manuscripts”

And why are they ignoring the 10’s of thousands of other witnesses?

The King James is representative of all manuscripts.

While all of the new version are representative of these.

The Reformers had access to the Vaticanus: 1 of the 4 manuscripts.

Erasmus deemed the Vaticanus corrupt.

It’s sloppy, missing verses, and books, and parts of books, and adds books to the canon which aren’t in the canon.

Why don’t they tell you that their 4 champions contain books that aren’t in the canon?

Like Shepherd of Hermes, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Prayer of Manasses?

If these are the oldest and most accurate manuscripts, why aren’t they in your Bible?

You know, they’ve found thousands of manuscripts since Westcott and Hort released their 1881 text.

Yet no one ever uses that excuse to discredit them

Especially when they match the Reformation Bibles?

Dr. Steven A. Hite