Quote:
Fearful,

Your character is shining through.

Quote:
Let me have at this. 90% of all the manuscript evidence extant supports the KJV.

Why would you fabricate such evidence? In the questions I posted, 99% and even 100% of the evidence is AGAINST the KJV. Why wont you discuss those verses?

Quote:
Anyone knows that the modern versions rely on a miniscule 10%.

Not in the cases I have mentioned. I wonder if there is something you are trying to hide by not addressing them?

Quote:
Who had the easier time of translating?

I'm sure any speculation on that would be foolish, at best. They both used the exact same techniques, simply relied on different texts.

Quote:
The question is this. With all the tiny amount of manuscript evidence just how were they able to translate the modern versions?


Since both the KJV translators and the NASB/NIV/ESV etc. translators used compiled Greek texts, I dont see how they differed at all in their approach. They simply used different texts.

Quote:
Have you ever read the testimony of Dr. Frank Logsdon, who was asked to be part of the feasibility study on the NASB and a personal friend of Dewey Lockman (the man who put up the money for the translating of the NASB)?


Yes I have, but why would that matter? Its your position that we should ignore the KJV translators as fools for their position on the KJV and on KJVO, but you want Logsdons thoughts considered authoratative? Even a child could see that such a stance is contradicting at best, complete dishonest at worst.


"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose" - Jim Elliott, martyred in Quito, Ecuador 1956