In a futile effort to discredit the reliability of older Greek NT manuscripts, Askjo made the comment... The older manuscripts that form the basis for most modern Bible translations, because of their age, are more reliable than the later manuscripts forming the basis for the KJVs. In "Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts" (http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html] Peter van Minnen, Associate Professor of Classics and Ancient History, PhD, Leuven University, 1997, said "...in textual criticism it is age and quality that counts, not mere quantity." Askjo, you're wrong again, as is always the case. Where do you come up with some of these ideas you promote? What about the larger gap between the originals and the later manuscripts? If the gap between the originals and the older manuscripts is too far, then the gap between the originals and the later manuscripts is certainly too far! Does it make one bit of sense to say the gap between the original autographs and the older manuscripts is "too far" while holding that later manuscripts, with an even larger gap, are more reliable? If I'm the only one who sees this reasoning as faulty, let me know.