In another thread, the following was posted: "Our understanding is the fact that many extant NT mss. are corrupted and unreliable. It is a fact that of the 5,000+ extant mss., 95% of them agree with and support the KJV and other translations that are based on these mss. It is a fact that modern versions are based upon 5% of conflicting mss., and many times on just one lone manuscript. You see, this belief is based in substantiated facts." _______________________________________ While I favor the traditional Greek or Byzantine text and I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text, I have some questions about the above statements. In my opinion, the above seem to be overstatements or even perhaps somewhat misleading. What is the documented evidence that confirms the above as "substantiated facts?" It seems a little inconsistent to suggest that "many" N. T. manuscripts are "corrupted and unreliable" while claiming that 95% of them support the KJV. In the context, the "many" would seem to be more than 5%. Is it being implied that all modern versions are based upon 5% of the Greek mss. evidence? Do 95% of the 5,000+ extant Greek mss. support every reading found in the KJV as seems to be implied above? Can 5%, 25%, 50%, or 95% of the existing Greek manuscripts be named or identified that agree every word in text with the KJV? Who or what group has completely examined, collated, and tabulated all the readings of all the 5,000+ existing Greek manuscripts of portions of the New Testament? According to what I have read, many of those 5,000 Greek manuscripts have not been completely collated. In some cases, it may be assumed that certain manuscripts belong to a certain text-type even though they have not been collated. In some cases, it is claimed that certain manuscripts belong to a certain text-type based on a sampling process of checking a few readings but not by a complete collation of the entire manuscript. There are said to be a number of various readings in the book of Revelation where the existing Greek manuscript evidence is nearly evenly divided. According to my study of this issue, it is said that some readings in the Textus Receptus Greek text on which the KJV was based are not even supported by the majority of the Greek manscripts [51%], and thus definitely not by 95%. Some readings in the Textus Receptus are supported only by a mere handful of Greek manuscripts if any at all. While the majority of the existing Greek manuscript evidence may support the majority of the readings in the text on which the KJV was based, we should be careful not to overstate or claim more than the available actual evidence supports.