What is preservations?

Like I said, no manuscript agrees 100% with another manuscript. Don't play the "some fragments agree 'cause they only have a few verses" card. We are talking about major copies of the NT that would include all/most of the NT

I've studied this since before you were saved, Thomas, and have not found two in 100% agreement. Hence why I make that statement. Point some out (in the Master's program we did detailed searches/comparisons but that was in the pre-computer day) so I can be corrected. I have bowed to your superior study of texts on more than one occasion (never happily, but even a professor gets corrected)

Hard even today with ENGLISH translations. My Cambridge 1762KJV and my Oxford 1769KJV have differences.

 

Again, that is a false statement.

If you want to change the parameters, fine, but you did not say that in your initial post. You said "manuscripts and fragments" not "major copies of the NT." In fact the vast majority of NT manuscripts are fragmentary. Aleph, B, A, and C being the major exceptions.

How many manuscripts have you personally examined? I have been studying this issue for almost 50 years. First as a lost Protestant, and later as a saved Baptist. And it was not until quite recently that the manuscript evidence was available to researchers not associated with a major university research project. The sale of CDs from such organizations as The Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project have only recently made images of the manuscripts available to all who can afford to buy the set..

I would be happy to: P64 (with the exception of an abbreviation), P67, and P45.

The point is, of course, that it is no more right for us to spout off with off the cuff opinions stated as fact than it is for the KJVOs to do so. Facts are facts. Opinions, not so much. Especially uninformed opinions.

 

LOL! Good job! You caught on. They are probably all parts of the same codex.

What is interesting, to the point of being amazing, is that modern technology using scanning laser microscope and other more conventional analysis, has led Thiede to re-date the fragments, previously dated in the mid- to late second century, to sometime between 30 and 70 A.D.!!!!!

 

Not until he examines each and every manuscript and compares each with every other to determine if there are, in fact, differences.

There are differences (none significant in the sense of changing doctrine) between the early Byzantine readings and the later Alexandrian readings.

 

The point is that there are over 150 distinctively Byzantine readings which predate Aleph and B which are often referred to by those who don't know any better as the "oldest and best." The first is simply not true and the second is a subjective opinion.

The distinctively Byzantine readings are older than the distinctively Alexandrian readings of Aleph and B so my statement was to point that out in my own unique way.

And, of course, there is no doctrine changed by the variants between the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings regardless of antiquity.