IF YOU ARE AMONG THOSE WHO SAY THERE ARE SCRIBAL ERRORS IN THE KJV, PLEASE READ THIS

[Doug]

The fact that there are more words and verses in the KJV than the Alexandrian texts is explained by scribal errors. This can't be proved.
FJA Hort, one of the textual critics, proposed that in 250 to 350AD there was a council of the church leaders in Antioch to revise the manuscripts used for the KJV. He said there was a second revision some time later as well. At this meeting they added words/verses to the KJV texts, which explains the longer readings in the KJV. He claimed the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus were uncontaminated and had fewer words and shorter verses. This would mean the church leaders added to the texts and these revised texts would then be copied thousands of times. This sounds plausible except for one thing, there is no historical evidence to substantiate his claim.
FHA Scrivener served on Westcott and Hort's committee to produce their new Greek testament. He later came to expose their theories as being destitute of historical foundation and all probability.
Do you really think it's prudent to utilize these texts and their resulting Bibles?
Do you think it prudent to defend in any way an assault on the Word of God.

 

[KUWN]

The fact that there are more words and verses in the KJV than the Alexandrian texts is explained by scribal errors. This can't be proved.

You might want to read up on these Textual Criticism statements you make. The (Majority Text) MT was known for harmonizing parallel texts. For example, if the Gospel of Matthew had a fuller explanation of an event in the life of Christ than did Luke, the MT might add some of the text from Matthew to Luke to harmonize them. This was common for them. The KJV was translated from 6 manuscripts, not one of them before the 9th century. The Alexandrian is basically just the opposite.