The Bible does not declare in any place where the most accurate copies of the NT would come from. But even agreeing with your conclusion, which BTW I do in large measure, you are still about a million miles away from proving some special position for the KJV. The NKJV is an accurate translation of the TR as are the LITV, MKJV, Geneva, and possibly a few others.Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
But HOW can you maintain your position when the Bible(KJB)is SILENT concerning Alexandria and the word of God!!???
The WEB and EMTV based on the majority texts and available on E-Sword also appear to be good.
But the death blow to your whole presumption is that some of the TR's readings don't appear to have originated anywhere near Antioch, Syria.
That is a ridiculous assertion.The Bible makes it plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium).FACT!
First, all of the texts classified as Byzantine were not found in that immediate area.
Second, several of the Epistles as well as Luke and Mark were probably written in Rome. The transportation/communication between Rome and Alexandria was just as routine as to Antioch and probably a great deal more significant and frequent. Further, Paul wrote several epistles from Corinth (which has an almost completely negative portrayal in scripture). From Corinth, it isn't much further to Alexandria than to Antioch if at all.
In fact, the only books of the Bible that appear to have originated in Antioch are John's gospel and epistles. All others could have been communicated just as easily to Alexandria as to Byzantium.
BTW, where does Acts make it "plain in Acts that the word of God has it's roots in Syria(Byzantium)."
With regard to a location, there is as much biblical proof for either position as there is for KJVOnlyism... NADA.To Ape what you say:I want Biblical proof for your position!