> > > Note that the above only touches the tip of the iceberg, and, frankly, I wish I were as equipped as I should be, lacking my references, to take the subject on in more depth. If there is interest, I will see what I can dig up in the way of more concrete arguments sometime when I'm at home.
>
> Sure, I'm game Sam. Bible topics are always fascinating. I fear, though, that I'm having some trouble understanding your terminology... i.e. "Something like high-90s percent of the manuscripts in the original Bible languages are all in accord"? and "then how does one reconcile the long absence of the single-digit-percent of manuscripts from which newer English translations were made?". Also am somewhat confused by the reason for Nyperold's commentary from 'CJB'...

The CJB used the word "complete" for the KJV's "fulfill". Since "complete" is in the list of meanings, I figured I'd point that out.

> and on 'pleroo' ... (huh??)

Pleroo(the first "o" is long, and the second is short) is one way to transliterate the Greek pi-lambda-eta-rho-omicron-omega(I'm saying the names of the letters since I can't change the font face to Symbol or another Greek font, or I would) to which is translated "fulfill" in the KJV and "complete" in the Complete Jewish Bible(CJB)(which, yes, includes that which is usually known as the New Testament).

Nyperold