KJV-only author David Cloud maintained that “the extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any degree of certainty” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 207; Faith, p. 692).
John William Burgon as edited by Miller noted that “of multitudes of them [MSS copies] that survive, hardly any have been copied from any of the rest” and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars” (Traditional Text, p. 46). Peter Johnston wrote: “Yet as Burgon pointed out in the last century each surviving Byzantine manuscript is a genuine individual” (Green, Unholy Hands, Vol. II, p. 10). Wilbur Pickering noted that “the main lesson to be drawn from the variation among ‘Byzantine’ MSS is the one noted by Lake and Burgon—they are orphans, independent witnesses; at least in their generation” (Identity of NT Text IV, p. 42).
Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals. To dump them into a ‘Byzantine’ basket is untenable” (Identity of NT Text II, p. 28; Identity of NT Text IV, p. 46). Pickering cited that Gunter Zuntz maintained that “the great bulk of Byzantine manuscripts defies all attempts to group them” (Identity IV, p. 39; see also Fuller, True or False, p. 231).
I didn't have time to address all this before, but let's all take a look at why just being a famous guy who writes books with a paper degree does not mean you have strong critical thinking or analytical abilities.
All of these arguments are typical of scholars with an unhealthily affinity for using the mainstream opinion as their preferred "home base" by which their analytical approach is then to defend the mainstream "until an overwhelming amount of evidence AND all my friends shift their position". The correct way to approach analysis is to be completely and totally impartial and unbiased toward whatever the mainstream opinion is: this is the only way you can approach new data without the primitive desire to categorize it as something that either "attacks" or "supports" your current variable set, when in fact you need to constantly add new variables to the overall equation based on their validity alone: not based on whether they agree or disagree with your current conceptualization of the topic. Typical of low IQ paper mill scholars. Not saying IQ is the end-all-be-all by any means, but if you're trying to be a professional analyst and you have a 90 IQ, might want to consider a different area of expertise.
So let's go one by one.
"KJV-only author J. A. Moorman acknowledged that “only a relative few of the 5555 MSS now catalogued have been collated” (When the KJV Departs, p. 17)."
Before I prove my point, how many is a "relative few"? We need to know to compare this statement to the definitive numbers we have from collations that actually did take place. But never mind that, first I need to say that the greatest weakness of poor analysts is their inability to argue from source material (you cherry-picked Moorman, but we'll go with it) that actually leads to a definitive conclusion: their style is easily identified as one which instead leads to "therefore, everything is too scattered and vague to know that much for certain". The lazy approach to analysis: trying to debunk definitive positions to appear intelligent for finding a loophole (which might barely shift the entire variable set) to then lead everyone to believe "it can't be that definitive. It's complicated". They will never argue for a definitive position other than those that are already easily agreed upon by the majority, because doing what they do is
far easier. Amateurs (btw I'm not talking about Dr. Moorman, I'm talking about what you cited from him for your own argument, how it argues for ambiguity rather than narrowing into an actual conclusion. ANYBODY can do this).
So let's keep it simple (the thing all scholars will avoid at any cost because they think making things more complicated is being intelligent, they've got it backwards themselves: any fool can make something bigger, more complex, and less certain, but it takes a stroke of genius to find the truth. A fairly smart guy said something like that once):
At least 100 of them were collated according to Dean Burgon alone, now hold on to this and see why it matters (we can assume more than 100 were collated, but I don't even need more than that to refute this garbage stance that attempts to deny reality).
"and that “they are discovered to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars”"
"countless" how many? "unimportant" to who? "particulars" what subject of particulars? This statement says absolutely nothing. Notice how I provide numbers and conduct a definitive analysis by accurately comparing variables in the true context of the variable set at hand. Your quote here is the most vague statement I've ever seen. We will see why in a second.
"Wilbur Pickering asserted: “Rather than lining up in ‘clear streams’ or ‘text-types’ (as objectively defined entities) the earliest manuscripts are dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variation. Although varying degrees of affinity exist between and among them, they should be treated as individuals in the practice of textual criticism. Until such time as the relationships among the later manuscripts are empirically plotted, they also should be treated as individuals."
They were "dotted helter-skelter over a wide spectrum of variatian". This guy writes like a moron. This is not analysis, it's a general statement complaining about how he couldn't conduct a definitive analysis. Then he makes this conclusion from that generalized statement: "they should be treated as individuals". First of all, why does every professional still refer to them as the Byzantine-type text and why does the standard, the Nestle Aland Text, still identify a Majority Text? Why does even James White not dispute this fact? Second, every manuscript is treated as an individual until you compare it with two or more: then varying degrees of alignment will show up.
Boom:
The only way to defend Pickering's mathematically illiterate statement would be to prove that during a comparative analysis, no individual manuscript could stand out significantly more than the rest of them: because that would instantly place it in a different category than the rest of the variable set, therefore they wouldn't all be individuals with no category anymore. The only way they could be is if all of their variations shared the same relative degree of variation from the rest of the MSS to where no single MS could be said to significantly stand out from the rest: otherwise you inevitably get at least 2 categories. This is unavoidable. Unless you're a moron.
Now, Dean Burgon said Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, and P75 differed from 99 out of the 100. That's why they fall into their own category. If you can't accept this fact, you are blinding yourself by readings idiots who think a 99 out of 100 disagreement means "they aren't in another category because the other 99 also share variations between each other". Yeah but the entire variable set ALREADY ACCOUNTS for those variations, WHILE STILL those 4 differ considerably from 99 out of the 100. There you have it.
"Yeah but what happens if you add like 1,000 more manuscripts"
There will still be at least 2 distinct categories. Even if all of the newly added MSS are varied all over the place, the original 99 would at BEST become
their own category apart from every other MS because they were discovered to share a 99% cohesion compared to the 1%
prior to other MSS added later to the analysis (meaning the category might be a locational or time-based one as opposed to a strictly percentage-based cohesion AT BEST). Further, to bridge the gap between the 1% MSS and the 99% group, you'd HAVE to have more variations that fell
in between these groups to varying degrees of relativity in order to successfully dilute the distinction. Guess what: all of those would differ
from the 99 to whatever degree they aligned closer to the 1
to bridge the variation gap,
otherwise the gap remains and you may even create more categories, meaning again: the 99 would at best become its own category, albeit even it's by something like locational or time-based origin as a sub-category to the larger whole.
The stance of the Anti-KJV "scholar" crowd is one of denial, poor logic, laziness, an affinity to make everything "incalculable" along with a lack of understanding of basic mathematics. They're amateurs.