Question: How accurate is the information on this graphic?

[Rev. Rye]

I'll look at it paragraph by paragraph. Forgive me if my use of abbreviations may seem excessive. I don't like to manually transcribe shit.

The KJV of the NT was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the C of E.

Actually, there were 47 scholars divided into 6 committees, each committee taking down a section of the Bible. A relatively minor quibble.

There were (And still are) no orginal texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down centuries after the last apostle died.

Well, the oldest verified manuscript of the NT, P52, is dated to around 125 AD. It's not plausible that they would have been around to write that. If we go to the most complete version of the NT, the date would most likely be later.

There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, and no two are alike.

True. The longer the passages are, the more often they deviate. Of course, if one counts only the complete ones, there's fewer.

The king James translators used none of these anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve.

Well, to be fair, most of these manuscripts weren't available, and Erasmus got a lot of flak for publishing his Textus Receptus version of the Bible almost a century earlier. And besides, it was to be expected that they'd have to deal with the King in their work; it was his church they were doing the Bible for! No wonder they were biased in their translation.

So, 21st century Christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

This is essentially accurate. You may need to replace the number of the centuries to fit the Christian's favorite Bible version, but otherwise, this is most certainly true, as Luther would say.

That's not faith, it is insanity.

Is there really much of a difference.