Here is a mighty fine link to some info. about the KJV that some people may not be aware of.
Aki,
Did you even look over the URL I posted?
From the URL you posted: "To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."
This is applicable to the Textus Vaticanus and the documents used for the new versions than the Textus Receptus, upon which "The Holy Bible" (also known as the "Authorized Version", or KJV). The comment otherwise shows either ignorance or deceipt.
Erasmus did not "edit this text". There were already copious numbers of the manuscripts around, and they just kept on copying them.
There is this answer to the Erasmus ciritcisms, but the Textus Receptus is --not-- "based" on his publishing of it, but rather had its own pre-existing six thousand plus manuscripts to corroborate, still extant!
He says "it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. . If that is true,."
He said scribes tended to add "based on the textual evidence". That was circular, because he also said they were added "because they were later manuscripts". Miserable few "older" manuscripts, we now have even older manuscripts that line up with Textus Receptus. Not to mention copious corroborating quotes from the NT from the most ancient fathers like Polycarp, who walked with John on the isle of Patmos.
The KJV has been revised maybe with 100,000 changes, according to this guy who proves himself in context as an extremely unreliable source, but this has been in doctrines such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who had their folllowers black out gobs of KJV passages, till they did a translation they liked.
And because of what he said about the manuscripts, you can't trust what he says about the Greek, because you can't trust that definitely minority body of documents.
Do you know why most of the Textus Receptus copies are later than the other Greek copies? Because the earliest Christians read and re-read and studied and re-copied the good ones until they wore out. And they didn't want to touch the other ones, which the scribes ("Woe unto you scribes!") had already perverted with other doctrines, including some Gnostic versions.
His best example of only one "definite error in translation", even from his own explanation, actually shows me that it was the best translation of the meaning and is so weak.
His 6th reason, he says, it was resisted at first for being too easy to understand. And sets up a straw man as if the defenders of "The Holy Bible" like it today for being harder to understand. That's why you should check the AJV web site, it answers all this. Every objective test shows it easier to understand, not even considering that it defines many of those terms.
Luther's German had to be okay I would think. For his eighth, I'm not surprised at all that the defenders of the errant Scofield Bible prefer the other versions. "By their fruits ye shall know them". "Can two walk together, lest they be agreed?"
Also not surprised that "the most recent Greek New Testament" that's out there excises so much from the Bible. "Blind leading the blind.."
Now the Bible itself declares that "not one jot or tittle" is candidate for discarding, and declares the worst of judgments on those who would take away "one word". This is hardly a "mountain out of a molehill".
Riplinger started out thinking the translations were equivalent. Then a student asked her one day if it was Satan or Jesus fallling from heaven. This is a trivial difference with no effect on doctrine? That's when she started comparing and discovered the alarming truth.
Author