Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.

I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )

The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )

The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.

The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.

There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.

The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.

The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.

Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.

Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.

Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.

A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.

None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.

There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )

The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.

The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.

These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.

The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.

Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?

Vatican and Sinai omit/change tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16. It is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh".

Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.

However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.

Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.

Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.

The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.

For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Received Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.

Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.

This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:

• Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
• Who owns the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctrine is impossible in the Received Text. )
• Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidence that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
• Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
• The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the received text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS!"

Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.

Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.

I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )

The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )

The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.

The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.

There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.

The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.

The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.

Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.

Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.

Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.

A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.

None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.

There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )

The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.

The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.

These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.

The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.

Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?

Vatican and Sinai omit tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16 is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh"

Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.

However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.

Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.

Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.

The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.

For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Receieved Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.

Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.

This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:

• Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
• Who owns the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctine is impossible in the Received Text. )
• Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidince that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
• Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
• The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the recieved text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCIPTS!"

Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.

Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.

I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )

The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )

The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.

The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.

There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.

The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.

The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.

Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.

Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.

Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.

A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.

None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.

There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )

The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.

The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.

These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.

The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.

Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?

Vatican and Sinai omit tons of other things like "God was manifested in the flesh" 1 tim 3:16 is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh"

Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been stated that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.

However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.

Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.

Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.

The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.

For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Receieved Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.

Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.

This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:

• Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
• Who own the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctine is impossible in the Received Text. )
• Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidince that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
• Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
• The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the recieved text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCIPTS!"

Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.

Here's my 2 cents in the KJV stuff.

I am a bible-believing christian who has been studying the bible in Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek for over 20 years. I ran into the kjv stuff after a few years of learning new testament greek ( "koine", that is, "common". Yes, the new testament was written in the default language of dungeons and dragons... )

The old testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the new testament in Greek ( or Aramaic, if you want to follow that rabbit trail. )

The surviving historical copies of the bible are gathered into groups sharing similar characteristics. The differences in the old testament groups of copies in Hebrew are fairly minor. Things get more interesting if you add in the Greek version of the old testament called the Septuagint.

The groups of greek copies are at the heart of the kjv stuff.

There are 3 main groups, the "minority", the "majority", and the "received" texts. The "majority" text is from less than half (so the name is lying, very similar to the Bolshevik vs Menshevik stuff from commie history). It is sort of a diplomatic halfway between majority and received texts, but it doesn't seem to have been super popular in history.

The received text is what was commonly available in Greek during the early parts of the reformation. There were examples of at least the minority text, but those examples were rejected at the time as being corrupt.

The minority text is a small amount of the copies. However it claims what are considered two of the "oldest and best" manuscripts, namely the "vatican" and "sinai" codexes. Ever since the reformation, the minority text was unpopular in the west. In the mid-1900s, this situation changed because of two people, Wescott and Hort. They said that age trumps everything, even the condition of the copies, and led the group that produced the "Revised Version". They also produced a lot of influential writings that went on to win over just about every seminary ever and convince the entire western world that vatican and sinai are the best and the received text contains a bunch of marginal notes that were mistakenly added to the main text.

Sounds plausible, right? If you go to church, your pastor/priest probably believes what I have just written.

Have you ever had a book you loved? Or a bible that you used a lot? What happened the binding? Did it fall apart? I have gone through several bibles that wore out from use, maybe I just bought cheap copies.

Have you had a book you didn't like? Maybe a gift from a friend of relative. How about a bible version that you didn't like. (Maybe it was a KJV, heh). What condition is that book in? Maybe it is like new.

A similar argument is applied by those who prefer the Received Text. Before the printing press, copying a bible by hand was a ridiculous amount of work. The copies that were loved, were used. There were not many spare copies to put on shelves and preserve. The copies that were not favored, remained in good condition. The beloved copies wore out and were re-copied. The new copies were thus younger. Received text people argue that vatican and sinai were viewed with suspicion, put on the shelf, and remained as the oldest copies.

None of this mattered to me, until I started trying to actually read the vatican and sinai codexes in Greek. This is not commonly done, believe it or not, because they are both absolute train wrecks. They are such a mess that editors step in, grab the same verse from both manuscripts, and produce a hybrid of what they think the original should be, and everyone reads that. There's not a ton of good reason to prefer vatican vs sinai in any given situation, so the minority text is constantly being re-revised. There are so many different options that this will continue until the heat death of the universe and is why they are on like version 26 or something. This is the minority text.

There are spelling errors constantly throughout both vatican and sinai. There are missing and added words randomly in any given verse. Vatican and sinai constantly disagree with each other when you compare verses. Editors have gone over the original manuscripts so often that you have to state whether you are quoting "hand one", "hand two", or "hand three" when you quote a verse from the original. ( One of them has a margin note that says "You fool and knave! You should have left the old reading alone and not changed it!" 10 billion internet points if you track down that reference. )

The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican. It has no history. No one is really sure where it came from.

The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. Monks were burning pages from it to start fires because they thought it was corrupt. Go and research that.

These two documents are what 99% of modern western bibles are based on.

What does any of this have to do with anything? Here's a couple of examples.

The minority text doesn't have the longer ending of Mark. People now use this fact to attempt to deny the ressurection. I have seen it done.

Also I went and verified it myself, both vatican and sinai end mark with these words in Greek "and they were afraid." Does that sound like a good epic way to end the history of Jesus's gospel?

Vatican and Sinai omit tons of other things like "God was manifested in theflesh" 1 tim 3:16 is replaced with "he was manifested in the flesh"

Vatican and Sinai omit “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Everyone hates 1 john 5:7. It has been started that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.

However Irenaeus, student of Polycarp, student of the apostle John, quoted the longer ending of Mark in "Against Heresies" in 177 AD. He even wrote: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘, which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is pretty good evidence that verses 9-18 are present.

Vatican and Sinai are dated 350. If "oldest is best", then Irenaeus at 177 wins and vatican and sinai are blind guides.

Also, Cyprian of Cathage wrote in 250 AD the following: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’ This is in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate. 250 is before 350, so 1 John 5:7 is back on the menu.

The real issue is not KJV vs NIV/ESV/New Extra Super Revised International American For The Common Man And Woman, the real issue is Received Text copies vs Minority Text copies. KJV is the most well-known English translation of the Received Text.

For the record, I can point out verses in the KJV that I believe were not translated correctly from the Receieved Text Greek. KJV is still the English version I use, because the other options like the NKJV have even worse translation errors. In French, by the way, they have versions of the received text that were translated only a few years ago.

Normies don't care about this stuff and don't want to learn about it. They can process KJV vs everything else. They don't care about received text vs minority text. This is why these discussions tend to become a waste of time quickly.

This issue is a rabbit hole of rabbit holes that I have spent a lot of time on. Some of the related rabbit holes are:

• Westcott and Hort loved seances and talking with the dead
• Who own the copyright to the Revised Version? ( Spoiler Alert: the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their doctine is impossible in the Received Text. )
• Where did the changes in Vatican and Sinai come from? Early gnostics who tried to "purify" the text. There is evidince that this was occurring even during Paul's lifetime.
• Why are the changes centered around common themes like the divinity of Christ and the blood of Jesus? ( I think it was Madame Blavatsky who applauded the Revised Version as removing many "troubling verses" ).
• The NKJV is pretty condescending towards the recieved text, and many NKJV have a myriad of footnotes that say "This verse is not in the OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCIPTS!"

Ultimately, just pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth with these issues.