Featured Key verses of corruption.

I believe you are certainly correct here. But here is the reasoning of the critical text people.

Textual Variants: John 1:15-8:57
John
7:8:
TEXT: "I am not going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: Aleph(א) D K Pi 1241 most lat vg syr(c,s) most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NRSV ESV NASV NIV84n NIV2011 NEB REB TEV CSB
CERTAINTY: C

NOTES: "I am not yet going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 B L T W X Delta Theta Psi 0180 ƒ1 ƒ13 28 700 892 1010 Byz Lect two lat syr(p,h,pal) one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NKJV ASVn RSVn NRSVn ESVn NASV73n NIV84 NIV2011n NEBn REBn TEVn CSBn

COMMENTS: Looking past verse 9 ("he remained in Galilee") to verse 10 ("he also went up"), several copyists apparently changed "not" to "not yet" to remove what they thought would have been a lie told by Jesus. If "not yet" was original, there would have been no reason for it to have been changed to "not" in so many manuscripts.

 

Are variants forms of corruption?

 

Most of the time it's vice versa.

 

The Majority Text was in the minority until the 7th or 8th century.

 

Aye. There were only 5 Greek manuscripts without the words. That leaves thousands of copies with the words, going straight back to the 1st century A.D. A mear 5 could never be correct against so many. The word accidently dropped out. Yet it happened early to affect the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate manuscripts. The early second century mistake shows up later in 5 Greek manuscripts. Great to mark in apparatuses, but not in the Text of Bibles.

 

Yes. Corruptions just mean mistakes.

 

John 9-21
13:2. Read "supper coming" instead of "supper having come" (KJV renders 'supper being ended'). T Tr WH N NA

13:2. Read "put into the heart that Judas ... should betray him" (which may mean 'into [his own] heart') instead of "put into the heart of Judas ... that he should betray him" (KJV 'to betray him'). T Tr A WH N NA

13:2. Read "Judas, [son] of Simon Iscariot" instead of "Judas Iscariot, [son] of Simon". NA

 

John 1:18 with the reading "God", and not "Son", is the Original reading of the Apostle John, and has the oldest and strongest textual evidence. I dealt with this last May, God...The Unique God

It not only shows the Deity of Jesus Christ, but His absolute equality with the Father, Who is also "God" here, as in John 1:1!

 

The JW's, and those before them, and others, like the KJVO and those who hold to this "only-begotten" teaching, clearly do not understand the Greek language! The Greek adjactive, "μονογενής", is a compound word, from "μόνος and γένος", with the literal meaing of "one of a kind", or better, "unique". If John wished to show any "begetting", then he would have used the right Greek word for this, which is, "μονογέννητος". As for the textual evidence, "μονογενὴς θεὸς", is attested for in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, not only in the Greek manuscripts, but also in the Gospel of John used by the early heretics, who attacked the Deity of Jesus Christ! Some English Bible Versions also adopt the reading "μονογενὴς θεὸς", like the ESV, NASB (1977, 1995), NET Bible, NLT, etc

 

Jesus Christ is here called the "Unique God", because He alone of the Three Persons in the Godhead, through eternally God, took upon Himself the "nature" of us humans, except for sin, and became The God-Man. This is seen in John 1:1, as God, and verse 14, as becoming the God-Man. Verse 18 brings both verses together.

I cannot see why you would quote Isaiah 43:10, because the use of אֵ֔ל here, is not for the One True God of the Bible, but the many false"gods" there are in this world. Like in Greek, the singular is used many times for the plural, etc. It should read, "before Me no god was formed"

 

who says anything about 2 Gods? In John 1:1, we have Jesus Christ as GOD, and He is WITH another GOD, Who is the Father. Do you deny this? This says there are two Persons Who are GOD. It is the same in verse 18, where the first use of GOD, is the Father, and the Unique God, is Jesus Christ. Very simple to understand.

 

do you believe that Jesus Christ is Almighty God, and 100% equal to God the Father? Also, show how John 1:18, with the reading, "θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς", is an error that is contrary to the Trinity?