The Bible Agnostic Test.

[SovereignGrace]

Hi SG. Two things for now. First, your list of different years are not different revisions of the KJB as though they were changing the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts they are translating from as do the versions you like so much like the ESVs, NASBs, NIVs, etc. They were just catching and correcting minor printing errors. There is only one copyright date on the KJB and it is 1611.

I give many examples of what these printing corrections were and the dates they occurred in my article you are not going to read called The Printing Errors Ploy.

Those interested can see it here.



The Printing Errors Ploy - the last ditch effort of the Bible Agnostics to turn us into one of them.


What About Those Printing Errors and "Revisions" of the 1611 King James Holy Bible?


Has the King James Bible ever been "revised"? Simple answer: No.


BUT versions like the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV have been revised many times over.

Another King James Bible Believer


Check out the copyright dates on your NASB, ESV or NIV and see how many copyright dates there are.

Second thing. Like most KJB critics you claim I am in a cult. I am not adding anything to the gospel. People can get saved using any bible version no matter how incomplete or corrupt it may be. We do not have a cult leader. The only real difference is that we believe God has worked in history to give us a real, in print complete and 100% true words of God Bible. If we are a Cult, then does this mean that people like you who are your own authority (and not a very good one at that) and who do NOT believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is the inerrant words of God are you then therefore Orthodox? Is that how it works in your world? (rhetorical question).

Again, if the KJV was inerrant in 1611, there would have been no need for the revisions.

Inerrant:

free from error
incapable of being wrong
If a religious book is inerrant, it contains no faults or mistakes (from Cambridge dictionary)
not erring; making no mistakes; infallible

None of these can the KJV meet, seeing all the revisions they went through.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Adam Clarke:

Verse Isaiah 14:12. O Lucifer, son of the morning — The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal.

John Calvin

Isaiah 14:12.How art thou fallen from heaven! Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; (220) and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.

Casting the lot upon the nations, or weakening the nations. (221) Translators have mistaken the meaning of this clause, by rendering the participle הולש (holesh) passively, Thou art become weak, for its signification is active. But as the verb from which it is derived signifies to cast a lot, and as the preposition על, (gnal,) upon, is here added, it is best to take it in this meaning, that, as the ruler and disposer of all countries, he directed them by lot, or held them as his own possessions. And yet I do not reject the other meaning, that he weakened the nations

John Gill

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven
This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see ( Luke 10:18 )but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, ( Revelation 12:7-9 ) and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him: O Lucifer, son of the morning!
alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, ( Job 38:7 ) and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,

``how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.''

Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;
like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) : which didst weaken the nations!
by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see ( Ezekiel 21:19-23 ) . The Targum is,

``thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:''

a fit description of antichrist, ( Revelation 11:7 ) ( Revelation 13:7 Revelation 13:10 Revelation 13:15 ) .

 

[SovereignGrace]

Matthew Henry

How hast thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer! son of the morning! v. 11, 12. The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious princeas this fallen, such a star become a clod of clay? Did ever any man fall from such a height of honour and power into such an abyss of shame and misery?" This has been commonly alluded to (and it is a mere allusion) to illustrate the fall of the angels, who were as morning stars (Job 38:7), but how have they fallen! How art thou cut down to the ground, and levelled with it, that didst weaken the nations! God will reckon with those that invade the rights and disturb the peace of mankind, for he is King of nations as well as of saints. Now this reception of the king of Babylon into the regions of the dead, which is here described, surely is something more than a flight of fancy, and is designed to teach these solid truths:—[1.] That there is an invisible world, a world of spirits, to which the souls of men remove at death and in which they exist and act in a state of separation from the body. [2.] That separate souls have acquaintance and converse with each other, though we have none with them: the parable of the rich man and Lazarus intimates this. [3.] That death and hell will be death and hell indeed to those that fall unsanctified from the height of this world's pomps and the fulness of its pleasures. Son, remember, Lu. 16:25.

Matthew Poole

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
From heaven; from the height of thy glory and royal majesty. As kings are sometimes called gods in Scripture, so their palaces and thrones may be fitly called their heavens.

O Lucifer; which properly is a bright and eminent star, which ushers in the sun and the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the high and mighty king of Babylon. And it is a very usual thing, both in prophetical and in profane writers, to describe the princes and potentates of the world under the title of the sun or stars of heaven. Some understand this place of the devil; to whom indeed it may be mystically applied; but as he is never called by this name in Scripture, so it cannot be literally meant of him, but of the king of Babylon, as is undeniably evident from the whole context, which certainly speaks of one and the same person, and describes him as plainly as words can do it.

Song of Solomon of the morning: the title of son is given in Scripture not only to a person or thing begotten or produced by another, but also in general to any thing which is any way related to another; in which sense we read of a son of stripes, Deu 25:2, the son of a night, Jonah 4:10, a son of perdition, John 17:12, and, which is more agreeable to the present case, the sons of Arcturus, Job 38:32.

Matthew Barnes

Verse 12​

How art thou fallen from heaven - A new image is presented here. It is that of the bright morning star; and a comparison of the once magnificent monarch with that beautiful star. He is now exhibited as having fallen from his place in the east to the earth. His glory is dimmed; his brightness quenched. Nothing can be more poetic and beautiful than a comparison of a magnificent monarch with the bright morning star! Nothing more striking in representing his death, than the idea of that star falling to the earth!

Lucifer - Margin, ‘Day-star’ (הילל hēylēl, from הלל hâlal, “to shine”). The word in Hebrew occurs as a noun nowhere else. In two other places Ezekiel 21:12; Zechariah 11:2, it is used as a verb in the imperative mood of Hiphil, and is translated ‘howl’ from the verb ילל yālal, “to howl” or “cry.” Gesenius and Rosenmuller suppose that it should be so rendered here. So Noyes renders it, ‘Howl, son of the morning!’ But the common translation seems to be preferable. The Septuagint renders it, Ἑωσφόρος Heōsphoros, and the Vulgate, ‘Lucifer, the morning star.’ The Chaldee, ‘How art thou fallen from high, who wert splendid among the sons of men.’ There can be no doubt that the object in the eve of the prophet was the bright morning star; and his design was to compare this magnificent oriental monarch with that. The comparison of a monarch with the sun, or the other heavenly bodies, is common in the Scriptures.

Son of the morning - This is a Hebraism (see the note at Matthew 1:1), and signifies that that bright star is, as it were, the production, or the offspring of morning; or that it belongs to the morning. The word ‘son’ often thus denotes possession, or that one thing belongs to another. The same star in one place represents the Son of God himself; Revelation 21:16 : ‘I am - the bright and morning star.’

Which didst weaken the nations - By thy oppressions and exactions, rendering once mighty nations feeble.


I can quote many who think "Lucifer" does not refer to a pre-fallen Satan, as well.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Are you really trying to.persuade people against the KJV?

He's like the many I've seen on these crime shows where someone is murdered and the accused, in desire to clear their name, take the stand and torpedo their own case. I've heard where jurors said their testimony was what made them believe they were guilty. That is him, the more he defends the innerrancy (and also the inspiration) of the KJV, the more he pushes ppl away from that translation. So, I say let he keep posting, the more he posts, the more he undermines his own premise(s).

 

[Ascetic X]

He's like the many I've seen on these crime shows where someone is murdered and the accused, in desire to clear their name, take the stand and torpedo their own case. I've heard where jurors said their testimony was what made them believe they were guilty. That is him, the more he defends the innerrancy (and also the inspiration) of the KJV, the more he pushes ppl away from that translation. So, I say let he keep posting, the more he posts, the more he undermines his own premise(s).

Yes, it does appear that Will J. Kinney is trying to get people to be opposed to the King James Version.

Not sure why he dislikes it so much. It’s my favorite version of the Bible. I’ve never promoted any other version in my discussions with him, but he keeps falsely accusing me of championing other versions. Very strange.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Yes, it does appear that Will J. Kinney is trying to get people to be opposed to the King James Version.

Not sure why he dislikes it so much. It’s my favorite version of the Bible. I’ve never promoted any other version in my discussions with him, but he keeps falsely accusing me of championing other versions. Very strange.

You are KJVP not KJVO, and that's no different than promoting the NWT to them. Its a cult, you MUST adhere to the onlyism not the preferredism.

 

[Mikoo]

Hi W. How in the name of common sense it the Bible agnostic test "effectively anti-KJB"?

With most of the examples I list I also give an explanation as to why the KJB got it right and the others did not when they differ from it. YOU yourself do not really believe that ANY Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the completer and 100% true words of God, right? IF you think you do have one you can show us, then please give us a link to where we can see it and read what it says. Can you do that for us? Not gonna happen, is it.

Thanks.

My NASB95 is the Word of God correcting the many errors in the KJV.

 

[Mikoo]

Two things. First, usually when someone tells me we are very close to the autographs, what they usually mean is that they have set aside the vast Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and the Traditional Reformation bible text as found in the King James Bible and they have embraced the Vatican supervised, ever changing Critical text which is based primarily on two very corrupt manuscripts that not only differ from the Majority but they differ from each other some 3000 times just in the gospels, and most of you don't even know what they are really like.

Undeniable Documented Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, LSB, Holman Standard, NET, modern Catholic bibles, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"

Another King James Bible Believer

Undeniable Textual Proof the ESV, NIV, LSB, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs, modern Catholic bibles, Jehovah Witness NWT are the new "Vatican Versions" Part TWO - Textual proof.

Another King James Bible Believer

To see the true nature of these so called “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, LSB, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -

The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" Part One - Matthew thru Luke.
Another King James Bible Believer

The True Character of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts Part Two - John to Revelation.

Another King James Bible Believer


Second thing. Since you deny the inerrancy of the KJB how about you give me your Number One example of a provable error found in the KJB and we can take a look at it to see if you are right or not, OK? Not the usual laundry list you got from the internet, but just your # 1 best example.

Thanks.

The NASB95 is the Word of God which corrected the errors of the KJV.

 

[37818]

The NASB95 is the Word of God which corrected the errors of the KJV.

For every one the NASB corrects, it adds MORE wrong readings.
Luke 4:4. Omits, "every word of God."
John 6:47. Omits, "in Me"
John 13:2. Changes, "ended" to "during."
And more.

 

[Mikoo]

For every one the NASB corrects, it adds MORE wrong readings.
Luke 4:4. Omits, "every word of God."
John 6:47. Omits, "in Me"

Nope just correcting where where words were added.

John 13:2. Changes, "ended" to "during."

Just correcting to the right word.

And more.

If necessary.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The whole quote in context is this. "Now to the latter we answer, That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that THE VERY MEANEST TRANSLATION of the Bible in English SET FORTH BY MEN OF OUR PROFESSION, (for we have seen NONE OF THEIRS of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God."

It should be clear that Miles Smith (the man who wrote the Preface) is referring to the Douay-Rheims ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT here, which was published by the Roman Catholics in 1582, the Old Testament not appearing until 1610, some five or six years AFTER the King James Bible translators began their own work of translation. Thus the reason for Smith's notation that they had "SEEN NONE OF THEIRS OF THE WHOLE BIBLE AS YET."

Possibly so, but then you write:

"Men of our profession" refers to the Protestant, Reformation Christians and the "theirs" refers to the Catholics. In the previous paragraph to this quote we read them say regarding "the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined" that "all is sound for substance in one or other of OUR editions, AND THE WORST OF OURS FAR BETTER THAN THEIR AUTHENTICK VULGAR" (which refers to the various Latin Vulgate versions)

So he is speaking of the Vulgate.
But the Preface continues, "A man may be accounted a virtuous man, though he has made many slips in his life (else there were none virtuous, for, in many things we offend all), also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.......etc." [italics in the original]
The Preface goes on to say, "Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translation so oft; wherein truly they deal harshly and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?" [italics mine. M.M.]
Yet is that not just what you have been doing in respect of the NASB and other translations? I will venture to say that every translation should be revised every 40 or 50 years, and if the KJV had been more regularly revised and the language brought up to date, there might not be the plethora of versions that we see today.
Those who read my posts on this forum will be aware that I use the NKJV almost invariably. I do believe that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be correct that the Critical Text. But I will not force 17th Century language on my congregation. If the KJV crowd don't like the NKJV (and to be sure, there are some improvements that could be made), then it is incumbent on them to produce a better translation in the language of today.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

The NASB95 is the Word of God which corrected the errors of the KJV.

Oh...you mean the 1995 NASB Vatican supervised Critical text version that rejects and adds to many Hebrew readings, contains false teaching in many verses and tells us that the children of Israel DECEIVED God in Psalms 78:36? That one?

Or do you mean any of the other NASBs that keep on deliberately changing the Hebrew and Greek texts they translate from?


The Ever Changing NASBs - 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 and 2020 editions.

Another King James Bible Believer

Can God be deceived? In Psalms 78:36 The NASB 1972-1995 editions, NET and the Legacy Standard Bible tell us that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him. Is God gullible? Is that even possible? Not even the ASV, ESV, NIV, NKJV or now the NASB 2020 edition read that way.

Another King James Bible Believer



Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.



King James Bible (ESV, NKJV, ASV, LSB 2021) - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NASB 1963-1977 editions - But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NASB 1995 -2020 editions - But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."



NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."



Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?



Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Mikoo]

Oh...you mean the 1995 NASB Vatican supervised Critical text version that rejects and adds to many Hebrew readings, contains false teaching in many verses and tells us that the children of Israel DECEIVED God in Psalms 78:36? That one?

Or do you mean any of the other NASBs that keep on deliberately changing the Hebrew and Greek texts they translate from?


The Ever Changing NASBs - 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 and 2020 editions.

Another King James Bible Believer

Can God be deceived? In Psalms 78:36 The NASB 1972-1995 editions, NET and the Legacy Standard Bible tell us that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him. Is God gullible? Is that even possible? Not even the ASV, ESV, NIV, NKJV or now the NASB 2020 edition read that way.

Another King James Bible Believer



Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"? Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.



King James Bible (ESV, NKJV, ASV, LSB 2021) - Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NASB 1963-1977 editions - But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NASB 1995 -2020 editions - But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.



NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."



NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."



Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES? What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?



Another King James Bible Believer

Thanks for pointing out where the NASB95 had to correct the KJV.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Those who read my posts on this forum will be aware that I use the NKJV almost invariably. I do believe that the Byzantine Text is more likely to be correct that the Critical Text. But I will not force 17th Century language on my congregation. If the KJV crowd don't like the NKJV (and to be sure, there are some improvements that could be made), then it is incumbent on them to produce a better translation in the language of today.

Hi Martin. Thank you for your comments. You certainly are entitled to have your own opinion on things, but it is very obvious from your own words here that you really do not believe that any Bible in any language you can show us is now or ever was the complete and 100% true words of God, and you are your own authority in that you think your fake NKJV could use some improvements.

There are a LOT of problems with the NKJV - a.k.a. the Marijuana Version. I have done a lot of study on it for anyone who might be interested in finding out more about what is wrong with this thing that nobody seriously believes is the inerrant words of God. Not even the NKJV translators believed it was inerrant or even the best text to use.

Is the NKJV the inerrant words of God? You have GOT to be kidding, right?


http://brandplucked.com/nkjvsameaskjb.htm





If you think the New KJV is the same as the 1611 King James Bible, but with more modern English, then I hope this multi-faceted study will reveal to you that they are not at all the same in hundreds of verses. Both cannot equally be the perfect and inerrant words of God at the same time when they are so different from each other.



The New KJV "Every man for himself" mentality

Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."


These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 5000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

See the whole article here -
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[37818]

Nope just correcting where where words were added.

Just correcting to the right word.

If necessary.

The NASB changed in John 1:18, "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God."

 

[JesusFan]

The NASB changed in John 1:18, "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God."

Which would fit textually what the original probably actually had stated

 

[JesusFan]

See the whole article here -
Another King James Bible Believer

So which version of the Kjv would be the perfect one, as there have been many revisions, each different form original 1611, and which TR text is pure Greek one?

 

[37818]

Which would fit textually what the original probably actually had stated

I don't believe you know what you are talking about. 99.6% of mss of John read "Son." The used mss "begotten God" reading is only the 0.3%.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't believe you know what you are talking about. 99% of mss of John read "Son." The used mss "begotten God" reading is only the 0.3%.

per textual criticsm, the harder reading would sometimes be the preferred reading

 

[Mikoo]

The NASB changed in John 1:18, "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God."

You mean corrected.