King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[2Thewaters]

So you make it sound liek it is a crime to look for the truth

i say

it is a crime NOT to look for the truth.

the KJV BIBLE IS THE TRUTH if you will just read it all and study it all you would get the right story

but MANY people disqualify this and disqualify that and this is for the Jews and that is for the transition period and that is just historical until they have the three twisted verses left so they can have a SINNING CHRUCH that thinks they are heaven bound

fearful will be the punishment of those pastors who do that.

 

[2Thewaters]

The king james Bivle original documents are without error.
all you have to do is get a program like e-Sword | Home

and when someone takes a verse and misapplies it to a new strange doctrine CLICK ON EACH WORD and you will see they are completely out of context

it is so easy

most churches rely on a few xcriptures out of context.

1. read the context (whole chapter) of each verse
2. Click on each word in the verse

those two step expose all errors
and ther are a LOT of false doctrines out there.

and fiannly

print out EVERY verse on that topic and read them all

like death

and read them all

and the others fall into context

there are a few verses
thanks to the KJV commitee that can be taken two different ways

just take OTHER VERSES (and there are a lot of them)
to show WHICH WAY of the two ways they should be taken.

so simple

your life depends on it

and then tell your pasotr

sir, show me the bible text that says we should no longer keep the seventh day Sabbath. I found 850 of them that says we should....

and I found in revelation that Gods last church will be keeping it even under the threat of death from the false world universal church


and when people say the LAW
the LAW
the LAW

always stop them right there and say

WHICH LAW you talking about?

the circumcision law of the eternal ten commandment universal infinte unchangeable law of love of ten commandments?

hmmmm?
which one you talking about?

 

[JackH]

all of the foreign translations come from the King James.

The largest Christian denomination, by far, is the Catholics.

And you really think the Pope tells his minions to translate up a bunch of Spanish and Portuguese Bibles from the KJV for missionary work south of the border?

 

[Jason0047]

Essentially what I hear is that it is okay for God's Word to be corrupted or to have errors in it. That we can correct God's Word just because we don't understand it. Also, what I see is a hiding behind a dead language that nobody speaks anymore so as to twist or change what God's Word says plainly in a language that we do understand. Both of these things are an attempt at corrupting the perfectly preserved Word of God that exists right now for our day.

2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

In fact, what is interesting is that Modern Translations, change this verse. It says, we are not they that peddle or commercialize God's Word. Why do they change this verse? Because it would expose the fact that they are corrupting the Word of God.

Now, do I believe all Anti-KJV-only proponents are out to destroy God's Word? No. I think some of them are merely uninformed. But I think that this topic will involve the future great falling away of believers from the faith, though.

 

[Nick01]

Essentially what I hear is that it is okay for God's Word to be corrupted or to have errors in it. That we can correct God's Word just because we don't understand it. Also, what I see is a hiding behind a dead language that nobody speaks anymore so as to twist or change what God's Word says plainly in a language that we do understand. Both of these things are an attempt at corrupting the perfectly preserved Word of God that exists right now for our day.

Frankly, you are seeing and hearing wrong.

2 Corinthians 2:17

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

In fact, what is interesting is that Modern Translations, change this verse. It says, we are not they that peddle or commercialize God's Word. Why do they change this verse? Because it would expose the fact that they are corrupting the Word of God.

To commercialise is to corrupt or taint. Not that big a deal, and in fact I think the concept of slyly peddling dodgy goods fits more into Paul's argument than corrupt - the comparison is with sincerity, uprightness.

But the whole argument from this verse is ridiculous to start with - if there is some sort of concerted effort to corrupt the Word of God, why change this verse, and thus call attention to one of the verses that talks about corrupting the word of God? Seems an incredibly silly thing to do, to me.

Now, do I believe all Anti-KJV-only proponents are out to destroy God's Word? No. I think some of them are merely uninformed.

Thank you... I think. For what it's worth, I think you're merely uninformed too

 

[Jason0047]

But the whole argument from this verse is ridiculous to start with - if there is some sort of concerted effort to corrupt the Word of God, why change this verse, and thus call attention to one of the verses that talks about corrupting the word of God? Seems an incredibly silly thing to do, to me.

Apparently calling attention to it has not changed your mind about it. Life teaches us that people see what they want to see, even when the facts are staying them right in the face. Anyways, the problem is not just in this one verse either. Check out this article here:

http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DOCTRINAL-TEACHINGS-AFFECTED-IN-MODERN-VERSIONS.pdf

 

[Last]

Essentially what I hear is that it is okay for God's Word to be corrupted or to have errors in it. That we can correct God's Word just because we don't understand it. Also, what I see is a hiding behind a dead language that nobody speaks anymore so as to twist or change what God's Word says plainly in a language that we do understand. Both of these things are an attempt at corrupting the perfectly preserved Word of God that exists right now for our day.

There is no basis to pick the KJV and say that its the translation. Picking one translation and say all others are corrupted or wrong is a bad view of scripture and translation. Different translations provide a better perspective of the whole. We have four accounts of the Gospel.

2 Corinthians 2:17

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

In fact, what is interesting is that Modern Translations, change this verse. It says, we are not they that peddle or commercialize God's Word. Why do they change this verse? Because it would expose the fact that they are corrupting the Word of God.

That verse is not saying anything about making a living by printing God's word.

Now, do I believe all Anti-KJV-only proponents are out to destroy God's Word? No. I think some of them are merely uninformed. But I think that this topic will involve the future great falling away of believers from the faith, though.

it will cause people to fall away from a very shallow understanding of faith.

 

[Jason0047]

There is no basis to pick the KJV and say that its the translation. Picking one translation and say all others are corrupted or wrong is a bad view of scripture and translation. Different translations provide a better perspective of the whole. We have four accounts of the Gospel.

I believe anyone who does an honest study of the Scriptures and compares the KJV vs. the Modern Translations will see that the Modern Versions are corrupt by comparison.

2 corinthians 2:17

That verse is not saying anything about making a living by printing God's word.

[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="class: maintable3, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]

New International Version​

Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

New Living Translation​

You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ's authority, knowing that God is watching us.

English Standard Version​

For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

New American Standard Bible ​

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

King James Bible​

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible​

For we are not like the many who market God's message for profit. On the contrary, we speak with sincerity in Christ, as from God and before God.

International Standard Version​

At least we are not commercializing God's word like so many others. Instead, we speak with sincerity in the Messiah's name, like people who are sent from God and are accountable to God.

NET Bible​

For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English​

For we are not like others who blend the words of God, but according to that which is in the truth and according to that which is from God, before God in The Messiah we speak.

GOD'S WORD® Translation​

At least we don't go around selling an impure word of God like many others. The opposite is true. As Christ's spokesmen and in God's presence, we speak the pure message that comes from God.

Jubilee Bible 2000​

For we are not as many, false merchandisers of the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

King James 2000 Bible​

For we are not as many, who corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

American King James Version​

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

American Standard Version​

For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.

Douay-Rheims Bible​

For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God; but with sincerity, but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak.

Darby Bible Translation​

For we do not, as the many, make a trade of the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ.

English Revised Version​

For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.

Webster's Bible Translation​

For we are not as many, who corrupt the word of God: but as from sincerity, but as from God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Weymouth New Testament​

We are; for, unlike most teachers, we are not fraudulent hucksters of God's Message; but with transparent motives, as commissioned by God, in God's presence and in communion with Christ, so we speak.

World English Bible​

For we are not as so many, peddling the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ.

Young's Literal Translation​

for we are not as the many, adulterating the word of God, but as of sincerity -- but as of God; in the presence of God, in Christ we do speak.




[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

it will cause people to fall away from a very shallow understanding of faith.

No, people fall away from the faith because they had no root in the Word.
For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

 

[Last]

And if you understood the Greek or realized that each passage was saying the same thing, you wouldn't see a problem with each version. By the way, your premise of your point goes either way, it can equally prove the KJV is wrong.

For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

Faith comes from the word of God has nothing to do with believing a silly thing about there needing to be only one translation.

 

[Nick01]

Apparently calling attention to it has not changed your mind about it. Life teaches us that people see what they want to see, even when the facts are staying them right in the face. Anyways, the problem is not just in this one verse either. Check out this article here:

http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/DOCTRINAL-TEACHINGS-AFFECTED-IN-MODERN-VERSIONS.pdf

If you're going to argue about specific verses and doctrines, can you please at least pick a couple out, and make sure they're actually the best arguments? I skimmed through most of what is in that PDF - most of the arguments are about minor variations in the text that don't actually affect any doctrine at all, or the readings that are omitted (or as is more likely, were added in after the originals were written) actually end up appearing elsewhere. For instance, the absence of Mary being 'blessed among all women' in Luke 1:28 actually comes up later. Jesus, when talking to Peter, says "Get behind me Satan", which would explain why someone would want to make the addition during the temptation in the desert.

In each of these cases, the reason why these additions were dropped is usually because they don't appear in the earliest manuscripts available, because they aren't cited in that form externally until a late date, and because it makes more sense to explain why a scribe would add those things than it is to explain why they took them out. For instance, it beggers belief to think that a scribe deliberately took the word "Him" out of 1 John 4:19 so that it reads "We love because he first loved us.", when only nine verses earlier, the scribe has written "Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." If there is some attempt at 'doctrinal removal', it's not a very good one!

All of this, of course, is a side story. The reality is that, if the earlier manuscripts are correct, then none of these verses that whoever wrote the above PDF claims were 'taken out' are actually what the apostles wrote. If they didn't write it, then it can't be considered part of Scripture, because someone else added it in later.

 

[Jason0047]

Faith comes from the word of God has nothing to do with believing a silly thing about there needing to be only one translation.

If the Word is not perfect then your faith cannot be perfect. For you are what you eat. For Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone but every Word of God that speaks. I believe that. Do you?

 

[KJV1611]

If you're going to argue about specific verses and doctrines, can you please at least pick a couple out, and make sure they're actually the best arguments? I skimmed through most of what is in that PDF - most of the arguments are about minor variations in the text that don't actually affect any doctrine at all, or the readings that are omitted (or as is more likely, were added in after the originals were written) actually end up appearing elsewhere. For instance, the absence of Mary being 'blessed among all women' in Luke 1:28 actually comes up later. Jesus, when talking to Peter, says "Get behind me Satan", which would explain why someone would want to make the addition during the temptation in the desert.

In each of these cases, the reason why these additions were dropped is usually because they don't appear in the earliest manuscripts available, because they aren't cited in that form externally until a late date, and because it makes more sense to explain why a scribe would add those things than it is to explain why they took them out. For instance, it beggers belief to think that a scribe deliberately took the word "Him" out of 1 John 4:19 so that it reads "We love because he first loved us.", when only nine verses earlier, the scribe has written "Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." If there is some attempt at 'doctrinal removal', it's not a very good one!

All of this, of course, is a side story. The reality is that, if the earlier manuscripts are correct, then none of these verses that whoever wrote the above PDF claims were 'taken out' are actually what the apostles wrote. If they didn't write it, then it can't be considered part of Scripture, because someone else added it in later.

Are the earlier manuscripts more accurate?

 

[Last]

If the Word is not perfect then your faith cannot be perfect.

The Word is Christ, who is perfect. Translations cannot be 'perfect', they are perspectives on the same event- just like the four Gospels. Why four Gospels? Because faith is about different perspectives. One cannot understand the nature of an animal by only looking at it one way. We must walk around it to understand it fully. Each perspective is valid, but thinking there is only one perspective does not create a complete understanding.

 

[Jason0047]

If you're going to argue about specific verses and doctrines, can you please at least pick a couple out, and make sure they're actually the best arguments? I skimmed through most of what is in that PDF - most of the arguments are about minor variations in the text that don't actually affect any doctrine at all, or the readings that are omitted (or as is more likely, were added in after the originals were written) actually end up appearing elsewhere. For instance, the absence of Mary being 'blessed among all women' in Luke 1:28 actually comes up later. Jesus, when talking to Peter, says "Get behind me Satan", which would explain why someone would want to make the addition during the temptation in the desert.

In each of these cases, the reason why these additions were dropped is usually because they don't appear in the earliest manuscripts available, because they aren't cited in that form externally until a late date, and because it makes more sense to explain why a scribe would add those things than it is to explain why they took them out. For instance, it beggers belief to think that a scribe deliberately took the word "Him" out of 1 John 4:19 so that it reads "We love because he first loved us.", when only nine verses earlier, the scribe has written "Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." If there is some attempt at 'doctrinal removal', it's not a very good one!

All of this, of course, is a side story. The reality is that, if the earlier manuscripts are correct, then none of these verses that whoever wrote the above PDF claims were 'taken out' are actually what the apostles wrote. If they didn't write it, then it can't be considered part of Scripture, because someone else added it in later.

While there is minor changes to the text (Which I still think is a big deal), there also major changes to doctrines and truths, too.

Important teachings or doctrines effected by Modern Translations:

1. Fasting to cast out strong demons.
The NIV, NLT, ESV, NET, GW, and others removes the word "fasting. " So when you read these Modern Translations, you will not see how to properly cast out stronger demons by fasting as mentioned in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. This makes sense because those who have ceased from sin are those who have suffered in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1)

2. Defending God's Triune Nature.
There is only 1 verse that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. It is clear and to the point with no guessing. That is 1 John 5:7. You take that out of your Bible and you are only making assumptions as to the Trinity. This one verse helps to shed light on the rest of the passages that teach about the Trinity in a more subtle way.

3. The teaching that Christians are to withdraw from men who “think Godliness is gain,” is removed from I Timothy 6:5.
There are other passages which contain the doctrine of separation, but each has different kinds of separation in view. No other passage in the Bible contains the exact doctrine taught in I Timothy 6:3-5. In fact, this is important to point out because there are some Christians today (Mid Acts Dispensationalists) who believe that we can disobey Jesus' words in the gospels because Paul started a new gospel that was different than Jesus' gospel.

4. Revelation 21:24 removes "them which are saved."
This alters the meaning of what kind of nations will exist in the Millennium. This is important to point out because there are some Christians who falsely believe that unsaved believers will enter the Millennium because they merely helped the poor.

5. "Walk After the Spirit" is removed in Romans 8:1.
This is important to point out because no other passage specificailly says we are under the "Condemnation" for not walking after the Spirit in Christ Jesus. I would also like to add that many OSAS proponents like to quote this verse without the added words, too. I know. I seen it done several times. So here we have an issue of defending God's Word Biblically or not on the matter of salvation and the Modern Translations just alter God's Word and change our understanding of salvation. For I quote Romans 8:1 all the time because it is unique. No other verse is quite so clear and to the point on the topic of salvation.

 

[Jason0047]

The Word is Christ, who is perfect. Translations cannot be 'perfect', they are perspectives on the same event- just like the four Gospels. Why four Gospels? Because faith is about different perspectives. One cannot understand the nature of an animal by only looking at it one way. We must walk around it to understand it fully. Each perspective is valid, but thinking there is only one perspective does not create a complete understanding.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing what? Christ? Yes, the words of Christ. For Jesus Christ is God; And seeing the Bible is God's Word to man, they are also the words of Christ. So when you listen or hear God's written Word (Which is how one receives the gospel), then they have faith in Jesus. For nobody has faith that is not based on God's written Word. For the gospel comes from the written Word.

 

[Last]

While there is minor changes to the text (Which I still think is a big deal), there also major changes to doctrines and truths, too.

Important teachings or doctrines effected by Modern Translations:

1. Fasting to cast out strong demons.
The NIV, NLT, ESV, NET, GW, and others removes the word "fasting. " So when you read these Modern Translations, you will not see how to properly cast out stronger demons by fasting as mentioned in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. This makes sense because those who have ceased from sin are those who have suffered in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1)

That is a copyist note incorporate to the texts.

2. Defending God's Triune Nature.
There is only 1 verse that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. It is clear and to the point with no guessing. That is 1 John 5:7. You take that out of your Bible and you are only making assumptions as to the Trinity. This one verse helps to shed light on the rest of the passages that teach about the Trinity in a more subtle way.

Same thing. You don't need this for the Trinity.

3. The teaching that Christians are to withdraw from men who “think Godliness is gain,” is removed from I Timothy 6:5.
There are other passages which contain the doctrine of separation, but each has different kinds of separation in view. No other passage in the Bible contains the exact doctrine taught in I Timothy 6:3-5. In fact, this is important to point out because there are some Christians today (Mid Acts Dispensationalists) who believe that we can disobey Jesus' words in the gospels because Paul started a new gospel that was different than Jesus' gospel.

Those are both valid translations of what is there. It pertains to how you deal with the declensions.

4. Revelation 21:24 removes "them which are saved."
This alters the meaning of what kind of nations will exist in the Millennium. This is important to point out because there are some Christians who falsely believe that unsaved believers will enter the Millennium because they merely helped the poor.

Actually that is the KJV somewhat adding to the texts they were using. The word is just nations/people, but they added to it to.

 

[Jason0047]

That is a copyist note incorporate to the texts.

How do you know it's a copyist note? Where you there when the note was written?
What about the poor guy who didn't get the memo when he was reading His NIV?

Same thing. You don't need this for the Trinity.

Please show me another verse that is exactly like 1 John 5:7. Oh yes. There are other verses that hint or allude to the Trinity, but no other verse specifically teaches the Trinity except 1 John 5:7. So it's not a copy note. It's a teaching on a major Christian doctrine.

Those are both valid translations of what is there. It pertains to how you deal with the declensions.

No, many Modern Translations remove how we are to separate from those who think Godliness is gain.

Actually that is the KJV somewhat adding to the texts they were using. The word is just nations/people, but they added to it to.

Again, how do you know? Where you there when they copied and transcribed this from the true Word of God prior? Besides, do you believe unbelievers will enter the Millennium? Is that why you think it is an error? For the removal of these words will lead someone to falsely think they can be saved by works. Which is just not possible. Only Jesus saves.

 

[Jason0047]

In other words, if you were marooned on an island and you had only the NIV as your first experience with God's Word, you would not know about:

1. Fasting so as to cast out demons.
2. The teaching on the Trinity as clearly described in 1 John 5:7.
3. To withdraw from those who think Godliness is gain.
4. How Revelation 21:24 is in context to talking about saved people.
5. Walking after the Spirit in Christ Jesus so as not to be under the "Condemnation."

 

[Last]

How do you know it's a copyist note? Where you there when the note was written?
What about the poor guy who didn't get the memo when he was reading His NIV?

We know because it only belongs to a select group of manuscripts and the style is off. The NIV? It doesn't belong there. It was not in the earliest versions.

Please show me another verse that is exactly like 1 John 5:7. Oh yes. There are other verses that hint or allude to the Trinity, but no other verse specifically teaches the Trinity except 1 John 5:7. So it's not a copy note. It's a teaching on a major Christian doctrine.

It's a copyist note on a Christian teaching. One that was added because they already believed in the Trinity. The belief was held before it was added.

Again, how do you know? Where you there when they copied and transcribed this from the true Word of God prior? Besides, do you believe unbelievers will enter the Millennium? Is that why you think it is an error? For the removal of these words will lead someone to falsely think they can be saved by works. Which is just not possible. Only Jesus saves.

That does not support such a thing. I believe we are in the millennium. I don't believe in Darby's nonsense.

 

[Nick01]

While there is minor changes to the text (Which I still think is a big deal), there also major changes to doctrines and truths, too.

Before going into these, again, the language of 'changes' by you begs the question - if they were added, then the doctrinal changes are in fact the other way around.

Onwards...

Important teachings or doctrines effected by Modern Translations:

1. Fasting to cast out strong demons.
The NIV, NLT, ESV, NET, GW, and others removes the word "fasting. " So when you read these Modern Translations, you will not see how to properly cast out stronger demons by fasting as mentioned in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. This makes sense because those who have ceased from sin are those who have suffered in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1)

This is hardly an important doctrine - there has never been any great argument in the church on the doctrines surrounding demonology. But, again, in several early manuscripts, prayer and fasting is missing in Matthew, while prayer is in many of those same in MSS in Mark. This makes why anyone would want to remove fasting, especially given how much the church generally exalted fasting from the fourth century, particular strange. I'm willing to concede that this is probably one of the most marginal cases, but the thing that tips it in my favour are 1) the abscence of any good reason why someone would want to remove JUST the fasting component and 2) the similar addition of prayer and fasting in a non-demon-related context in 1 Corinthians 7:5 in TR manuscripts but its absent in a large number and variety of earlier Greek manuscripts further suggests that were prepared to add those words in, for whatever reason.

1 Peter 4:1 has precisely nothing to do with Matthew 7 or Mark 9. It is talking about Jesus, who suffered in the flesh and did away or finished with sin, and how we should mirror our attitude on his. You're clutching at straws here, mate.

2. Defending God's Triune Nature.
There is only 1 verse that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. It is clear and to the point with no guessing. That is 1 John 5:7. You take that out of your Bible and you are only making assumptions as to the Trinity. This one verse helps to shed light on the rest of the passages that teach about the Trinity in a more subtle way.

I'm a Trinitarian. I read the Bible without the comma. What does that tell you? That you don't need the addition of the comma in 1 John 5:7 to establish Trinitarian doctrine. It's striking that no church father explicitly refers to or quotes this verse in defence of Trinitarian doctrine during any of the heresies - it surely would have been the first port of call against Arius, for example, surely? Happy to give a fuller argument on why I think the Comma was an addition, but I think someone else might have already posted something somewhere.

3. The teaching that Christians are to withdraw from men who “think Godliness is gain,” is removed from I Timothy 6:5.
There are other passages which contain the doctrine of separation, but each has different kinds of separation in view. No other passage in the Bible contains the exact doctrine taught in I Timothy 6:3-5. In fact, this is important to point out because there are some Christians today (Mid Acts Dispensationalists) who believe that we can disobey Jesus' words in the gospels because Paul started a new gospel that was different than Jesus' gospel.

I hardly think 1 Timothy 6:5, even without that clause, is advocating fellowship with such people. Most of 1 Timothy is advocating being wary of people who are out for financial gain, or are false teachers, etc etc.

But textually, again, the clause is missing from a large number of early manuscripts, with no particularly good reason for its removal given the rest of the chapter paints the same behavior incredibly negatively.

4. Revelation 21:24 removes "them which are saved."
This alters the meaning of what kind of nations will exist in the Millennium. This is important to point out because there are some Christians who falsely believe that unsaved believers will enter the Millennium because they merely helped the poor.

Ah, well, here's where we have bigger issues. This portion of Revelation is not concerned with the Millenium. It's clearly placed in the final eternal state, where God dwells with man, with a new heaven and earth. Only those whom belong to the lamb are counted among the people allowed to enter, which obviously includes "the nations". "Those who are being saved" may well be an accurate clarification, but it is not needed, and it is almost certainly not original. It is clearly not teaching all Gentiles will enter in, just from the rest of the passage.

5. "Walk After the Spirit" is removed in Romans 8:1.
This is important to point out because no other passage specificailly says we are under the "Condemnation" for not walking after the Spirit in Christ Jesus. I would also like to add that many OSAS proponents like to quote this verse without the added words, too. I know. I seen it done several times. So here we have an issue of defending God's Word Biblically or not on the matter of salvation and the Modern Translations just alter God's Word and change our understanding of salvation. For I quote Romans 8:1 all the time because it is unique. No other verse is quite so clear and to the point on the topic of salvation.

It is an addition. Paul mentions the same point in v.4, defining those who are in Christ as those who walk in the Spirit. Again, if someone were trying to take out the phrase for some conspiratorial purpose, they did a terrible job because they left the same thing in 3 verses later.

Also, the version in the KJV is not even the only variant reading at this point. Another earlier variant reads "“who do not walk according to the flesh”". The fact that there are multiple variants, all of them derived from later in the same passage, and with attestation to the shortest reading in various Western and Alexandrian texts, makes it most likely an addition. Even then, it's an addition that doesn't change a singhe thing when read in the full context of Paul's argument in ch. 7-9.