77 Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles

[Bible_Highlighter]

No, they don't. There is, however, much idiotic narrow-minded selective propaganda from KJV-only adherents twisting Scripture and taking bits out of context to make the case that modern translations attack the divinity of Christ.

Both manuscript traditions cannot be correct. It’s either one or the other. It is simply a fact that there are changes both on a manuscript level, and on a translation level that one Bible line waters down the deity of Christ compared to the other Bible line. 21 plus changes on the watering down on the deity of Christ is a great concern. Then again, there are other things that are watered down or removed entirely involving doctrine. Modern Bibles even teach false doctrine. John 1:18 says that Jesus is the begotten God. Taken literally, this would suggest that Jesus came into existence as a god rather than being the eternal second person of the Trinity.

This is a textual difference:

Textus Receptus: υἱός (huios): "Son” Beza rendering:
Vaticanus & Sinaiticus rendering: ⲑ̅ⲥ̅ (theos) “God”

Note: While other MSS are used for the Critical text, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two primary manuscripts that it uses for its main readings.




….

 

[Dino246]

Both manuscript traditions cannot be correct. It’s either one or the other.

Wrong. That is the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Don’t waste your time basing arguments on fallacies.

 

[Dino246]

But the two primary source manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)

Vaticanus and Sinaiticaus are not “the two primary source manuscripts” for the Critical Text. They are merely two of the thousands of sources.

Jesus says by their fruits, you shall know them.

Indeed, I know you by your fruit: misrepresentation, slander, and distortion.

 

[Dino246]

Take a look at this comparison of a few verses on key doctrines in the King James Version versus the RSV and NIV....

Romans 1:3
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
RSV--- concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
NIV---regarding his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

There is no difference here other than phraseology. The RSV is essentially identical and the NIV is merely modern language saying the same thing. You obviously didn't give any thought to this, but just copied and pasted from some other thoughtless source.

Acts 22:16
Systematic removal of the divinity of Jesus Christ
KJV---wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord
RSV---and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
NIV---wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Again you have made the foolish and ignorant error of ignoring context. Nobody (with any intelligence) attempts to make an important doctrine such as the trinity from a single verse, or pretends that not using a particular verse undermines the doctrine.

Here is relevant context of this verse in all three versions:
KJV: vv6-8 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord?
And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

RSV: vv6-8 “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’
And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’

NIV: vv6-8 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’
“‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied.

It is really disappointing that you make such ridiculous accusations and don't have the intellectual integrity to examine the material you quote. Do your homework, and stop causing division among Christians!

The problem is that some of these new versions are not just a 'different translation', they basically have done editing to actually change doctrines or take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with a doctrine they hold or someones traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own...

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are cultists, not Christians. They have indeed intentionally corrupted their perversions of the Bible. For that reason they are not valid examples in this discussion. You don't have any evidence that any Christian has intentionally mistranslated the Bible... and you won't find what doesn't exist. You're not looking for truth; you're looking for reasons to support your already-held belief.

and eventually you get to a point which the proffessor brings up where 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

That "professor" (whoever he is... a citation would be appropriate!) is either an idiot or is is intentionally misrepresenting the newer versions and is pushing an agenda. I personally came to believe in the trinity USING AN NIV. As for "proving", theology is not a "proof" science; it is an evidential science. Only math can be "proven".

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Again, in every case you must first establish that the verse belongs in Scripture before you can rationally claim that it has been removed. Its presence in the KJV is not adequate proof of that. Further, just because an idea appears in one verse doesn't mean it only appears there. None of these verses are alone in presenting a core doctrine. Most don't present core doctrine at all.

One example is laughable: Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." That phrase (or at least the modern-English equivalent) appears eight times in the NIV. Wiped out? Ridiculous!

The idea of Mark 11:26 is clearly presented in Matthew 6.

Mark 15:28 is in the footnotes.

Luke 17:36 is in Matthew 24:40.

Luke 23:17 is in Matthew, Mark and John.

John 5:4 is in the footnotes.

Acts 8:37 is in the footnotes.

Act 15:34 is in the footnotes and is so minor that its absence would affect absolutely nothing.

Acts 28:29 is in the footnotes and is also insignificant.

Romans 16:24 is actually a repetition of verse 21, which does appear in the NIV.

Overall, your list is a pathetic attempt to discredit new translations. If you're going to attempt to cause division, at least use get some intellectual integrity.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Vaticanus and Sinaiticaus are not “the two primary source manuscripts” for the Critical Text. They are merely two of the thousands of sources.


Indeed, I know you by your fruit: misrepresentation, slander, and distortion.

Yes, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two primary source Greek MSS for the NA 28, with Vaticanus being of a higher percentage to show up in the main reading than Sinaitcus.

Douglas Kutilek who is an enemy of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible states this in one of his articles:

"On the other hand, the defects of the Westcott-Hort text are also generally recognized, particularly its excessive reliance on manuscript B (Vaticanus), and to a lesser extent, Aleph (Sinaiticus). Hort declared the combined testimony of these two manuscripts to be all but a guarantee that a reading was original."​

Source:

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

Eldon Jay Epp, who is a Critical Text advocate stated: "The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece."

Source:

N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?

www.thetextofthegospels.com

Even asking various Ai's the amount of variants that make it into the main reading is a relatively small number when you don't count Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Steven Avery of the Pure Bible Forum conducted an exhaustive search to identify every reading in the NA28 gospels that lacks support from both Sinaiticus (01) and Vaticanus (03). He found 80 such readings across the four gospels (34 in Matthew, 15 in Mark, 16 in Luke, 15 in John), working from the non-bracketed text only. He noted he is about 98% confident he found all such readings, and he welcomed any additions or corrections.

He then charted how five other critical editions handled those same 80 readings: Tischendorf 8th, Tregelles, Westcott-Hort, SBL, and Tyndale House. Key findings were:

• Westcott-Hort almost never departed from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in these places, confirming its tight dependence on those two manuscripts.
• SBL and Tyndale House nearly always agreed with NA28 against both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
• In three places (Matt. 20:31, Luke 9:18, and John 16:23), all five editions sided with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus against NA28.

The broader takeaway is that outside of these 80 variants, NA28 agrees with Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, or both in every other place across the four gospels, making their statistical dominance over the NA28 text overwhelming.

Source:

Critical Text - NA28 - in Gospels rejects Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in 80 variants by Jeff Cate

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism Jeff Cate - Oct 8, 2026 https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/posts/10161246035127693/ So I searched in every possible way to make a list of readings in the gospels in NA28 that lack support from BOTH Sinaiticus AND Vaticanus. I'm 98% sure I...

purebibleforum.com

So just in the gospels there are 80 variants. It's not thousands. Ask any Critical Text advocate who truly know their stuff.



....


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Wrong. That is the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Don’t waste your time basing arguments on fallacies.

I have the documented proof that this is the case. Not only have I found over 100 plus corrupt doctrines in Modern Bibles (with a certain percentage of them coming from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus or NA28), but the Modern Bible Movement origins and later formation involved heretics such as unitarians (George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot), liberals (Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, Eugene Nida, Matthew Black), Catholics (Carlo Maria Martini) and those who are for the rainbow agenda (like Virginia Mollenkott , and Jennifer Knust) etcetera. Oh, and there was even a Mormon that worked on the critical text apparatus for the Old Testament. Donald W. Parry is a Mormon scholar involved in the new Old Testament critical text project Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ).

No lectionaries are found for any of the Alexandrian manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus did not have any historical chain of custody that we can trace back to Christian usage. It was not the text that the majority of Christianity used through the bulk of history. They are more like aberrations in history which contain odd and strange readings. They disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone.

Also, just look at the fruit of the Modern Bible Movement. What you will find is confusion and no unification over one settled text that leads to memorization and harmony and unity in the body of Christ. What you have is everyone being their own textual critic, who will add or delete from the Bible what they feel is God's word or not. The apostle Paul says we are all to speak the same thing. This is not possible in the Modern Bible Movement.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The whole point Westcott and Hort invented the Lucian Rescension Theory was to explain away the many Byzantine manuscript witnesses. Even today, even Critical Text scholars admit this theory has no evidence backing it up. A few today simply believe this Lucian Recension theory even when there is no evidence.



….

 

[TheLearner]

It is nothing but the old pagan worship of the "queen of heaven" and the church of Rome knows this..

You are comminting the old copy cat thesis.

 

[TheLearner]

But the two primary source manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) used for the Critical Text are corrupt in both doctrine and in the record of Scripture.

For instance, both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus depict Jesus being pierced by a spear before His death on the cross (See Matthew 27:49-50), a reading that never appears in any English translation. In Hebrews 1:3, Vaticanus omits the crucial phrase “by himself,” erasing the only New Testament reference to Christ personally purging our sins. Next to this verse in Vaticanus is a marginal note that reads, ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει (“Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!”), revealing that even scribes recognized and objected to the textual corruption in progress. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in roughly three thousand places within the Gospels alone, which is hardly a mark of trustworthy or reliable witnesses.

There are other problems I document in my 2nd PDF on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus at my website www.affectionsabove.com. It is the PDF with animated fall leaves in the background. Also, most Christians do not read Hebrew and Greek, and they rely on English translations. These translations are influenced by the same Modern day school of Hebrew and Greek textual criticism, which is different from the textual criticism done by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

If you looked into the history of your version odd and crazy theories of Modern textual criticism and who it was created by, it should make you want to barf into a bowl ten times over. Then again, truth is always set aside or ignored by Modern Bible Movement adherents. Take Logos Bible software, which is owned by Faithlife. It has a Catholic branch called Verbum. Mark Ward used to work for Faithlife. You can buy Mark Ward’s book collection on Verbum. You can even buy Bart Ehrman’s book “Interrupting Jesus” on Logos and Verbum. This book is heretical in that it is attacking the faith and not that it is to build up somebody believing in Jesus. So the whole Modern Bible Movement is just deeply compromised and is in it for the money or to make a buck.

Jesus says by their fruits, you shall know them.


….

John 19:34 KJV
​

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

John 19:34 KJV​

​

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The KJV has it correct here in John, because it follows the Received Text (note: the underlying Greek text of the KJV is primarily the Beza 1598). Jesus gave up His spirit in verse 30 in John 19. Then in verse 34, His side was pierced by spear to ensure His death.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, on the other hand, place the spear being thrust into His side BEFORE Jesus gives up His spirit in the Gospel of Matthew. Yet no popular Modern English Bible actually translates this reading from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. One has to wonder why.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Reddogs said:
It is nothing but the old pagan worship of the "queen of heaven" and the church of Rome knows this..

You are comminting the old copy cat thesis.

Are you even aware that Catholics like Carlo Maria Martini worked on the Nestle and Aland, which has been the foundation for Modern English Bibles over the years? He was a Jesuit. The 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland says that it was supervised by the Vatican. I have catalogued 25 Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles. They have grown in number since Westcott and Hort's Revised Version. You can check it in my main PDF at www.affectionsabove.com. Just look to the Table Contents of my PDF and it will take you to the list.


Side Note: You do not have to just take my word for it. You can verify these things for yourself. We have Ai that can give you source links for all of this information. It's not like we are living in the 1990s anymore.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Basically forums will be a place where people just refuse to look at information that they can easily search out with Ai to verify things within a matter of seconds. I had Claude check 180 some places listed on the Madaba Mosaic Map (An archaeological discovery dated to the 6th Century) and see if there were any connections to the Received Text. Within under a minute it was able to make a connection. I even had Ai help make a connection with an early church writer on all of this, as well. Truly amazing. You can check my findings here (if you care about facts or knowledge):

Textus Receptus Academy | JOHN 1:28 -- BETHABARA OR BETHANY | Facebook

JOHN 1:28 -- BETHABARA OR BETHANY? Did you know your Bible's Greek text determines what you read at John 1:28? The King James Bible reads "Bethabara.” Most modern Bibles read "Bethany." Same verse....

www.facebook.com

.....

....

 

[TheLearner]

The KJV has it correct here in John, because it follows the Received Text (note: the underlying Greek text of the KJV is primarily the Beza 1598). Jesus gave up His spirit in verse 30 in John 19. Then in verse 34, His side was pierced by spear to ensure His death.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, on the other hand, place the spear being thrust into His side BEFORE Jesus gives up His spirit in the Gospel of Matthew. Yet no popular Modern English Bible actually translates this reading from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. One has to wonder why.


....

CSB
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
CSBA
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
CEB
However, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
CJB
However, one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a spear, and at once blood and water flowed out.
CEV
One of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus' side, and blood and water came out.
ERV
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. Immediately blood and water came out.
EASY
But one of the soldiers put a spear into Jesus' side. Immediately, blood and water came out of his body.
EHV
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. Immediately blood and water came out.
ESV
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
ESVUK
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
EXB
But one of the soldiers ·stuck [pierced] his ·spear [lance; javelin] into Jesus’ side, and at once blood and water came out [C indicating his death as a human being].
GNV
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
GW
However, one of the soldiers stabbed Jesus’ side with his spear, and blood and water immediately came out.
GNT
One of the soldiers, however, plunged his spear into Jesus' side, and at once blood and water poured out.
HCSB
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
ICB
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. At once blood and water came out.
LSB
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
LEB
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water came out immediately.
MEV
However, one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
MOUNCE
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his · side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
NOG
However, one of the soldiers stabbed Yeshua’s side with his spear, and blood and water immediately came out.
NCB
but one of the soldiers thrust a lance into his side, and immediately a flow of blood and water came forth.
NCV
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side, and at once blood and water came out.
NET
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately.
NIRV
Instead, one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. Right away, blood and water flowed out.
NIV
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
NIVUK
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of bloodhttps://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%2019%3A34 and water.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

CSB
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
CSBA
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
CEB
However, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
CJB
However, one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a spear, and at once blood and water flowed out.
CEV
One of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus' side, and blood and water came out.
ERV
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. Immediately blood and water came out.
EASY
But one of the soldiers put a spear into Jesus' side. Immediately, blood and water came out of his body.
EHV
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear. Immediately blood and water came out.
ESV
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
ESVUK
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
EXB
But one of the soldiers ·stuck [pierced] his ·spear [lance; javelin] into Jesus’ side, and at once blood and water came out [C indicating his death as a human being].
GNV
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
GW
However, one of the soldiers stabbed Jesus’ side with his spear, and blood and water immediately came out.
GNT
One of the soldiers, however, plunged his spear into Jesus' side, and at once blood and water poured out.
HCSB
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.
ICB
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. At once blood and water came out.
LSB
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
LEB
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water came out immediately.
MEV
However, one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
MOUNCE
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his · side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
NOG
However, one of the soldiers stabbed Yeshua’s side with his spear, and blood and water immediately came out.
NCB
but one of the soldiers thrust a lance into his side, and immediately a flow of blood and water came forth.
NCV
But one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side, and at once blood and water came out.
NET
But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately.
NIRV
Instead, one of the soldiers stuck his spear into Jesus’ side. Right away, blood and water flowed out.
NIV
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
NIVUK
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of bloodhttps://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%2019%3A34 and water.

Not sure you understood what I am talking about.



….

 

[DavidLamb]

Not sure you understood what I am talking about.



…

I think your point was that versions other than the KJV place the piercing before the death of Jesus. I don't have all the translations that TheLearner quoted, but here are a few translations of the verse in context, showing that they, like the KJV, place the piercing with the spear after the death of Jesus:

NKJV:

(Joh 19:30) So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
(Joh 19:32) Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

MKJV:

(Joh 19:30) Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.
(Joh 19:32) Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

ESV:

(Joh 19:30) When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
(Joh 19:32) So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

HCSB

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished! ” Then bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. 31 Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special day). They requested that Pilate have the men’s legs broken and that their bodies be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of
the first man and of the other one who had been crucified with Him. 33 When they came to Jesus, they did not break His legs since they saw that He was already dead.

So it seems that by no means all modern versions change the order of events.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I mean, if you want to go down this road, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Jesus dying by a spear, which is such a ridiculous reading that it is not printed in Critical Text Bibles.

I think this would give you more confidence in critical text Bibles, not less. The reading doesn't appear in NA, UBS or The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text; and it's not in any modern English translation. To me this demonstrates that modern translators aren't slaves to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as KJV only advocates claim.

 

[DavidLamb]

Re my post 315, sorry, but I've just noticed that I didn't quote John 19:34 in my quotes from versions other than the KJV which have the spear-piercing after the death of Jesus, and v34 is the very verse that mentions the spear! Forgive my carelessness please. Unfortunately, it was too late to edit my post.

 

[indenturedservant]

Your second "Changed Doctrine" includes: "John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" (KJB) is wrongfully changed to “The only begotten God.”

"Modern translations often use "God" in John 1:18 instead of "Son" because earlier and more reliable Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus, use the phrase monogenēs theos ("only-begotten God" or "unique God")."

It's not a "changed doctrine," it's a corrected error from manuscripts that preceded the kjv by more than a thousand years.

Someone reading the Codex Sinaiticus might see the kjv/nkjv as having "changed doctrines." It depends on which translation and what source texts one uses to back up a claim.

I've researched the Dead Sea scrolls , (online, of course), including the Great Isaiah Scroll, and have personally found differences that reveal significant errors and missing prophecies about Jesus... One that he even quoted in full, but the Masoretic text had part of it removed, making it seem like Jesus was "adding to Scripture," or simply misquoting it.

Also, the oldest, most reliable scrolls actually have the personal name of the one known as Melchizedek.

Again, anyone can find "changed doctrines" in any version, when comparing it to their own favorite translation.

I've been studying these differences for decades, and the majority of "missing" Scripture, altered genealogies, missing names, et cetera, first shows up with the Masoretic text.

And, adding to that, the majority of mistranslated and/or misunderstood words were translated from Latin, rather than the original tongues through (St.) Jerome's personal Latin translation. One of his admitted errors still shows up in all English translations.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

"Modern translations often use "God" in John 1:18 instead of "Son" because earlier and more reliable Greek manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus, use the phrase monogenēs theos ("only-begotten God" or "unique God")."

It's not a "changed doctrine," it's a corrected error from manuscripts that preceded the kjv by more than a thousand years.

Someone reading the Codex Sinaiticus might see the kjv/nkjv as having "changed doctrines." It depends on which translation and what source texts one uses to back up a claim.

I've researched the Dead Sea scrolls , (online, of course), including the Great Isaiah Scroll, and have personally found differences that reveal significant errors and missing prophecies about Jesus... One that he even quoted in full, but the Masoretic text had part of it removed, making it seem like Jesus was "adding to Scripture," or simply misquoting it.

Also, the oldest, most reliable scrolls actually have the personal name of the one known as Melchizedek.

Again, anyone can find "changed doctrines" in any version, when comparing it to their own favorite translation.

I've been studying these differences for decades, and the majority of "missing" Scripture, altered genealogies, missing names, et cetera, first shows up with the Masoretic text.

And, adding to that, the majority of mistranslated and/or misunderstood words were translated from Latin, rather than the original tongues through (St.) Jerome's personal Latin translation. One of his admitted errors still shows up in all English translations.

This might be of help.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I think your point was that versions other than the KJV place the piercing before the death of Jesus. I don't have all the translations that TheLearner quoted, but here are a few translations of the verse in context, showing that they, like the KJV, place the piercing with the spear after the death of Jesus:

NKJV:

(Joh 19:30) So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
(Joh 19:32) Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

MKJV:

(Joh 19:30) Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is finished! And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Then the Jews, because it was Preparation, begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away, so that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the sabbath. For that sabbath was a high day.
(Joh 19:32) Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.

ESV:

(Joh 19:30) When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
(Joh 19:31) Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
(Joh 19:32) So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him.
(Joh 19:33) But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

HCSB

30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished! ” Then bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. 31 Since it was the preparation day, the Jews did not want the bodies to remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special day). They requested that Pilate have the men’s legs broken and that their bodies be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of
the first man and of the other one who had been crucified with Him. 33 When they came to Jesus, they did not break His legs since they saw that He was already dead.

So it seems that by no means all modern versions change the order of events.

No. Both of you are misunderstanding what I stated. I said that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have this problem in their Greek manuscripts, and yet it is not reflected in the Modern English Bibles. This mistake in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is too embarrassing to place in Modern English Bibles like the ones you are referencing. In short, you will not find this problem showing up in Modern English Bibles.

This problem also appears in the Gospel of Matthew, not John, in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The Nestle-Aland 28 Critical Text Greek is primarily based on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, though it does pull from a handful of other Greek manuscripts here and there.


....