"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")."
See, that's the problem. The Modern Bible Movement has changed the meaning of certain original language words (not all) in their own lexicons that go beyond its natural and understood historic usage. Monogenes was never understood in Ancient Greek, or Koine Greek as having the semantic range of unique or one and only without the begotten aspect, when it refers to human beings. Begotten is the past participle of the verb "to beget." To beget means to father or sire a child, or to procreate, or to bring into existence through natural generation. We can narrow down a close range of when we see this change took place in the lexicons.
Textus Receptus (Beza 1598 Greek): :υἱός (huios): "Son”
Vaticanus& Sinaiticus (which aligns with the NA 28 Critical Text): rendering: ⲑ̅ⲥ̅ (theos) “God”
So Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are saying that Jesus is a God who was begotten or came into existence as God, which is false.
Jesus was not a demi-god. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity who is eternal and existed from eternity's past.
So NASB 95 is false for following the Critical Text in saying that Jesus is the begotten God.
Also, the word "beget" was never defined as meaning unique or one of a kind in English, either.
This is not the only false teaching that the critical texts promote in the Modern Bible Movement.
Micah 5:2 says that Jesus is from everlasting and yet Modern Bibles change this to how He is from ancient times instead.
This is yet another word that has been redefined by your Modernist lexicons. You wouldn't know that unless you asked questions and looked into the matter.
It's not a "changed doctrine," it's a corrected error from manuscripts that preceded the kjv by more than a thousand years.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have never been chemically date tested. They were going to test Sinaiticus and it was oddly stopped the very day they were going to do the test. Nehemiah Gordon had date tested the ink in a few places on Vaticanus but he was sworn to secrecy to on other matters in testing of the document.
Besides, even if Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were old (which has never been confirmed), they are simply garbage manuscripts.
On a doctrinal and standard biblical record, they have serious problems. 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 Modern 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.
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 have catalogued 77 changed doctrines in Modern Bibles, and these changes are for the worse, not for the better. Some are translation choices, while others reflect actual textual differences between the two major Bible lines today. Meaning, there are two major printed Hebrew and Greek texts that people primarily follow. One underlies the King James Bible, and the other underlies the Modern Bibles. My website also includes a second PDF that shows these differences. Simply go to
www.affectionsabove.com to check it out.
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.
Some of the dead sea scrolls turned out to be fakes. The Museum of the Bible acquired some of them and discovered this for themselves. Granted, not all of them were fakes, but the point here is that a lot of time, it simply takes faith for you to believe these manuscripts over the simple promises of God in our own language. The most influential and good fruit producing Bible in history is the King James Bible. No other Bible caused unity and memorization on such a scale as that particular translation. It's simply a fact. The alternatives are also not good. The dead sea scrolls has not really influenced people on a mass level or brought revivals like the KJV (which is based on the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim Masoretic).
Also, the oldest, most reliable scrolls actually have the personal name of the one known as Melchizedek.
Actually, Modern scholarship has changed the niqqudot for the sacred name of God, which sounds oddly similar to the name of Jupiter in Latin. The proper way to say the sacred name of God (YHWH) is Yehovah. Modernists call him Yahweh because of Gesenius change of the niqqudot.
Again, anyone can find "changed doctrines" in any version, when comparing it to their own favorite translation.
But we are not talking about comparing translations within the corrupt Westcott & Hort/Nestle and Aland text. We are talking about comparing the trusted translation of the Textus Receptus (i.e., the KJV) in comparison to the Modernist Critical Text English Bibles. There is a stark contrast. One involved English reformation, and martyrs, and well learned men who spoke multiple languages fluently, and the other involved heretics like unitarians, Catholics, liberals, and a Mormon.
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.
Actually, the contradictions and problems exist in the critical text editions and Modernist Bibles, and not the TR/KJV.
You cannot honestly compare any minor issues you may have with the TR/KJV to the vomit filled towers of false doctrines and factual errors in the Critical Text/Modern Versions. Picking apart the KJV while ignore the problems in Modern Bibles would be like straining at a gnat versus swallowing whole camels. Its not an unbiased position to take by any means. One likes the critical text and their confusing translations because they like the idea of not having a settled text and they like the rush of power they get when they decide what should be in or out of the Bible.
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.
If you are suggesting the KJV was influenced by the Latin Vulgate, that would not be correct. Some Latin words simply existed in the English language or culture itself and it was not exclusive Latin Vulgate borrowing by any means. For example, the word "minister" comes from classic Latin, which is confirmed by Latin literature that is dated before Christ.
.....
