Textus Receptus is based on unreliable sources of the Byzantine-type text, contains flaws and errors of judgment.
I have no idea which portions of Nestles edition had to revised, and what those revisions included, but Alexandrian-type text is the preferred source of modern-day scholars because it is less 'doctored.'
My point is that despite the evidence to the contrary, the offspirng of TR (such as the KJV) persist in keeping Comma Johanneum and Erasmus's own retro-translated (Latin to Greek) section of the Revelation, among other things.
Proof?
I have no idea which portions of Nestles edition had to revised, and what those revisions included, but Alexandrian-type text is the preferred source of modern-day scholars because it is less 'doctored.'
Well, you are behind the times.
The latest edition of Nestles made hundreds of changes back to the TR.
As for the Alexandrian text type being 'less doctored', please do not make me laugh too hard in the morning.
Aleph and 'B' (the two major manuscripts for the Alexandrian Text) disagree with each other in at 3,000 places in the Gospels alone, and are a textual mess with numerous scribal errors and additions.
There was no doctoring of the TR, which is the pure textual line, unless you still hold to the Westcott/Hort myth of a Lucian conflate theory?
My point is that despite the evidence to the contrary, the offspirng of TR (such as the KJV) persist in keeping Comma Johanneum and Erasmus's own retro-translated (Latin to Greek) section of the Revelation, among other things.
First, everything in the King James should be there.
Second, nothing that Erasmus translated in Revelation that has ever been proven to be wrong.
There are some who believe that Erasmus may have had, in fact, a Greek text to work with in Revelation.
But even if he didn't, the Old Latin is at least a hundred year old earlier witness to the correct readings then any Alexanderian readings.