Which Textus Receptus is the correct one?

I would say that the Beza text is an excellent choice. It's basically the Erasmus text blended with the one done by a Spanish cardinal.

And you felt the need to share that because???

@@bobbyadkins6983 I just thought it might be helpful to have a bit more of the information. I used to criticize Scrivener for not following the KJV like he said he did. See Mark 9:42, John 8:6, John 16:25, 1 Corinthians 14:10 etc. It was later that I realized he said he followed the 1611 text and matched it with previous printed TR editions.

@@christopheryetzer In the 1611 KJV, Of all of Paul's writings, Ephesians is the only one that doesn't have amen at the end. The only thing that makes sense about it is that the translators somehow missed it or the ones who copied it missed it. No doubt it's supposed to be there.

@@bobbyadkins6983 I agree 100%. I think the Amen is correct and should be there. I am just pointing out that Scrivener was following the 1611 printing. Also Lambeth Palace MS 98 is a manuscript of the translators work in the progress of translating and it too is missing the Amen. So it must have been an early scribal error of the translators or a secretary leaving it out.

I see it as a sign for the end times that many YT-videos attack the deity of Christ and/or attack TR-bibles. Don´t you think?

The textus receptus is the same, many names for the same, as I understand it.

Can you please cite a source for that?

@@user-iw5ff9um9f A Latin writer in North Africa named Victor Vitensis attended the Council of Carthage in 484, after the Arian Vandal king Huneric had instructed the Trinitarian bishops of North Africa to meet there with Arian bishops to discuss the subject of the Trinity. The Trinitarian African bishops, who numbered over 100, were led by Eugene of Carthage. The Council of Carthage itself was unproductive and brief. Eugene of Carthage, the leader of the Trinitarian bishops, had intended to present a statement of faith at the council, and this manifesto was incorporated into Victor Vitensis’ account. It includes the following statement: “Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.” - which means, in English, “And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’” This indicates that the CJ was so well-circulated in Latin in North Africa in the late 400s that a prominent bishop was willing to utilize it at a theological conference. Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.) -- “... twice in his books concerning the Trinity, printed among the Works of Athanasius (viz. Book first, and seventh) and also in his Tract against Varimadus the Arian, under the name of Idacius Clarus, cites 1 John 5:7” (Twells, II, p. 135). Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.) -- “... contemporary with Vigilius, writes the History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favourer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented Anno 484, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from 1 John 5:7, giving thereby the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So that the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in reputing that passage authentic” (Twells, II, pp. 135, 136).

@@jamessheffield4173 Thanks Mr. Sheffield. What is the full name of the book you seem to cite by "Twells II"? Thank you very much and Greetings from Germany.

@@user-iw5ff9um9f A Defense of 1 John 5:7 [Reports] ... the Editors at Complutum" (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late ... of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128). " ... Leonard Twells (1684?-1742) A critical examination of the late new text and version of the New Testament; wherein the editor [D. Mace]'s corrupt text, false version, and fallacious notes are censur'd, Part II (1731) The various Reading examined; most of them improperly so called; neither numerous or momentus enough to serve the Purpose of such collections: The Authorities for Those Readings carelesly transcribed from Dr. Mills, and sometimes fallaciously misrepresented, especially with Regard to the contested Passage of 1 Joh. v. 7. Leonard Twells Hope this helps

@@jamessheffield4173 Thanks

Then why did eramus translate the reviced text into Latin instead of the popes command of using the vulgate.

​​@@Mr-pn2eh Luther was in error on the free will.

1 Corinthians 1:27 All modern bible scholars are trying hard to be in par with the more than 40 super geniuses KJV scholars. They need to be reborn a million times to be just like one of them. My, you reject the works of super geniuses and replace it with the works of ordinary men with laptops. Mind boggling. The stories of modern bibles scholars about wirh their modern bibles are soooooo shallow. If you can reject the "scientific" theory of Big BANG and Evolution, well, 10 minutes of listening modern bible stories is long enough already to reject it.

How pathetic that you toss ad homs at your brothers rather than critique their ideas. The sign of a weak mind and a mean spirit.