Fearless says:

"Interesting, which manuscripts agree with the KJV in Rev. 17:8 and 1 John 5:7-8? 90 %?"

You do your "own research", Fearless, you must have skipped over the manuscript and grammatical evidence of 1 John 5:7.

The manuscripts for this chapter of 1 John that are missing verse 7 have three masculine nouns in the text for verse 8, and a gap in the text between what is verse 6 and verse 8. The nouns "spirit, water, and blood" are NEUTER nouns in Greek, and cannot be masculine without masculine nouns preceding them, and a gap between text indicates text with three masculine nouns(Father, Word, Holy Ghost) must have been in the text between what is verse 6 and verse 8.

Another grammatical impossibility is also found in the manuscripts for the false reading "os"(he, who, it, whom) in 1 Tim. 3:16, as reading he, who, whom, it, in both Greek and English creates a sentence with a subject and no predicate.

Scribes are paid to reproduce exactly what is on the table before them and are not grammarians, so we have an unbroken line of textual evidence that 1 John 5:7 was DELETED rather than "interpolated". This verse remains in the Old Latin of the first century AD, because the gnostic heresy of the Hellenists was not present in the Latin Church. Scholars who quote the church "fathers" are quick to cite them to support the Perpetual Virginty of Mary, the Mass, and the Stoic doctrine of predestination, but are reluctant to quote them when they cite 1 John 5:7, nearly back to the first century AD.

Your criticism of 1 John 5:7 is based on bias and NO research of the verse, which is why many dismiss KJV critics as dishonest and of no consequence. I researched both sides of the issue. Not much manuscript evidence in Greek for 1 John 5:7? True. Not many Greek manuscripts for 1 John? True. The manuscripts missing the verse are consistent in the gap and grammatical impossibilty cited above.

Another anomoly among dishonest book salesmen:

KJV-Rev. 1:6 "...God and his father."
167 "versions" of the English bible based on Westcott/Hort-
"...His God and Father."
ESV of 2001- "...God and his father."

For 200 years critics have said the KJV translators "violated" the Granville/Sharps Rule of Greek translation:

1. Granville/Sharps was not codified until the 1790s.
2. The KJV translators did NOT violate the rule.
3. The "versions" translators DID in Rev. 1:6.
4. Why did the translators of the ESV of 2001 reverse themselves in this verse?

Critics claim the "received" text was "invented" in the 1500s and 1600s and where was the word of God before then?. Cool. The text for your NIV was not invented until 1881, and is 90 percent the text and framework OF the Received Text, where was the word of God before 1881? The NIV is not even an accurate translation of W/H, being Nazarene/Weslyan/Holyness/Gnostic biased.

I'm new here but I speculate your "own research" is one sided and you will be better informed by researching BOTH sides of a given issue/proposition.

Tony