But then in 1881 Westcott and Hort claimed to have discovered a new, older and more accurate ancient Bible manuscript
No, lying for Jesus again? You know very well that’s not what happened.
Knowing that the Textus Receptus was about as reliable as a guess about next week’s lottery numbers, Westcott/Hort gathered *all* available manuscripts and produced what is called a “critical edition”. “Critical” here doesn’t mean being negative. It’s a scientific term meaning using fundamental textual criteria to decide on the best possible composite text. Their effort remains highly praised to this day. Clean cut, first class scientific textual work. A few changes have been made to it in the meantime, but that’s normal.
The composite Greek test they produced, a copy of which I have on the shelf behind me, is the basis for practically all modern translations. Brother David’s claim about the deity of Christ and the Godhead being proclaimed, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with the Greek text. The Greek is the same in those places. It’s all a matter of translation, not of source. But David can’t know that because he can’t read Greek. So he, of course, blaims everything on whatever.
Reading the Wikipedia articles on Westcott/Hort and the Textus Receptus is really worth it. It sheds a new light on the Textus Receptus. In an early version, lacking Greek texts for long passages, Erasmus used the Latin Vulgata to translate back into a fake Greek version. And Brother David thinks that faux Greek text is “God’s original”.