Dr. Edward Hills (a KJV defender).
Edward Hills: "The few typographical errors which still remain in the Textus Receptus of Revelation do not involve important readings. This fact, clearly attributable to God's special providence, can be demonstrated by a study of H. C. Hoskier's monumental commentary on Revelation (1929), (19) which takes the Textus Receptus as its base. Here we see that the only typographical error worth noting occurs in Rev.17:8, the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Here the reading kaiper estin (and yet is) seems to be a misprint for kai paresti (and is at hand), which is the reading of Codex 1r the manuscript which Erasmus used in Revelation." [King James Version Defended, Christian Research Press, 4th edition, 1984, p. 202]
This carries weight since the author acknowledged these facts in a book designed to defend the KJV.
William Combs concurs, “No Greek manuscript reads “and yet is...” Further he states, “This error, and a few others, derive from the circumstances surrounding the production of Eramsus’ Greek NT (1516). For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had access to only one manuscript (1r). However, this was not really a separate manuscript of the text of Revelation but was actually imbedded in a commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. As such it was difficult for the printer to read the text itself, so Erasmus had a fresh copy of the text made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text. In Rev 17:8 the copyist mistakenly wrote καίπερ ἔστιν (“and yet is”) instead of καὶ παρέσται (“and shall come”). This is an indisputable error in the KJV and the Greek text (TR) that underlies it. Interestingly, Edward F. Hills, who was one of the leading exponents of the KJV, admitted that this is an error.” [William W. Combs, “Errors in the King James Version?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 4 (1999): 155–156.”
He reiterates the truth that “no Greek manuscript reads ‘and yet is.” Note that “a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text.” ‘This is an indisputable error,” Combs says, except for KJVOs. They hold an a priori view of the reinspiration of the KJV. He mentions MS 1(r) G-A Number 2814. This was the only copy Erasmus had for the book of Revelation. For many years, this manuscript was lost until Franz Delitzsch rediscovered the text in the middle of the 18th century. (See Krans, Beyond What is Written, p. 54). According to Krans, Delitzsch meticulously described Erasmus’ treatment of the book of Revelation. His greatest criticism was “the fact that Erasmus did not bother to emend the text.” The manuscript is still available to scholars and it is still cited in the N-A apparatus.
Nestle confirms this fact, “As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apocalypse p 4 Erasmus must have used only one manuscript, and that partly mutilated, so that he was unable to read it correctly and was obliged to supply its lacunæ by means of a retranslation from the Latin into Greek. And this conclusion was confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very manuscript by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at Mayhingen.” [Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, ed. Allan Menzies, trans. William Edie (London; New York; Edinburgh; Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1901), p. 3–4.]
Therefore, we have names, dates, and places!
Roland Bainton leveled the same criticism against Erasmus. “The editing of this book [Revelation] was the most unsatisfactory of the entire production. Erasmus had but one manuscript with interlinear comments in Greek. The text had, therefore, to be extracted and copied freshly for the printer. Erasmus committed this task to an assistant, who made errors in transcription, which Erasmus did not take time to check for the first edition, nor adequately at any time.” [Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, Charles Scribner, 1968, p. 133.]
Erasmus was not interested in adequately editing the book of Revelation, nor did he.
Krans further writes, “One of the Erasmian blunders was in the Nestle editions, originally as part of Nestle’s publicity campaign towards the British and Foreign Bible Society which in 1900 was still printing and selling an edition of the Textus Receptus (cf. Nestle, Textus Receptus, pp. 10.11). It concerns Rev 17:8, where min. 2814 reads καὶ παρέσται. Erasmus edited it as the ungrammatical καίπερ ἔστιν which is mentioned in N3–12 under ς (the siglum for TR) and in N13–25 under ‘Erasm’. It is also mentioned in Nestle, Einführung, 21899, pp. 7–8.” [Krans, p. 54 footnote 6]
Note the Nestle had a publicity campaign and used the reading of Revelation 17:8 against the TR. This should have provided ample response to Nestle. If it did, where is the response?
Note also that the reading of the TR at Revelation 17:8 is “ungrammatical.”
Here is the section of Nestle’s book: “...We find also constructions like οὐκ ἔστι, καίπερ ἐστίν, in c. 17:8, where, however, the accentuation ἐστίν makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not commit, seeing that he at least printed ἔστιν. Every college lad knows that καίπερ is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will see just at once that καὶ πάρεστι is the correct reading.” [Nestle, p. 4, footnote 1]