This is a huge overstatement of the problem, which generally refers to the last six verses of the book. Consider the comparison of the KJV with the NIV, which i

This is a huge overstatement of the problem, which generally refers to the last six verses of the book. Consider the comparison of the KJV with the NIV, which is based on a newer/modern critical Greek text. Eramus made up the missing verses by translating from the Vulgate. Otherwise the Greek variants that exist are defensible. https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/akjv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm https://biblehub.com/niv/revelation/22.htm As you can see, it says "book" when it should say "tree." You can compare KJV with the NIV and other editions. To say parts of the book were "invented" in the 16th century is going a few steps too far. It would be better to say that we now have a manuscript which we believe is probably better in that it is likely more faithful to the original...but which is not really substantially any different from the textus receptus. Revelation has very few Greek sources and they do contain variants, but precisely because of the lack of sources it's difficult to make strong claims about what is or isn't correct. [Ed - and it looks like book vs life is also entirely defensible after googling it - if it is an error, it is a very very old error, dating back at least to the 300s, and book does make theological sense - it would be far from the only reference to the book of life.)