I think it can be referring to both, however, when you add to, remove, or change something in the Bible to fit your meaning, that is worse than simply giving a wrong meaning to it.

Take a look at this file attachment, which is taken from Veith's video presentation.

Notice that he refers to the Received Text as villainous.

Also take a look at this.

Then there is this one from the video presentation.

Read this one about Hort in regards to revising the Bible.

We are gods?????

Or, we are God?????

My point was not based on EGW's statement. Rather it is looking at the history of the Bible and seeing the battle over the truth taking place. I never quoted EGW in the first place. Just agreed with Green that history shows that the Waldenses had the unadulterated Bible.

Corrupted manuscripts were written by gnostic/philosophical minded in Christianity prior to Constantine's time -- then an Origin/Eusebius version was sanctioned and reproduced by the command of Constantine, and these became the foundation of the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible which the Catholic church holds as the "true" Bible.

Compare this with the scriptures the early missionaries carried all over Europe which the Waldensies had in the spoken language in Italy at the time-- Roman old latin. These are in agreement with the "Received Text" with hundreds of manuscripts still in existance that show they all come from the same "family".
These herald back to the true.

The Reformation brought this Bible to the people.
But immediately the Vatican first tried to destroy it, then worked to produce their own common language bible --the Douay Rheims Bible -- based on the Vulgate to combat the protestant's Bible.

Let's just look at one verse:
Luke 2:33
Who is Jesus' Father?
Was his a virgin birth or not?

BIBLES BASED ON Constantine's manuscripts and the Vulgate:
Douay Rheims
33 And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him.
ASV
33 And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
NIV
33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him

BIBLES BASED ON THE RECEIVED TEXT
KJV
33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Geneva Bible 1588
33 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things, which were spoken touching him.
Young's Literal Translation
33 And Joseph and his mother were wondering at the things spoken concerning him

The differences between the manuscripts are minimal, and I don't see how they could affect the Bible message.

As a child and youth, Jesus worked with his father Joseph... {RH, March 13, 1900 par. 9}

Perhaps you have not been following the Bible version threads here. I've posted some differences which are far from "minimal."

In the case of the example you just gave, English does not have a special grammar in which to denote the possibility of more than one father--generally speaking, one can have but one father. If we were to speak of brothers, however, we have a grammatical indicator.

For example:

1. Stephen went to town with his brother Matthew to buy oil.
2. Stephen went to town with his brother, Matthew, to buy oil.

The above two sentences tell us something about how many brothers Stephen had. In the first sentence, Stephen may well have other brothers besides Matthew. In the second sentence, Matthew is his only brother.

Mrs. White is not saying Joseph is Jesus' only father. Neither is she saying that Joseph is only one of Jesus' fathers--because there is simply no English grammar to indicate this in the case of persons who are naturally singular. The little comma convention does not apply in this case.

The Bible in places specifies that Joseph was Jesus' father. But it also indicates in places that he wasn't. Having both of these truths is important to understanding Christ's divinity. But the modern versions remove the portions which set Joseph in his proper place.

There is nothing wrong with saying "Jesus' father and mother" in one sense. The wrong is the omission of the indication that Joseph was not Jesus real father. This factors into our understanding of the later verse which says "Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" Who is the child's father here?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Huh? Neither sentence tells us the total number Stephen had. Both sentences tell us exactly the same thing. Is this your best example???