Sand2022:
The main text for KJV translation is Textus Receptus, Vulgate was secondary. Whether it was found in the vulgate available for KJV translators is open the to question since not all latin versions had the comma.

The point Vulgate is around when KJV was made, so the idea of KJV using the comma didn't come from Erasmus.

I think the majority of scholars, Trinitarians inclusive agree that the comma is spurious. Tomorrow more studies could reveal to the contrary. So let's stick to the best evidence for now.

One of the reasons cite for rejection is that it's not found in the early Greek manuscripts we have in possession today

This thread addressees the reason why scholars rejected it and if their reason hold water or not then proceed to show that the text already in use and can be traced back to 2nd century.

As it was alluded to by early Christians.

There is umlaut there, Payne acknowledged it was there, but he stated that the Johannine comma was not found there. Where was the umlaut found? Close to the "the" in "there are three witness bearers".

Funny, you want something that was removed to still be in place.

So what is in between it?

It's the comma.

This umlaut was not added in the fourth century, but around 10th century by a scribe who saw difference between the Vatican 1209 and other manuscripts in Latin. There had been redaction to the Vatican manuscript over the years.

Where is your evidence for this?

Emusan:


The point Vulgate is around when KJV was made, so the idea of KJV using the comma didn't come from Erasmus.



One of the reasons cite for rejection is that it's not found in the early Greek manuscripts we have in possession today

This thread addressees the reason why scholars rejected it and if their reason hold water or not then proceed to show that the text already in use and can be traced back to 2nd century.

As it was alluded to by early Christians.



Funny, you want something that was removed to still be in place.

So what is in between it?

It's the comma.



Where is your evidence for this?

I reply to the last question.

From a paper by Bruce M. Metzger titled "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" . This paper is a classic and authoritative work on the history and development of the New Testament text, from its original composition to its modern editions. The paper discusses the Vatican 1209 manuscript extensively, and describes it as "the chief representative of an ancient recension of the text which goes back to Alexandria in Egypt" [^4^, p. 46]. The paper also states that the Vatican 1209 manuscript has some "corrections made by several hands", including "accents and breathings added in saec. IX-X" [^4^, p. 47]. The term "saec. IX-X" means "the 9th and 10th century" in Latin. Therefore, according to this paper, the umlaut was one of these corrections made in the 9th or 10th century CE, but the paper does not explain why it was added.