8... The verses that are missing in modern translations change the meaning of the Bible. (p. 13, etc.)

More information is good.
Questions need answered, not swept under the rug.

For those who have not been indoctrinated into the AV Alone camp, the middle ground between being anti-KJV and being a KJV Only advocate is easily seen. As long as one does not make that fateful identification--"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone"--one will recognize that it is quite possible to see errors made by the KJV translators without attacking the Word of God. Surely we can count the very translators of the AV as taking our side on this issue, for they provided alternate renderings in the margins of their work, showing they had no concept of infallible inspiration working in their behalf while translating. Hence they would be first to allow for the need for revision and correction over time. Nonetheless, it is vital to emphasize that demonstrating errors in the KJV in no way demonstrates errors in the Bible. The first involves recognizing the fallibility of human translators, while the second questions the very inspiration of Scripture itself.

For the New Testament alone, translators today have over 5300 manuscripts at their fingertips. Only 25 of these texts were at the disposal of the translators of the KJV.

A few things stand out from this information. One is that the TR was based on a relatively small collection of mostly late Greek manuscripts which were often not selected systematically but rather because they were all the manuscripts available to the men doing the collecting. We must greatly admire the scholarship they produced out of the resources they had, but over 5,000 Greek manuscript discoveries later, there is certainly more work to be done...

...When we look at what the KJV translators accomplished with the limited texts they had available to them, it should invoke in us a great respect and admiration for their work. It should also cause us to be all the more grateful for the wealth of data we have today in our thousands of Greek manuscripts, hundreds of which are from the earliest centuries, and in our copies of numerous ancient translations in a variety of tongues like Syriac, Coptic, and yes, Latin. Let us recognize the blessing we have in such a vast treasure of biblical witnesses and be faithful to wisely use what God has given us, just as the translators before us did with what was given to them.

The first time a person writes something, that is the "original autograph."

So when a Bible writer first penned what God put in his heart, that writing was the original autograph of that book. Everything else is a copy.

Now if we had those originals stored somewhere, they would be the end of all arguments about what the "autographs" said. But godly people lovingly used those originals so much that they eventually disintegrated from the weather and constant use. Thank God He put it on people's hearts to copy and translate those words.⁴⁸

ARE COPIES INSPIRED, OR ONLY THE ORIGINALS?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.⁴⁹

All scripture is inspired, but what does the Bible call "scripture"? Why, copies of the originals, of course. In the verse above, Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture was given by God's inspiration. But take a look at the verse before that, at what he said about what qualifies as "the holy scriptures:"

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.⁵⁰

Did Timothy or his synagogue have the originals? No. He had copies of copies of copies. Then, is God saying through Paul that perfect copies are scripture?

Exactly.

Jesus read from a copy of a scroll of Isaiah in His hometown synagogue in Nazareth. When He finished reading, the first words He said were:

This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.⁵¹

Jesus is the one who gave these words to Isaiah. So if there was a single word out of place, He would know it. But Jesus didn't correct one syllable of the words He read. And more importantly, look at what the Lord Jesus called it: scripture. ⁵²

So the copy Jesus read from, and the copy that Timothy learned from, were just as much "scripture" as the originals given through the apostles and prophets.

God doesn't want us running on a wild goose chase in the desert, trying to find the "originals." He wants us to look for exact copies and accurate translations of those copies of His inspired words. Those are "the scripture."

One of the earliest modern Bible critics was a guy named Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752). He made his own edition of the Greek New Testament. He also made up his own rule for figuring out what to put in or leave out of the Bible. And every "textual critic" has built his house of cards upon that basic rule:

"Prodivi scriptionipraestat ardua"
(That means, "The harder reading is to be preferred.")

So if the reading doesn't make sense, contradicts other Bible verses, calls into question basic doctrines or lowers the deity of Christ, it is to be preferred. In other words, they are looking for a contradictory and inconsistent Bible. And they found it: right there in Alexandria, Egypt.

Want proof? Here are the two main rules (or "canons") of textual criticism:

• The External Canon: "Manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted." This means if almost all the manuscripts in the world say one thing, and the textual critic's favorite manuscript says another thing, then he would give more "weight" to his favorite (usually from Alexandria) than a stack of consistent Bible texts.

But wait--God promised to preserve His words.

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

...from https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm

...from https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Canons_of_textual_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek

As someone who has used only the KJV in my preaching and teaching, I long for those days over 40 years ago when I joined the fundamentalist movement when we argued about which Greek text was superior rather than this johnny-come-lately argument that the KJV is the inspired, inerrant Word of God in English.

The question we will ask over and over again in looking at such textual issues is, "What did the original author write?" That must be our controlling thought. We wish only what was inspired by the Holy Spirit, without deletions, and without additions either. Additions are just as dangerous as deletions. When we encounter a passage like John 5:4, we should not ask, "Why do modern versions delete this passage?" but "Is this passage an addition on the part of some later texts or a deletion on the part of earlier ones?"

In "A Word about the NIrV," it says "Later copies of the Greek New Testament added several verses that the earlier ones don't have. Sometimes it's several verses in a row. When that's the case, we included them in the NIrV. But we set those verses off with a long line. That tells you that the first writers didn't write them. They were added later on." But if they don't believe they belong, why put them in their Bible? Because they still want you to buy their Bible.

Lectio brevior potior (Latin for "the shorter reading is stronger") is one of the key principles in textual criticism, especially biblical textual criticism. The principle is based on the widely accepted view that scribes showed more tendency to embellish and harmonise by additions and inclusions than by deletions. Hence, when comparing two or more manuscripts of the same text, the shorter readings are considered more likely to be closer to the original.

• Is it any surprise that they also removed words about hell and judgment from Mark 6:11 and 9:45 and completely removed Matthew 23:14, Mark 9:44 and 46?⁹⁵ There's something about hell that makes these people very nervous.

---
95) Repetition, like you see in Mark 9, is not a "copyist's mistake." It's God's way of emphasizing something important in the Bible. Eliminating repetition is removing God's exclamation point.

The total number of these verses that are included in some translations and excluded in others is actually quite small. What's more, many of them are actually included in all translations, they are just included in some translations in more than one place and in other translations only in one place. For example, all translations include the verse:

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost," (Luke 19:10).

Some translations, like the KJV, NKJV, and MEV, also include this verse in Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 18:11). Others, like the NASB and HCSB, include the verse in both places, but put brackets around it in Matthew 18:11 with a note that it is not present in the earliest manuscripts of that passage. Still others, like the NIV, ESV, and CSB, omit the verse from the main body of Matthew 18, but have a footnote alerting the reader that the verse is present there in some manuscripts. The point is, all of these translations include the verse at Luke 19:10. No one is trying to suppress or shed doubt on the idea that Jesus came to save the lost. They all agree that the Holy Spirit inspired these words, they are just not all convinced that He inspired them twice. Luke definitely wrote this. There is no question about that. Early manuscripts lead some to doubt, however, that Matthew also wrote the same words. They suspect that a later scribe mistakenly added Luke's words to Matthew's gospel. The words are true either way, and every translation affirms them to be found at least in Luke's gospel. And, even though some translations note through brackets or footnotes their doubt that these words were originally found in Matthew 18, every single one of them still points out to the reader that these words are indeed found in some copies of Matthew 18.

Similarly, every translation contains the verse:

"Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched," (Mark 9:48).

There is no dispute at all that these words are authentic. Jesus really said this and Mark really wrote it down. All translations agree here. Where they disagree is just how many times these words were originally found in Mark 9. Translations like the KJV, NKJV, and MEV all include this verse, not once, but three times in the discourse (Mark 9:44. 46. and 48). Again, the NASB and HCSB also include these words all three times but in two of the three places (Mark 9:44, 46) they place them in brackets, noting that in the earliest manuscripts the words are present only once (Mark 9:48). Translations like the NIV, ESV, and CSB again omit the words in 9:44 and 9:46, but include footnotes explaining that some manuscripts have the words in those places. All translations include the words at 9:48. No one is hiding or suppressing Jesus' teaching on eternal punishment here. Manuscripts (and thus translations) just disagree on exactly how many times Jesus said these words. Either way, the words are true and biblical. They are not "missing" from any translation.

Most of the alleged "missing verses" are of this sort, appearing in at least one place in every translation and so never truly missing at all!

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Texts

The NIV 2011 is the Bible of conservative evangelicals.
The NLT is the Bible of conservative evangelicals.
The TNIV is the Bible of egalitarian evangelicals.
The ESV is the Bible of complementarian conservative evangelicals.
The NASB is the Bible of conservative evangelical serious Bible students.
The NRSV is the Bible of Protestant mainliners.
The RSV is the Bible of aged Protestant mainliners.
The CEB is the Bible of Protestant mainliners.
The KJV ... fill in the blank yourself.
The Message is the Bible of those who are tired of the politics (and like something fresh).

Scot could also have included the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), a Bible translation done by Southern Baptists for Southern Baptists.

In the present post, I want to go one step beyond what Scot said in his post. Before I proceed, I want to emphasize two things.

First, I agree with Scot that "each of these translations is a very good translation."

Yes, there are differences between Bible manuscripts, and from a certain perspective, they can look alarmingly serious. For example, those manuscripts (and resultant Bible translations) which "omit" 1 John 5:7 seem to some readers to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity.

But there's a simple way to demonstrate how trivial the differences between ancient manuscripts really are in terms of their effect on the body of truth that the Bible reveals. We have lots of doctrinal differences within Christianity, right? But there are no Calvinist manuscripts/versions, Arminian manuscripts/versions, Pentecostal, Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregationalist, Egalitarian, Complementarian, Integrationist, Cessationist, or Continuationist manuscripts/versions.

Take any systematic theology textbook you want, and the set of proof texts offered for particular points is for all practical purposes version-independent--the authors don't care which translation you use, so they just give references. The difference in doctrinal character among the various manuscripts and translations is very close to zero. The "omission" of 1 John 5:7 (in the judgment of almost all textual scholars, those words were actually added very late in the manuscript tradition, not appearing in Erasmus' Greek New Testament until its third edition) has not caused a single Christian denomination to descend into Unitarianism--because the New Testament elsewhere still clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, none of the Greek writings of the early church ever mentions this passage--even in their discussions of the Trinity! If the church fathers recognized and formulated that vital doctrine without referring to this verse, then its presence in the New Testament of their day is highly unlikely, and certainly its absence from a Bible text or translation today constitutes no defect in doctrinal character.

If the differences between Greek texts were doctrinally significant, you would expect theologies and tribal groups to grow out of distinctive readings of those texts--you would expect certain sects to adopt Greek texts as theological banners. But compare the positions of Majority text advocates, Textus Receptus devotees, and eclectic text users on the core doctrines of the historic creeds and you'd be hard pressed to find a doctrinal difference for which they claim support in their favored New Testament text as opposed to others.

Different Christian tribes bring somewhat different lenses to the Bible, but it's the lenses that differ, not the Bible.