"The original is what is inspired and inerrant and in so far as a translation accurately represents that original then you have an inspired and inerrant Bible." - Daniel Wallace
Daniel Wallace is one of the foremost authorities on this subject. He has written and taught on it for years. He was also involved in the John Ankerberg program that I have posted about before. I am attaching one of his well written articles as well.
For this post I want to consider some of the most common verses that are use by KJV-Onlyist's when they make their unfounded claims about the modern versions.
On every King James Only site and publication you will always see charts and lists containing all of the supposed missing words and verses from the modern versions thus proving that they are corrupt and evil and attempting to pervert the Bible, God's Holy Word. Such is not the case. There is no conspiracy, there is no attempt to pervert God's Word. The translators behind the modern versions are just like the ones behind the KJV, they are good Christian conservative men who are honestly making good translations based on the best manuscript evidence available. Just because they now have more ancient manuscripts that suggest that some of the verses contained in the KJV may not be original does not mean they are taking verses out of the Bible.
This is the tactic used by the radical form of KJV Onlyism. They use language like "changed" or "deleted" or "missing" etc. to back their claims that any translation other than the KJV is corrupt or heretical when this is far from the case. The actual case is that the words and verses were most likely added over time by good intending copyists. As Daniel Wallace points out in his article that I provided the link for, the tendency over time that has been observed in the manuscript evidence is one of expansion and not retraction. This is, however great news for the Christian.
This means that we can trust that within the manuscript evidence we do in fact have the original words contained therein. For example, if the original contained 100 words and the copies at our disposal contain 125 words and we can see the number increasing over time then we can be sure that within the 125 words that the original 100 is there. It is through the process of textual criticism that we make determinations over what parts of the evidence is original and what most likely is not. This is what occurs when the modern versions utilize manuscript evidence that is available to them that was not available in the 17th century when the KJV was translated. It is within this manuscript evidence that is taken into consideration that we find that the more concise manuscripts that date earlier are more likely in some critic's opinion and in mine to be original. This is why they are either not added into the text of Scripture or are added but have footnotes notating that the verse or verses are not found in the earliest manuscripts.
With that in mind let us take a look at some of the specific verses that are cited:
What we see a lot of the times is that many verses that are so called changed or deleted are pretty straightforward in that they were either added by a copyist or taken from another book and added to another one by a copyist. We see this in the gospels when a gospel writer contained a passage that was similar or contained the same story from another gospel writer.
The following list of verses when quoted are quoted from the New American Standard Bible.
In part 2 I will cover many of the verses that are claimed to be altered or changed by modern versions. I will end this part with a quote from Daniel Wallace from his article.
"It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by textual differences." - Daniel Wallace.