A SERIOUS OMISSION IN THE NEW BIBLES

[Curtis]

An important question is whether the omission of certain verses changes or harms biblical doctrine. Most Bible scholars contend it does not. This is because no major teaching or doctrine relies solely on a verse not found in the earliest manuscripts.
While these verses may supplement biblical stories or teachings, the core message remains intact without them. No foundational doctrine is lost simply because a verse is missing from a modern translation but was present in the KJV. The shorter ending of Mark, for example, does not alter the accounts of Christ’s resurrection found in the other Gospels.

So while it can seem troubling to see familiar verses disappear from modern Bibles, Christians can be confident this does not undermine biblical authority or accuracy. The central truths of Scripture remain secure, even as new manuscript evidence leads to refinements in the precise wording and exclusions of some disputed passages.

 

[DougE]

The KJV, when translated, did not have the oldest manuscripts available at the time, so the newer translations did not take out words; it was the KJV that added words not found in the oldest manuscripts.

Pure speculation to say the KJV added words since you cant prove it by the original autographs

As to the KJV not having the newly discovered manuscripts/texts/excerpts that implies they didnt have al the Word of God; the people didnt have all the Word of God by extension,
Of major consequence is you cant claim to have all the Word of God, and never will, seeing they keep making new discoveries that are deemed to be the Word of God

 

[DougE]

An important question is whether the omission of certain verses changes or harms biblical doctrine. Most Bible scholars contend it does not. This is because no major teaching or doctrine relies solely on a verse not found in the earliest manuscripts.
While these verses may supplement biblical stories or teachings, the core message remains intact without them. No foundational doctrine is lost simply because a verse is missing from a modern translation but was present in the KJV. The shorter ending of Mark, for example, does not alter the accounts of Christ’s resurrection found in the other Gospels.

So while it can seem troubling to see familiar verses disappear from modern Bibles, Christians can be confident this does not undermine biblical authority or accuracy. The central truths of Scripture remain secure, even as new manuscript evidence leads to refinements in the precise wording and exclusions of some disputed passages.

What is not in dispute is that words and verses are missing in the modern Bibles
If you are compelled to defend that the Bible, you have lacks these words and verses, you can find plenty of scholars to uphold your assertion that no doctrine is affected

 

[DougE]

The KJV, when translated, did not have the oldest manuscripts available at the time, so the newer translations did not take out words; it was the KJV that added words not found in the oldest manuscripts.

I find it interesting you all have the same arguments