As has been stated earlier, the versions published since the [English] Revised Version of 1881, have been based upon a Greek text different than the Textus Receptus. None of these texts are a standard published text. They differ from the Westcott/Hort, Nestle, or United Bible Societies texts in one particular or another. They are based on "eclectic texts." This means the translators served a double position as both translator and textual critic. According to their criteria (whatever it may be, seemingly at least very strongly influenced by the Westcott/Hort theor of textual criticism), they included, excluded, changed and conjectured the text.
Though fewer changes were made in the Old Testament than the New Testament, the changes were not limited to the New Testament by any means. However, we shall concern ourselves with the New Testament in our present discussion; and, we shall limit our discussion to the whole verses omitted.
It has been stated by some that such omissions have no bearing on the obedience to passages such as Deuteronomy 4:1,2; Galatians 1:6-9; and Revelation 22:18,19. However, if adding to and subtracting from does not apply to adding conjectural emendations and subtracting entire verses, I am at a loss to see what it could or might apply to.
Others have stated that no real concern should be shown over the omission of these verses because what is taught in these verses which are omitted is taught elsewhere in scripture. Yet as Edward Miller stated,
...(c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than important; (d) many of the passages which Modern Criticism would erase or suspect -- such as the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from the Cross, and the thrilling description of the depth of the Agony, besides numerous others -- are valuable in the extreme; and, (e) generally speaking, it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life seething everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture isnot, or may not prove to be, of the highest importance as well as interest. [The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established; p. 6, footnote 1.]
Besides, if one verse can be set aside today that teaches a particular point, what principle prohibits the removal of the other verses (either collectively, or one-by-one) at a future date? NO MAN, NOR GROUP OF MEN, HAS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE.
Our chart on the witnesses chronicles the evidence found in the critical apparatus of the United Bible Societies' text on the 48 verses under consideration. This chart gives an inkling of the evidence which is rejected in rejecting these verses. That the evidence given may not be totally accurate, especially in reference to the testimony of early writers, can be seen in J.W. Burgon's monumental work, The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark [reprint by Faith and Facts Press; pp. 97-109, 116-147, 337-370, 375-392]. But, according to this evidence, the only verses in doubt are: Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; and 1 John 5:7. That is a reduction from 48 verses to 4 verses! Once the full principles of textual criticism are applied as they should be, that number is further reduced. Thus, the claims that the King James Version is based upon an "inferior text" are greatly distorted. For the facts indicate that the modern versions (excepting the King James II and the New King James Version) are based upon inferior texts.
Conclusion
This is a true story.
One time a preacher was making his point on Mark 16:16 -- "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." He forcefully cried out to the audience on hand: "If you don't believe me, I'll come and show it to you in your own Bible!"
"It's not in my Bible!" cried a woman in the back.
Immediately the preacher strode to the back, took the Bible from the lady's hand, turned to the 16th chapter of Mark, and -- lo, and behold -- the passage was not there! She had taken a pair of scissors and cut it out!
When I was a boy, I remember hearing this illustration used in a sermon to show the disrespect which some people had for the Bible, and how they removed certain unwanted passages from the Scriptures. What the woman did in this story is unconscionable. But, pray tell, what is the difference between a woman taking a pair of scissors and cutting passages she does not like out of her personal Bible, and an editor taking an exacto knife and slicing the same verses out of a Bible he is preparing for publication? Is it not of far greater import when the editor does it? because the Bible he so mutilates will not only be for his own private reading and study, but is prepared to be used by thousands, or even millions?
Friends and brethren, how far have we already drifted?
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." [Revelation 22:18,19]