The Missing Words and Verses (Claims 1–4, 6, 13)

The graphic's first four claims -- that modern translations removed "God," "Lord," "Jesus," and "Christ" hundreds of times -- all reflect the same phenomenon: scribal expansion of divine names.

Copyists over centuries had a consistent tendency to add honorific titles to passages that mentioned divine figures, for clarity and reverence. When an early papyrus says "he was baptized" and a later Byzantine manuscript says "Jesus was baptized," the later manuscript did not preserve something the earlier one lost. The later manuscript added something the earlier one did not have. This pattern is documented, predictable, and consistent across the manuscript tradition. Textual scholars call it "expansion of divine names," and it is one of the most well-established copyist tendencies in New Testament manuscripts.

The "16+ complete verses removed" claim (Claim 6) requires a longer answer because the verses are specific. The passages in question -- including Matthew 17:21, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 and 9:46, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and Romans 16:24, among others -- are absent from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. They appear in later Byzantine manuscripts. Modern translations note them -- in brackets, in footnotes, with textual explanation -- so the reader knows exactly what is happening. That is more transparent, not less.

The most significant case is Acts 8:37, where the Ethiopian eunuch's confession of faith ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God") appears in the TR and KJV but not in the critical text. The text is theologically rich and the sentiment is sound. It is also almost certainly a liturgical addition from early Christian baptismal practice -- scribes inserted what the church said at baptisms into the blank space the text left. It is not fraud; it is devotion. But devotion is not the same as original text, and honest textual work distinguishes them.

The claim about ignoring the Textus Receptus "in thousands of places" (Claim 13) is another way of saying modern translations follow older evidence when it conflicts with the TR. Yes. That is what fidelity to the text looks like.