Should I have considerations of any sort?
Why do you use a different edition?
A pastor said: "I use King James version in english and Reina Valera 1960 in Spanish
The others versions remove verses"
The crowd clapped energetically
I think he was mistaken
He was. His comment is absurd. There is not and never will be an exact translation of the ancient manuscripts into any modern language. Translation is both an art and a science and no translation is, by definition, perfect.
It is well known that throughout history, scribes and other copyists have both added and removed Biblical content, so when this pastor said 'The others versions remove verses" he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Two well-known examples... 1) The story about the woman caught in adultery is considered by most scholars to be a later addition, not part of the earliest texts. 2) Romans 8:1 in the King James version reads, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The last phrase, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is clearly an addition, or more than one!.
The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for
v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (
mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (
alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from
v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M. [NET translator's note]
