the chart would be good were it not for the fact that the KJV is almost 400 years old (almost half a millenium) - the chart does not take into account all the more recent finds including the dead see scrolls.
either way, even if the manuscript evidence for the KJV is sound, the KJV was out of date when it was published, uses language no-one uses anymore and has some serious problems. Now I am allowed to comment on this being as it was produced for a monarch of my country.
the whole KJV only argument sucks - the truth is the differences between versions is not sufficient to throw them out. I for one would like to see a KJV only person highlight all the text differences (not just words) but grammar changes and PROVE once and for all that so called massive theological changes abound from them. I just cannot see it
The Dea Sea Scrolls are not the manuscripts used to translate modern Versions. As a matter of fact the Dead Sea Scrolls identify more with the KJV than the modern versions- they will not tell you that though.
All the modern versions remove verses which lay a foundation of true, and founded beliefs, i can list some of the differences.
I qoute:
"
February 11, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following material first appeared in
O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 3, 1995.
Many contend that the modern Greek texts and the new versions do not change doctrine. These do not understand the nature of the changes which have been made. This is something akin to Neo-orthodoxy. The critical text is not a frontal attack on truth; it is a clever infiltration. The attack of the modern versions is not tanks blasting; it is termites eating. The modern versions don't wholly omit doctrines (unless it is the doctrine of fasting) but they undermine many doctrines, and doctrine in general, by deleting repetitious passages, omitting titles of Christ, deleting a key passage here and there, questioning other key passages--a little cut here, a little doubt there. It is easy to underestimate the overall effect. The eclectic Greek text upon which the modern versions are founded is a shorter text than the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. The modern text omits thousands of words and phrases, an amount of text equaling the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.
The area of repetition is an interesting one. In Genesis 41:32 Joseph explains to Pharaoh why God repeated the dream. It was to reinforce the authority and impact of the message. Jesus Christ often used the term "verily, verily" to emphasize the importance of what He was saying. Many phrases are repeated almost to tediousness in the Bible. "They shall know that I am the Lord" in Ezekiel is an example. Peter's vision prior to his being sent to Cornelius shows how God uses repetition to reinforce a point. He repeated the vision three times. This is the purpose of biblical repetition. Yet the critical text and the modern versions reduce the repetition and thereby reduce the power and impact of God's Word in a subtle yet very real manner. For example, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 have the same warning that man lives by every word of God. That message is weakened in the modern versions by the omission of the last half of the verse in Luke 4:4. Christ's sermon on Hell in Mark 9 contains another example. That is a passage that shook me up before I was saved. It is probably the most powerful sermon on Hell in the Bible. Three times Christ repeated His warning that Hell is a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (verses 44,46,48). This sermon in the modern versions is not as hot. It is hot, because the fire is still there in verse 44, but it is not as hot as the sermon in the Received Text and the KJV, because verses 46 and 48 are omitted.
By removing some of the repetition of the Bible, the modern versions weaken the overall standard of doctrine. The critical text is shorter roughly by the amount of text equal to the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. And the critical text is weak; it is soft; it is less forceful; overall it is more hesitant in presenting the great doctrines of the faith. It IS a theologically corrupt text."
Also see
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/new_international_perversion.htm
I also have four charts that i could paste, if you wish i can paste them.