As it is a big topic I shall divide into 3 brief sections: opinion of modern scholars, opinion of early scholars and the Church and lastly, specific examples. Each of these sections will essentially be brief quotes/points and provide references for those interested to check independently. Hopefully enough points will be raised to debate specific issues.
To avoid any bias I shall avoid partisan/atheistic or polemical sources and shall only cite established scholars and academics as well as Christian authors contemporary or modern.
One of the most respected Biblical translators is Eberhard Nestle. He has a specific text named after him - the Nestle text - and this text is approved and favoured by many Christians even today as the standard definitive version.
See Nestle - Aland text at Bible.org.
Here is what he has to say on the issue of corrupt Biblical texts:
(Einfhrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments)
Another leading expert Prof. Bart D. Ehrman reaches the same conclusions independently (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture):
Dr. Vincent Taylor, yet another leading expert, agrees:
All leading experts, all accepted by the Church and leading Theologians. Google at will. But what about the early Church and the texts ?
The Church and early Scholars
The following is from the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible and speaks of the King James Version which had been regarded as the previous standard:
Differing texts....selective use of manuscripts. But there's more....
Celsus was not a Christian but a Epicurean philosopher liveing in the 2nd century CE. He stated the following:
This is important in itself as it shows that at an early stage there was already some suspicion of the Christians trustworthiness with their text BUT it is the counter-reaction and reply of Origen (a 3rd Century Church father) that is more instructional:
(Origen, Contra Celsus).
That is to say: he does not deny the charge - in fact he admits it - but rather absolves the Church as a whole from involvement.
This is a Church father speaking and one of the people involved in the compiling and promotion of the Biblical texts.
Here is another Church Father, Rufinus, accusing Origen himself of alterations in the Vulgate version of Jerome:
And while we're on the subject of Jerome's version, here is what the New Unger's Bible Dictionary has to say:
Removal of interpolations......or perhaps insertion. It matters not. That is solid evidence one way or the other. AD 383.
There are many and I can supply more if necessary but I think one is enough. Consider the oldest Bible manuscript we have - the Codex Bezae.
Find out about it here
It has some very interesting features - remember, it is one of the oldest we have - such as: major differences in Matthew, a much longer and different ending of Mark, and John 5:4 is completely absent. The ending of Acts is likewise not in this version.
These are significant differences from later texts. Later texts that were based on this text.
Dr. Vincent Taylor again:
(The Text of the New Testament)
How is this possible ?
There is only one answer and it is what is called a 'smoking gun'.
Who wrte the Bible ?
The Old and New Testaments