Anon, the reason they changed that verse was because it offended their sensibilities. There are even worse examples than this. For instance in 2 Kings 23:29, the modern versions reinterpret the verse, based on a modern understanding of the Pharaoh's intent, to say the opposite of what it says in the KJV. They say he went "to the aid" of the Assyrians rather than "against" them. So, the exact opposite. This includes also the NKJV (New King James Version) as well as the others. They have stated this is because they don't understand why he would go against them. But it's not their place to alter the text based on that alone. The problem is made worse by the fact that a parallel verse in 2 Chronicles 35:20, that says the same thing exists, and cannot be changed in this way, leading to the creation of a contradiction in the NKJV. Another example of a contradiction being created in the New Testament is Mark 1:2, where it changes the accurate statement "it is written in the prophets," to the contradictory statement "it is written in the prophet Isaiah". The quote that follows in Mark 1:2 is partially from Malachi and that part is not written anywhere in Isaiah. There are plenty of more contradictions created by the various changes in modern versions. Some of which are specific to one particular modern version, for instance, Matthew 1:7-8 is changed in the ESV, where one of the names is changed from "Asa," a king of David's line, to "Asaph," the psalm writer (see Psalms 50 & 73-83) who was not a king. This is a contradiction that is contained only in the ESV.
The changes deeply affect doctrine. For instance, in Genesis 22:17, the singular "seed" and "his enemies" (referring to Christ - similar to Genesis 3:15) is replaced with the plural "your descendants" and "their enemies." This changes the focus from the singular Christ to the plural, which is in line with modern Zionist interpretation. The change is also in the NKJV as well as the modern versions.
If you use the KJV or any translation based on the original received text, there are none of these blatant contradictions because it is the actual inspired version of Scripture. The contradictions only come about if you use the modern versions, and this is why people who use them have lost faith in the Bible. The modern versions also have changes that erase teachings against specific sins, for instance they universally change the term "fornication" which has a specific definition, to the term "sexual immorality" which can be defined by the surrounding culture. This is to meet the sensibilities of the world. Another change is where the term "sodomite" is obscured to some other word (cf. 1 Kings 15:12, Jude 1:7) or where the same term is wrongfully included
in the list of 1 Corinthians 6:9, in order to make it appear to be just another normal sin (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11). The fact is that God had some strong condemnations of that abomination in the Old Testament, canonically equating sodomites to dogs (cf. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 KJV). This is echoed in the New Testament several times (cf. Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15). But all of this information is lost in the modern versions, whose translators alter Deuteronomy according to their own sensibilities.
>and the "additions" that are found in later versions of the texts and not the earliest do not serve to detract from the understanding of the faith but to enhance it.
I wouldn't class these as "additions," because the Bible doesn't change, just as the truth itself is immutable. I would base the deduction that the Bible changed from the first century as a false one. Rather, there have always been groups that altered the Bible, even in early times, creating corrupt variants, and that is what has been discovered by Tischendorf and others. The actual originals which match the received text were altered by the writers of the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The lacuna at the end of Mark 16 for instance. I would recommend reading Burgon's scholarly work, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established
which was published in 1871 and shows that, based on the manuscripts, the Aleph and B texts are not reliable (they show signs of alteration), nor are they somehow a "better representation" of the original inspired New Testament. Pic related.