Our current Bible is somewhat different than the original version

The King James translators made the following observation: "the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech" That is still true today. Translating from one language to another will include changing word order, transliteration of words and even using different expressions that means the same thing in a particular language. The change in word order does not necessarily change the meaning. If this was always the case then it would be impossible to communicate between the nations. Notice the 2 sentences: I will kick the ball vs. Ek gaan die bal skop. The sentences mean exactly the same. A literal word for word translation of the Afrikaans sentence will be: I will the ball kick. Word order was changed, however, even thou a change occur in the structure there is no change to the meaning. Bible inerrancy deals with the meaning although the language used may change. The New Testament writers were writing in Greek but quoting Hebrew verses. Consider John 3:16 in the Old KJV and the new updated KJV (the U and V in the Old KJV were used differently back then): For God so loued "e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The spelling changed. Did the message change? No it did not, it"s still the same. From your examples I take it that slight word orders and expressions is not what you are talking about. Mark 16 - The last 12 verses of Mark is usually omitted because Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus do not contain it. John Burgon made an irresistible case for the inclusion of the last 12 verses in the Gospel of mark in his book The Last Twelve Verse of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established (Oxford and London, 1871). I mention Dean Burgon because he was a contemporary of the revisers of the KJV. His arguments and evidence could not be answered satisfactorily by the revisers who were still alive when he opposed them. (See http://www.bible-researcher.com...) The Textus Receptus that was so called because it was received by all as the true text for the New Testament also contains the last 12 verses of Mark. It does not matter what the language is, if the translation was made from the Textus Receptus then it is the same. The statement you made is not entirely correct that as languages developed the Bible was changed to let people understand it. Revisers left out things or changed things deliberately based of their biases. The bias was that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the oldest and therefore the best manuscripts available. They are from the 4th century AD. The verses were quoted by writes prior to the 4th century which agrees with the Textus Receptus against Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. "Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: "It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark" (1987, p. 287, emp. added). https://apologeticspress.org...