What major discrepancies exist between "versions" of the Bible?

The Gospel of Mark which is said to be the first Gospel has a true ending of Mark 16:8 and as a result has no mention of any Resurrection account.

I think having a Gospel written by someone and not mention the Resurrection account is fairly significant.

If I was to ask any modern day Christian today to write a paragraph about Jesus would include his Resurrection.

Comma_Johanneum is also highly debated, which would negate the only explicit verse in the entire Bible that clearly conveys the doctrine of the Trinity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Discrepancies between verses in Genesis

Genesis 6:19-20 says that Noah took two of each clean and unclean animal onto the Ark, but Genesis 7:2 says he took seven of each clean animal (or possibly 14, depending on how you interpret it) and only two of each unclean animal:

6:19-20: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

7:2: Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

These differences occur because there are two slightly different biblical Flood stories written by two different sources (the Yahwist and the Priestly Source), cleverly merged together so that a casual reader sees only one rather complex Flood story.

The verses attributed to the Yahwist are: Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7, 7:10, 7:12, 
7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, 8:20-22.

The Flood verses attributed to the Priestly author are: Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:8-9, 
7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24, 8:1-2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-17.

Discrepancies between gospel accounts of the empty tomb

Matthew 28:1-5: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

.

Mark 16:1-6: 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

. Luke 24:1-6: Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

. John 20:1-2: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Archbishop Peter Carnley, former Anglican primate of Australia writes in The Structure of Resurrection Belief:

The presence of discrepancies might be a sign of historicity if we had four clearly independent but slightly different versions of the story, if only for the reason that four witnesses are better than one. But, of course, it is now impossible to argue that what we have in the four gospel accounts of the empty tomb are four contemporaneous but independent accounts of the one event. Modern redactional studies of the traditions account for the discrepancies as literary developments at the hand of later redactors of what was originally one report of the empty tomb... There is no suggestion that the tomb was discovered by different witnesses on four different occasions, so it is in fact impossible to argue that the discrepancies were introduced by different witnesses of the one event; rather, they can be explained as four different redactions for apologetic and kerygmatic reasons of a single story originating from one source.

Discrepancies between manuscript versions

One of the most famous discrepancies of this type occurs in Isaiah 7:14. The Septuagint (LXX) version contains the Greek word parthenos ('virgin), which is carried forward into almost all English translations, including the KJV:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The Masoretic text, believed to be unchanged from the original Hebrew, uses the word 'almah, which means 'young woman' and is used only in this sense in 9 other references in the Old Testament. The word for 'virgin' is betulah and is used exclusively in that sense more than 50 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. However, the Septuagint mistranslated 'almah as the Greek parthenos, with the English meaning of 'virgin', and it is this version that Matthew 1:23 refers to.

Discrepancies between modern English language translations

Some Bibles studiously avoid use of the word 'slave' even when the context clearly refers to a slave, preferring instead to use the euphemisms 'servant' or 'bondservants'. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary says that the concept of slavery in the Scripture has been completely hidden to the English reader.

One example is in the Epistle to Philemon, in which the KJV refers to Onesimus as a servant, whereas the NAB refers to him, properly, as a slave:

KJV: Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?

NAB: no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloved especially to me, but even more so to you, as a man 13 and in the Lord.

The reference to 'servant' in 1 Corinthians 7:21-22 is compared to being a freeman, and clearly a reference to slaves. Once again, we see the KJV use the euphemism 'servant', while the NAB says 'slave':

KJV: Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

NAB: Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned but, even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it.

Perhaps the biggest textual difference in terms of text size (but not theology) is Jeremiah. The version of Jeremiah we are used to comes from the Masoretic text, but the text in the Septuagint is one eighth shorter! The Dead Sea Scrolls has evidence for a Hebrew version of the Septuagint's text showing that the differences weren't created by its translators.

Many scholars think the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint is more likely to have been the original, and the Masoretic's longer text was developed from it. I've heard it suggested that the origin of the differences may actually be explained in the text itself: Jeremiah 36 describes the destruction of a scroll containing Jeremiah's oracles which he then rewrites. Jeremiah also uses two messengers, Baruch and Seraiah, to carry his messages to different directions. So the two versions of Jeremiah could have both been written by him, but at different times for different people.

Jeremiah is a tricky case, and for those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible it requires a more nuanced understanding of inspiration than simply saying that the original manuscripts were inspired and not the transmission process afterwards. I've never met anyone who believes in the inspiration of scripture but rejects the Masoretic text of Jeremiah and yet there are strong arguments that it is a major revision of the original, whatever that was.

There are none.

Translation Choices aren't Biblical Version issues

I categorically have to rule out translation choices as different "versions" because by definition, languages that change will change their wording to make things clear. Whether one translates the term "cell phone" into German as Mobil Telefon or Handy, for instance, is completely arbitrary, although the act of translating does introduce different connotations. By the same token, should one literally translate Ich habe die Schnatuze voll damit! literally as "I have the nose full with it!" or idiomatically translate the meaning to "I'm sick of it" or "I'm fed up with it!" Of course those expressions mean nothing until the language catches up with it, proving the point that language changes.

Unlike the Qu'ran, the Bible has no problem with itself being translated. If you want to quibble over a translation, you are quibbling over language, not the "Bible." As such, I would confine any "discrepancies" to the original Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic parts of Daniel).

There are some very bad translations out there (see Was Jesus a Separate God?), but again, those are not the fault of the manuscripts, but rather translation choices that lacked scholarship.

Manuscripts are pretty consistent

There are admittedly, minor textual variations amongst the various manuscripts, but are there any that have any impact on theology? Most are the grammatical equivalent of a transposed comma or a changed preposition. In a few cases (e.g. the Woman caught in adultery in John 8), there are sections that are missing in older manuscripts, but no textual variations once the story is added to the corpus.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament, It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger analyzes thousands of manuscripts, and points out every miniscule variation amongst the miniscules, codices, papyri, and manuscripts. Glancing through the linked table of contents, it will become obvious how minor the variations are.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1947, after having been buried for nearly two milennia, there were no significant discrepancies.

When Tischendorff uncovered (stole?) the Codex Sinaiticus in the 1800s, there were no significant discrepancies.

In short, this book is way less fluid than modern edits to Charles Dickens or William Shakespeare.

An examination of claims that manuscripts have significant theological variation This is detail, but I think its worthwhile. If you like the short answer, stop reading - but I think in trying to make the case that there is "significant theologcal variation, this text indavertently shows how little disagreement there really is

I'd like to show some examples that one commentator says are "significant", from @CwallenPoole's excellent answer:

Here is the case -

This statement is clearly false. It is not true to the evidence. Dr. Sumner wrote: "The rare parts about which there is still uncertainty do not effect [sic] in any way any doctrine." This is false! Doctrine IS affected. Dr. Robert L. Thomas, John MacArthur's professor in his California Seminary, wrote: "No major doctrine of scripture is affected by a variant reading." False, again. Dr. H.S. Miller wrote: "No doctrine is affected." False again. Dr. Stanley Gundry stated: "Only a few outstanding problems remain, and these do not affect doctrine or divine command to us." False again. Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote: "Important differences of textual readings are relatively few and almost none would affect any major Christian doctrine." False again!

N.B. That's a fair number of good scholars to disagree with. (Kurt Aland is also mentioned, the same Aland of Nestle-Aland - probably the best Greek NT out there.) So, we have a lot of scholars making the claim I'm making. Let's give the author a chance to debunk them.

1. John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

   Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15. What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and perversions. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15. Is this not a major doctrine?

   So, the claims is "should not perish" is not supported by the manuscript evidence. Okay, let's assume its true. The doctrine of annihilationism is not predicated solely on this Scripture, and in any case, isn't accepted by most Christians. In either case, the significant theological point is "Believe in Jesus, Have eternal life." Hell has other scripture to make the case one way or the other.

2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".

   Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and perversions. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell. Is this not a major doctrine? ... Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English perversions will assist them in their heresy of a "fireless hell"!

   Again, neither a widespread position, nor the exclusive basis of the claim.

3. John 6:47. Let me see if you can accurately lead a soul to Christ using exclusively Jn. 6:47 as rendered in the new versions. Note John 6:47 in the KJV, where the Lord Jesus declared: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

   That verse is as clear as a bell, on how to receive "everlasting life." But, the Westcott and Hort Greek text, following the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts, takes out those two vital and precious words, "on me." Because of their reliance on these false Egyptian Greek texts, the NIV also removes "on me." So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. If you're trying to lead a soul to Christ with those new versions and perversions, using Jn. 6:47 exclusively, you'll never lead them to Christ, because "on me" (Christ) is gone from that verse in their perversions! All they say is something like this: "Whoever believes has everlasting life." Believes what? Their verse doesn't say. Their verse merely says "believes." According to these perversions of John 6:47, if I were to believe in atheism, Christ promises me everlasting life. The same if I believe in humanism, or in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or in Santa Claus, or in Rudloph the Red-Nose Reindeer, or in Bugs Bunny, or in Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, Modernism, or in anything else! That's major false doctrine in my judgement, and it stems directly from false Greek texts and false English perversions!

   Okay, so we're missing the words "on me" from believes "on me". From the whole of Scripture, does anybody really think John 6:47 allows belief in Santa Claus to get you into heaven?

4. Romans 1:16. Here's what it says in the accurate KJV: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

   The heretical Greek texts of "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove the two words, "of Christ" in this verse. Because of this, the NIV also removes these words. So does the NASV. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do the other modern versions and perversions. This certainly is doctrine. "Gospel" means "good news" or a "good announcement." What "gospel" could be inserted there instead of the "gospel of Christ"? Was it the good news about a pay raise? Was it the good news about a new car, a new hat, or a new house? No! It's the gospel or good news about Christ. That's doctrine! That's theology!

   So, is the "Gospel" so radically different from the "Gospel of Christ"? Don't think its major.

5. John 7:8. Was the Lord Jesus Christ a liar? If you believe the false Greek text, "Aleph" (Sinai), and some of the versions, He was. Note Jn. 7:8: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."

   According to the Greek text "Aleph" (Sinai), the word "yet" must be removed. The NASV omits it also. So does the NKJV in the footnotes. So do some other modern versions and perversions. Why do I say this removal of "yet" makes the Lord Jesus Christ out to be a liar? Because He went up to the feast in question. If He told his brethren that He was NOT going up to the feast, and then later went up to that feast, He would have told a lie, would He not? This certainly is a major theological doctrine. As in all of the other 356 doctrinal passages, the KJV has superior theology here. The perversions are inferior in their theology and doctrine! Stay away from them!

Is it just me, or is this a stretech?

Here's the point - a scholar doing his best to present "theological differences" between manuscript versions fails to make a compelling case that theology is fundamentally altered by manuscript evidence. I still challenge someone to show me a case where Bible "versions" really change theology dramatically.