There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D.In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican.
This is but one of many examples of this problem. There are many words, verses and passages which are omitted from the modern versions but which are found in the Traditional or Byzantine Text of the New Testament, and thus in the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels. These problems between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are very important to the correct translation and interpretation of the New Testament. Contrary to the contention of supporters of the Critical Text, these omissions do affect doctrine and faith in the Christian life...
The textual critic J. Harold Greenlee has said, "New Testament textual criticism is, therefore, the basic Biblical study, a prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work".(2) This is not an overstatement of the importance of this issue. As believers we have the responsibility in our day and age of proclaiming the Gospel, the pure Gospel, the undiluted Gospel. We also have the right and privilege of being the next in the line of protecting God's Word and proclaiming it. Each individual Christian will make a decision on this matter, of which text is correct. Unmistakably, this decision will be made, consciously or unconsciously, by every single believer. This decision is made when the believer decides which edition of the Bible he will use to read and study; and if he chooses a translation based upon corrupted manuscripts which reflect views which omit the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, His virgin birth, then the decision has been made to extend this error to the next generation. If, however, today's Christian chooses a translation of the Word of God which is translated from the Traditional Text of the New Testament, the decision has been made to continue to see God working through His providence in providing His Word in its complete form, for not only this generation but for those to come.
The Traditional Text Was a 3 to 2 Favorite with Those Church Fathers Who Died Before to 400 A.D.
Dean Burgon wrote:
"No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D. 400 and in public documents written prior to that date. . . . The testimony therefore of the  Early Fathers is emphatically according to the issue of numbers in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a general proportion to 3 to 1." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, pp. 94, 101-102]
Some of the leading Westcott and Hort followers of today are very bold to say that the Traditional Text, or the Textus Receptus type of readings, did not exist prior to 400 A.D., and certainly not before the 6th Century A.D. Here you have statistical data on 76 Church Fathers who died prior to 400 A.D., showing, not only that the Textus Receptus readings did exist prior to 400 A.D., but that they were in the majority. This was not merely a simple majority of barely over 50%, but it was a majority of 60% to 40% over the Westcott and Hort false text. Dr. Jack Moormans recent and careful research on this same subject revealed an even greater percentage--70% to 30% in favor of the Textus Receptus as opposed to B and Aleph. This can be found in his excellent book, Early Church Fathers Witness to the Antiquity of the Traditional Text, pages 34-35. It is B.F.T. #2136, 63 large pages @ $6.50+P&H. Don't believe any of the Westcott and Hort/B and Aleph devotees if they tell you that the Traditional Text readings or the Traditional Text itself was not in existence before 400 A.D.
The Puritan Hard Drive has been such a superb blessing to me personally and for my ministry, that I lack words to adequately praise the Lord!" - Richard Bennett (former Roman Catholic priest who is now a preacher of Reformation truth), Berean Beacon