How many of you have read Revision Revise by Dean Burgon? http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36722/36722-h/36722-h.html Extremely Factual and puts a nail in the coffin of critical greek texts, it destroys the Wescott and Hort theory. I've also been going through the NIV as i have been reading this book and I have been marking places where I find that the NIV has a reading with extremely little manuscript evidence, the NIV follows the R.V. of 1881 in many places, I have seen quotes of scholars that much of the "Accepted theories" of textual criticism lean heavily on Wescott and Hort, and my study and research on the NIV is confirming much of this independently. Here is an example. Luke 6:1 (KJV) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. Luke 6:1 (NIV) One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. the next portion is from Revision Revised pg 73-74: "It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:— “I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘second-first sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’ ” But “eleganter lusit,” says Jerome180. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did . Ambrose181 of Milan  attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius182 of Cyprus  does the same;—and so, Isidorus183  called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius184 also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,185—and by Chrysostom186  at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.187 It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists. But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex b (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex d,—3704 words.188"