First, the above difference is not significant as they claim
Next, they are apparently using sources a millennia later to dispute a text? That would be like quoting some monk in 900 AD as authoritative on events that took place in 30-90 AD, nearly a 1000 years earlier.
I agree with you on both points. In a list of tens of thousands of "discrepancies" in older texts, the vast majority are no more significant than verb endings, vowel variants in David's name, or the word order of "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". There are about a dozen true passage variants that I consider meaningful, including the long/short endings of Mark. With these few isolated exceptions, we know what the Bible said when written within the accuracy of translation into English. A translator is likely to swap the order of "Jesus Christ" for readability or rhythm. A translator is compelled to change verb tenses not just for readability and consistency but also because we don't have all the verb tenses that the original Greek text used. Some who hate Christians like to say that the Bible has been translated from one language to another hundreds of times so that we no longer know what it really said, but the fact is that all major translations were done from the oldest and best texts available. We know that the original New Testament was written at least mostly in Greek. We also know how many translations were needed to arrive at the current Greek Orthodox Bible - zero for NT and one for OT.
Not only that they are rejecting sources like the Greek bibles and the Vulgate that are far older than their precious ‘aleppo manuscript’.
We’ve got Greek manuscripts back to the 4th century. I wonder why they are refusing to use the best textual evidence?