Wrong about what? Wrong about myriad versions of Scripture floating around up to and after 400 AD?
Perhaps you will explain what doctrine rests on a disputed passage?
First, let us agree on which passages are in dispute and what their wording is. Kosta, your help, please.
Mark: let us agree on which passages are in dispute and what their wording is. Kosta, your help, please.
Mr Rogers resorts to a banal, if not naïve, baseless slogan many Protestants like to use when it comes to this issue. The truth is, all doctrinal disagreements are based on the reading of disputed passages. Matthew 16 is a fine example where the Catholics read one thing and the rest of mainline Christianity another. The other one is Isaiah's virgin. or John's bread being Jesus' flesh. Or, for example, Mr. Rogers' insistence that God really didn't harden Pharaoh's heart (even though the Bile says is clearly), he just made it more "obvious"!
The variants are not only textual but hermeneutic. All of Christological disputes were based on variant readings of scriptural verses. Mr Rogers asks his question knowing that no particular variations in biblical text today. The majority of biblical alterations are simply human errors, and do not affect doctrine. That doesn't mean early alterations didn't.
These can be divided in the nature of Christological dispute. The first century Christianity was a mix of Christian and Gnostic beliefs. Some of this is obvious even form the NT, and we know that base don the fact that some NT authors (Apostle John for ex maple) were quoted as scripture prior to them being quoted by Christians. Others (such as Apostle Paul) was particularly liked by Gnostics who recognized a great deal of their own theology in him.
Early Christians were also divided as regards Christ's origin based on whose Gospel a particular church was reading. Thus those who had copies of Mark's Gospel tended to believe that Jesus was made divine at his baptism. This is otherwise known as the adoptionist heresy in the Catholic Church.
First evidence of antiadoptionist changes in biblical text were made public by J. J. Wettstein, a 17th century Swiss German Protestant New Testament theologian) who noticed in the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim 3:16 an alteration was made (in slightly different ink), in fact only a line drawn through the letter omicron ("O") in the word OΣ (meaning who) to make it look like the Greek theta ("Θ") instead, changing the word to ΘΣ (meaning God).
Since KJV was based on the 16th century Textus Receptus, which was based on copies known as the Majority Text, based on C. Alexandrinus it reads
Whereas older Alexandrian text reads
Clearly, someone was concerned with the passage being interpreted in a way that might put in question the dogma of Incarnation and Jesus' eternal divinity, so they changed "who" to "God."
In Luke 2:33, the oldest mnuscripts read "And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him." A number of medieval copies of this verse reads "And Joseph and his mother..." as they became concerned that someone might say this proves he was not of divine birth since he had a father and a mother. In other examples, the oldest versions say "his parents" only to be fixed" by later scribes to read "Joseph and his mother..."
In Mark 1:11, more recent copies say "and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased" but one older Greek surviving manuscript precedes this by saying "Today I have begotten you!" (directly from Psalm 2:7) but this was apparently removed for fear of aodptionist overtones, and Ps. 2:7 is probably not read very often! :)
There are many other examples of this. Other Chrisotlogical issues tackled early was the so-called docetist heresy which found ts way into Islam, and which denies Jesus' humanity. Rather it suggests Jesus only appeared human (from δοκηω, dokeo to "seem"), associated with Gnosticism which considered body a prison for souls and a source of all evil. This, God could not have real flesh. This is where the "spiritual flesh" comes in and why the Church insisted on the real Presence, real flesh and real blood – it was to counter Gnostic beliefs. Most of the anti-docetic textual alteration come form Luke's Gospel (Luke was the only other author besides Paul acceptable to Marcion, precisely because of the existance of many docetic verses in some versions of Luke). Luke, as you know, exists in two variants: a long one and a short one. These are 5:43-44, 22:17-19, or 24:51-52, among others.
There were also alterations to the text countering what is otherwise known as the seprationist heresy, an early belief that Christ was actually two persons, one divine and one human. Antiseparationist alterations are found in Heb 2:9 which in the older versions says that Jesus died "apart form God" later change "Christ died by the grace of God." Also similar changes were made in Mark 15:34,etc.
Another set of theologically motivated changes in the early Christian period were made in the Chirstian Apologetic period by such theological giants as Tertulliian and Origen. These had mainly to do with countering pagan criticism of Christianity. Anything that seemed to give pagans some canon fodder would be modified.
So without making this any longer, most of the theologically dependent variants were made early in the Christian period. Once Christian dogma was established in the 4th century, smaller forgeries like the Comma Johanneu or Pericope adulterae and hundreds if not thousands of variants in word order do not affect post Nicene theology. But theology-alteirng or fixing changes were definitely made in the early Christian period in order to "harmonize" the scripture with the doctrine, and counter various compete beliefs.
Modern theological differentiation is based on interpretation rather than on actual word smithing and intentional alterations of the text, although some modern translations do seem to put a twist on how things are read. Sometimes it is forgotten that the etxt being read is actually a redacted text that was intentionally changed to make Christ divine, or one person, or things to that nature.