After John7:53 “And everyone went to his own house”, there is the foot note,” John 7:53 - 8:11 are bracketed in NU-text as not original.” Your Bible probably has a similar footnote. So what does NU mean?
There are two primary manuscripts types used in Bible translations. One is known as the Alexandrian and the other is the Byzantine. The Alexandrian manuscripts seem to have been dominate around Alexandria, Egypt, thus the name Alexandrian. They also are thought to be the earliest manuscripts and the most accurate. The Byzantine manuscripts come from the area of Byzantium and are generally considered to come after the Alexandrina manuscripts. A vast majority of our Greek manuscripts today came from the Byzantine manuscripts.
But many of the current English translations of the Bible came from the NU manuscripts, the Nestle and Aland/United Bible Society manuscript, Nestle and United, the NU manuscripts which came from the Alexandrian manuscripts. The King James Version and the New King James Version came from the Textus Receptus which came from the Byzantine manuscripts. So there are Alexandrian manuscripts which are thought to be the oldest and more accurate from which came the NU manuscripts and many of our modern translations. Then there are the Byzantine manuscripts which came after the Alexandrian manuscripts from which the Textus Receptus and then the King James Version and the New King James Version came from.
For some, the problems start here. Some argue against the NU manuscripts and for the Textus Receptus and thus highly favor the King James Version. Some even argue the King James Version is the only trusted English translation. They argue the Textus Receptus is the far superior manuscript. They believe the Alexandrian manuscripts were corrupted from the very beginning by men who didn’t hold strong traditional biblical views. They also believe a strong anti-Christian influence around Alexandria Egypt at the time played a part in corrupting the manuscripts. They believe the NU manuscripts have many changes and problems, some of which affect major doctrinal issues.
On the other hand there are many Bible scholars who support both the NU manuscripts, the Alexandrian manuscripts and the also support the Byzantine manuscripts and the Textus Recuptus. These scholars believe that while there are differences between the two manuscripts the differences are small when compared to the entire Bible and the differences do not affect any major Bible doctrines. They say while the Alexandrian manuscripts came from Egypt that does not make the manuscripts corrupt. They say the same argument could be applied against the Byzantine manuscripts. The Byzantium area wasn’t exactly God fearing people. They also point out, while the Textus Receptus is a good manuscript, it along with the King James version have gone through their fair share of changes and editions through the years. They also point out that the King James Version has some of its own challenges in translation.
Some who support the King James Version compare changes and variations of other translation against the King James Version, but that is not an accurate assessment. Such comparisons make the King James Version the standard to compare all others, but the King James Version is not the standard. A favorable comparison would have to come from the manuscripts not the King James Version, and with different manuscripts the ultimate authority would have to be the original manuscripts.
And only the original manuscripts were inspired, so one set of manuscripts is not inspired over the other, and one set is not better than the other. Each set has its strengths and each set has its challenges. Men were involved on both sides, so mistakes were made on both sides. But with thousands and thousands of copies, with minute differences, none of which affect doctrinal issues, the veracity and reliability of God’s word is unequalled in all of history. Dinner is in the oven and I gotta go!