In the above lesson, the Professor is contrasting the Westcott and Hort text against the Textus Receptus.
He establishes how many modern Bibles use Westcott and Hort INSTEAD of the Textus Receptus.
He points out the reason given and what it is bogus.
Those using Westcott and Hort say the manuscript evidence is earlier than the Textus Receptus and THEREFORE, more reliable.
The Professor demonstrates by using quotations of Early Church Fathers who lived in EARLIER centuries (the Ante-Nicene Fathers) how flawed this premise is.
Texts omitted in Westcott and Hort can easily BE FOUND hundreds of years earlier.
Are these 'found' texts in the Textus Receptus? YES.
The difference in readings leads to all sorts of problems in modern translations such as the New World Translation.
The order of the words (Subject instead of predicate nominative) in John 1:1 makes all the difference in the world for Jehovah's Witnesses' bogus rendering of "a god."
So, the problem disappears when you get rid of Westcott and Hort and stick to Textus Receptus.