Wud up Almonte,
Before I respond to your post, I just want to let you know that these claims you are making have already been discussed on this forum(Hence, the reason why most Muslims have left--Naaji, Lady Fatima, ThirdAndLong, Q_Bliz and all you other Muslims I haven't spoken to in a while--Holla atcha boi!)
As for those "missing verses", they are included in the Bibles which you say they are not included. The N.I.V. Bible which I had included those verses. The only difference is, they would have a footnote at the bottom of them saying that these verses were not found in the textype which those Bibles(such as the N.I.V. or R.S.V., etc.) translated from. You see, those Bibles translate from older manuscripts/text-types, such as the Alexandrian text-type. While the KJV and other Bibles translated from the more recent manuscripts such as the Byzantine text-types. Obviously, the older manuscripts would be more worn out than the more recent ones. Therefore when you compare old with more recent, there will be descrepencies. But even with all the descrepencies, when all the manuscript evidence is put together, they agree 98%, which is more accurate than any historic book, including your Qu'ran. There are also different versions: Some versions are thought for thought translations and some are word for word translations. As everyone knows, when translating something from a different language, it will NEVER be 100% accurate. This is also true for your Qu'ran and anyone who is translating from a different language. However, the overall message is not lost in the Holy Bible, which deals with accepting Christ as Saviour. With all the different languages of the Bible scattered in different regions and gathered together as manuscript evidence, there is 98% accuracy. No corruption going on here. As for the extra books included in the Catholic Bible, there is no apostolic evidence to support them, they were not used by the early Church, and some of their teachings contradict what the rest of the Holy Bible teaches. That is why they are not authentic.
Now, can you please explain these Qu'ran versions and variants?( I'll be nice and only post a few).
1- There are accounts that denote the omission of many verses, such as the verse of Al-Rajm (stoning), as well as many Suras. For Sura 33 was as long as Sura 2, and Sura 98 once listed seventy persons from Kuraish, by their names and their fathers' names. It was also as long as Sura 2!
2- Ali Ibn Abi Taalib had a copy of the Koran, which he himself collected. This copy differs from that of Othman. It has verses not in Othman's copy, and vice versa. Among the verses it has, which are not in Othman's copy:
"Am I not your Lord, and Muhammad is My Messenger, and Ali the prince of the believers?"
"... and his parents were believers, while he was an unbeliever."
"... and We have sent before thee, neither a Messenger, nor a Prophet, nor a speech-carrier."
"... and their mothers' husbands, and he is a father unto them ..."
"Surely man is in a loss, and in it he shall remain till the end of the age ..."
3- There is a copy of the Koran named after Abdullaah Ibn Mas'uud that does not agree with the present copy. It is at variance also with the copy of Ali. Al-Nuri listed some of the verses that were found in Ibn Mas'uud's copy only:
"For surely God chose Adam, Noah, the house of Abraham, and the house of Muhammad above all beings."
"Did We not expand thy breast fro thee and lifted from thee thy burden? Did We not exalt thy fame by Ali thy son-in-law?"
Here are some of the sixty places the Shiites believe have been distorted, according to the studies of Professor Muhammad Mallallaah. The phrases they consider as authentic, though not existent in the copies we have now, are enclosed between two brackets.
Abi Baseer reported, on the strength of Ubayy Abdillaah: "Whosoever obeys God and His Messenger (in the rule of the Imams) has won a mighty triumph." (Sura 33:71). The Shiites believes that Muhammad's Companions omitted "in the rule of the Imams."
Abu Baseer reported, on the strength of Ubayy Ibn Abdillaah: "So We shall let the unbelievers (who forsook the rule of the prince of the believers) taste a terrible chastisement, and recompense them with the worst of what they were working." (41:27).
Al-Husain Ibn Mubaah reported that a man recited in the presence of Ubayy Ibn Abdillaah "Say: 'Work; and God will surely see your work, and His Messenger, and the believers.'" (9:105). For which Ubayy answered, "It is not so. it is rather "... and the trusted ones," which we are.
Abi Hamza reported, on the strength of Abi Ja'far: Gabriel, peace be upon him, revealed this verse after this manner - "Surely the unbelievers, who have done evil (by depriving the house of Muhammad from their right), God will not forgive them, neither guide them on any road but the road to Gehenna, therein dwelling for ever and ever." (Sura 4:168).
Abu Hamza also reported: "Yet most men refuse (the rule of Ali) all but unbelief." (Sura 17:89).
They also reported that Sura 2:106: "And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it" did not originally have "or the like of it."
What does the reader think about all what we have presented here? From: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/distortion.html