What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Amarok]

The KJV as well as others are  under copyright, in order to copyright a new version of the bible it must be a unique translation...

AFAIK, the KJV is not under copyright. After all, books written by people in the 19th century are all in the public domain. Seeing how the KJV was first drafted in 1611, it follows that anyone is free to reproduce the material.

---

For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire (that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on the date the work is published.

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fa...ht-basics/

---

For relatively newer translations, copyrights may apply, but I would assume that any restrictions associated with the NIV or other translations would be waived by the publisher. It's the Bible after all. Copyright has nothing to do with this issue. I am certain of that.

The Got Questions article claims that the verses were removed were removed due to better manuscripts being found. I learned more about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...anslations

It looks like it is a matter of new manuscripts being found. Since we've ruled out copyrights, and the verses are too trivial to suggest that the conspiracy website I found was correct about the omissions, we can safely assume that the "better manuscript" explanation is plausible.

As always you live up to user name