Are these differences in Old Latin manuscripts all minor and insignificant?
Edward Hills observed that the Old Latin version omitted Luke 24:12 (KJV Defended, p. 123). Joseph Bosworth indicated that the Old Latin sometimes omitted a whole verse such as Matthew 23:14 (Gospels, p. xi). Burgon as edited by Miller noted that Matthew 23:14 was omitted by some copyists, “and this error was repeated in the Old Latin versions” (Causes of Corruption, p. 38). H. A. G. Houghton asserted: “There are also a number of instances of verses missing from Old Latin gospel books, such as the whole of Luke 5:39 and Luke 23:17 and Jesus’ prayer for forgiveness in Luke 23:34” (Latin NT, p. 164). Bruce Metzger claimed that John 7:53-8:11 is absent “from several Old Latin manuscripts (a f l* q)“ (Text, p. 223). Alexander Souter maintained that at Luke 24:36 “the words ‘Peace be unto you’ are absent from all unrevised Old-Latin texts” (Text, p. 49). David Cloud indicated that the reading “which” instead of “God” at 1 Timothy 3:16 is found in most Latin manuscripts including the Old Latin (Faith, p. 394). Edward Hills acknowledged that the Western text (the Latin versions) at 1 Timothy 3:16 “reads, which was manifest in the flesh” (KJV Defended, p. 137). In a footnote, KJV-only author Floyd Jones acknowledged that “Dr. Letis informs us that no Byzantine Old Latin is known to be extant” (Which Version, p. 105, footnote 8). Glenn Conjurske asserted: “There is no evidence that the Old Latin read filius in 1 John 5:7, nor any solid evidence that the Old Latin contained 1 John 5:7 at all, though [Frederick] Nolan can give us a few seems, and mights, and might have beens” (Olde Paths, April, 1994, p. 93).
Arthur Voobus asserted: "The textual complexion of the Old Latin version is marked by the boldest departures from the received text" (Early Versions of the NT, p. 47). F. C. Burkitt contended that “the fact that our Latin authorities [or manuscripts] often conspire together in variants found in hardly any extant Greek MS was early noticed” (Old Latin, p. 5). Burkitt maintained that “the earliest Latin versions contained a text of the Gospels enriched by additions” (p. 52). KJV defender Edward F. Hills included the Old Latin Version in the Western family of texts (Believing Bible Study, p. 68).
Kevin James pointed out that “the Old Latin has many disagreements among its surviving manuscripts” (Corruption, p. 26). The Oxford Companion to the Bible noted that the existing Old Latin manuscripts “exhibit many variations among themselves” (p. 753). William McKane pointed out that Jerome maintained that “the corrupt tradition of the [Old] Latin New Testament manuscripts can be cured only be resort to the original Greek” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 39). Wilbur Pickering asserted that “the 8,000+ MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS” (God Has Preserved, p. 24; Identity of the NT Text IV, p. 107). At Luke 24:4-5, Bruce Metzger maintained that "the Old Latin manuscripts present no fewer than twenty-seven variant readings" (Early Versions, p. 322). Bruce Metzger wrote: “At Luke 2:14 all Old Latin manuscripts read omnibus bonae voluntatis (‘to men of goodwill’)“ (p. 330). Metzger noted that Old Latin manuscripts have some additions to the text such as the addition at Matthew 3:16 in manuscript a and the long addition at Mark 16:4 in manuscript k” (Bible in Translation, p. 31). Scrivener indicated that the Old Latin m “reads Jesus Christ” instead of “God” at Acts 20:28 (Plain Introduction, II, p. 375). According to Edward Hills, the Old Latin added the following at Acts 23:24: “For he feared lest the Jews should seize him and kill him and he meanwhile should be accused of having taken a bribe” (KJV Defended, p. 122). Edward Hills listed several additions found in the Old Latin manuscripts at Matthew 3:15, Matthew 20:28, Luke 3:22, Luke 6:4, Luke 23:53, John 6:56, Acts 15:20, and Acts 23:24 (Believing Bible Study, pp. 46-47; KJV Defended, pp. 121-122) and also several omissions (BBS, pp. 69-70; KJV Defended, p. 123).