That's a more loaded question than you probably realize, but the answer is basically no. You can stop reading here if you want.

What is commonly called the "Byzantine text type" from every era is nearly exactly the same, except the majority of those manuscripts actually have more mistakes than the ones used by the Textus Receptus. The Book of Romans has a fake ending interspersed in the middle of chapters 14 and 15, for example.

There are only two "ancient" manuscripts that are used to make significant alterations, called "Sinaiticus" and "Vaticanus." Sainaiticus is almost certainly at least a partial forgery, the story of its discovery makes no sense and its pages have been deliberately altered to make it look older, and it's never been chemically tested.

So really, it's probably just one manuscript from the Vatican that they're using to change the Bible, which we don't even know the source of, combined with something called "conjectural emendations" which is basically just scholars guessing that every single manuscript is wrong, and creating their own reading, either from nothing, or by combining a bunch of variants like a Frankenstein's monster.

But even with all this, right now, the changes in content are basically nothing. So no, even if you interpret modern scholarship as favorably as possible, none of it was actually needed. The Bible was near perfectly preserved the way it was. The problem isn't what's been done so far, it's what *will* be done. The method being used right now is radically unstable and vulnerable to the insertion of forgeries, and modern Bible scholars get caught trying to forge documents all the time.