Why has 1 John 5:7 been removed fom  recent versions of the Bible?
82815
Because it isn't in the earliest manuscripts we have of 1 John.  In fact, it isn't found in any manuscripts earlier than the 16th century according to the research I did to answer your question.
233311
First off nowhere in the scripture does it say that it went out with the disciples or apostles. Secondly if you are a child of GOD you are a disciple of CHRIST...So as long there are children of GOD there are disciples. Thirdly it says unknown tongue, if Peter would have spoke in a foreign language only the person of that tribe or nationality would have understood. Uknown tongue is exactly what it means a tongue that can not be learned or taught, but only by the Holy Spirit...Why cant we take the word for what it says. Lastly the NIV version is hypocritical because they take alot of the important scriptures out. The Bible says to not take away or add to. For example John 5:1-5 which is talking about the pool of Bethesda in the KJV it goes in order from verse 1-2-3-4-5 ETC... But in the NIV it goes 1-2-3- oops 5 where is verse 4, hmmm want me to show you what verse 4 says "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." So basically the NIV is taking the power of GOD completely out of the picture. Tell me again why is the KJV wrong...Seems to me the KJV is right and the NIV is wrong....
872379
The biggest problem about where it was copied from the KJV Bible isn't the exact language that was used but the fact that even the italicized words were included as part of the text without comment. Just so everyone knows. Those were were added to make the translation flow properly in English. It's not always possible to translate even from another Latin based language to English with out adding some wording to make it flow properly in syntax. But to add them as though they are part of the Scripture is wrong.. No not wrong  EVIL is a better word...   Jim
410921
I've always held the belief that the Bible has been changed to fit the beliefs of whoever commissioned the latest translation.  It's no surprise to me at all that some of the stories were tacked on later as some were removed when they didn't fit in with what was being taught at the time.  \n\nWhy is the Bible supposedly above scrutiny?  Why is it that when people question whether or not it was written and re-written by men, people freak out?  In this day and age, if somebody were to claim they were divinely inspired to write a holy book, we'd call them nuts.  But, we should just believe that this particular group of men really were divinely inspired?
1068078
well, no thought has to go into this, this is historical fact.  Many books were left out of the final book.  The old testament has books like The book of Enoch and there are also later books like the Maccabees I and 2 that are made about a century before christ.  These are called Apocrypha.  There are also many books left out of the new testament or edited in some way, there is the Gospel of Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Marc which is differently edited than the one we currently know.  The problem is, a lot of these books that were taken out of the new testament at least were written many many years after christs death so when the early church created the canon they decided what was most in use and what most applied in terms of creation date.
436048
There were a bunch of books left out of the Bible. Mostly this was done to maintain consistancy. You can read some of them at my link. I have read most of the ones on this page and there is little "new" information.
616702
It is unlikely that the Bible as we know it will be re-written anytime soon. It is too entrenched in our culture as is.\n\nI suspect that some 'New New Testament' will arise sometime, but see a pretty big struggle before it is accepted- and it will probably cause a huge schism in the faith.
557391
Jesus is not mentioned in Isaiah 53.  This chapter has nothing to do with Jesus, and the Christians have a bad translation of the actual Hebrew words in their "Old Testament".
1036326
That wasnt in the bible. You are mistaking the bible for "Times are a changing" by Bob Dylan. Its ok because Bob Dylan is better than god anyway.
717282
Because it has historical and biblical repetition. \nhttp://www.luckymojo.com/number7.html
615735
I dont believe there are any versions outside of the original texts that are more accurate than the next. There are flaws in the 1611 KJV as well as the NIV and every other version... I dont like the NWT though because it deliberately changes text to fit the Jehovah's Witness doctrines. (if you dont believe the KJV has flaws, contact me and I'll be happy to share them with you)
242446
Church fathers changed the Scriptural mandate for traditions of men. Nowadays folks blindly follow instead of obeying the Bible.
357833
God didnt lighten up it was the politicians or holy men who wrote the bible ,  different people wrote the New testament.\nAnd their methods of persuasion had changed
1082446
The bible is 99% pure, however there still exist copyist errors which you most definitely have pointed out.  The first is a numbering copyist error and the second, one of the daughters is actually Merab.  However the christian faith does not rest on tiny pieces of data like these examples.  All of the questionable material of the bible has absolutely no impact on the doctrine of Christianity--they are all very minute details such as the ones you have pointed out.  The other 'supposed' contradictions out there commit several logical fallacies such as quoting out of context and juxtaposition, and do not look at hebrew or greek colloquialisms
322995
I have ran into some of these KJ only folks before. They are arrogant in their belief that they are superior to others who do not believe as they do. The Bible says knowledge puffs up but love edifies. They believe that all English versions are corrupt except for the KJ version. First of any English version is not technically as accurate as the original Bible languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Secondly, they fail to realize the even the KJ has been thur several updates itself- just open a KJ up and look at the copyright page that will state various years of editions copyrighted. If some one is going to be so hard-lined that they will not tolerate others who have different view then themselves-best to save your breath and time and let god deal with them.
531716
ASV\nKJV\nRSV\nRSV 71\nGood news\nNIv\n\ni cant remember all\n\nthere are tons of different bible. and all preaches different things. for example.. kjv preaches trinity only in 1 John 5:7 , and RSV , and others has thrown out this verse\n\n..Hope this answers,, but remember Quran has only one version i.e. in arabic
677239
The non-religious answer is that it was to formalise the belief system so that it could be controlled by the religious hierarchy.\n\nUp until the Bible was written many stories were word of mouth so I guess the act of writing down also reduced the artistic licence/embellishments added to the stories over the years.\n\nIMHO the issue is more why there has never been an update to bring the 'rules' into a modern context and get rid of some pretty archaic behaviour.