Cutting verses out of the Bible? why have these verses been removed from the Bible?

You're confusing at least two, probably three, different topics, jumbling them altogether into one.

I won't address "the Bible is the infallible and unchanging word of God". It can be addressed - but my answer would be lengthy.

I will address the main question.

New Testament verse numbers (the ones that we still use) were assigned to Bible verses in a Bible text produced in the 1500s. It was discovered by scholars in the 1800s that this particular Bible text - the one used to assign verse numbers - had included several unauthentic additions. That is: several verses had been added to that particular text that do not exist in the oldest copies of the New Testament.

So, modern Bible translators have a choice:

- include all of the verse numbers and all of the verses - even the verses that are not authentic parts of the Bible

- leave out those verses which are not authentic parts of the Bible, which necessarily means leaving out the corresponding verse numbers as well

I would like to add that there are **many** more numbered verses that have been removed from modern Bibles than you have listed. They have been removed because they are not authentic; they were added to the Bible after the Bible was written. Very nearly all - but not quite all - modern Bible versions do not include those unauthentic verses.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

You might wonder then, ‘Is my Bible lacking something?’ In a word, the answer is No. These verses actually do not belong in the Bible even though many older translations included them. For some persons it may seem shocking to hear that certain words, phrases and even whole verses appearing in widely used Bibles are not authentic.

A scribe might add from elsewhere a sentence or verse to an account that he was copying. You can readily see that in Mark 9:43-48. In many newer versions verses 44 and 46 are omitted, sometimes with a dash being added to indicate the omission, as in the New World Translation. The text of those two verses reads, “where their maggot does not die and the fire is not put out,” exactly the same as in verse 48.

Whereas some Greek manuscripts contain verses 44 and 46, a number of older, authoritative manuscripts do not. The evidence suggests that a scribe or scribes merely repeated verse 48, perhaps even by accident. So omitting verses 44 and 46 from a modern Bible in no way involves leaving out part of God’s Word, for the same sentence is there in verse 48 of the same account. But what is accomplished by omitting the two doubtful verses? The account is refined and set forth as Mark was inspired to write it.

In other instances the “missing verses” evidently have come from other Bible books. Some editions of the Bible help the reader to see this, for they print in a footnote the text of the omitted verse, such as was done in certain large-print editions of the New World Translation. If you do not have this aid, you can compare your modern Bible with the King James Version or a similar older translation. By such a comparison you can confirm for yourself that what is omitted may be just a verse repeated from another place or book. For example, note Romans 16:24 and compare it with verse 20 and concluding passages in almost any of the books written by the apostle Paul. You will see that, at Romans 16:24, some copyist evidently added a closing expression such as Paul included in almost all of his books.

Perhaps the most controversial passage that has been taken out of recent translations that are faithful to ancient manuscript evidence is part of 1 John 5:7. In the past, this text was often appealed to in support of the unscriptural Trinity doctrine. Regarding the spurious passage, the Catholic Jerusalem Bible says:

“The words in italics [in heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three witnesses on earth:] (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text.”

Because this verse comes from a period that is so much later than the time of the Bible writing and its nature is so clearly spurious, many modern translations do not even treat it as they do other omitted verses.

Finally, we can mention a couple of longer portions of the Bible where the manuscript evidence seem to scholars to be inconclusive. The ending of the book of Mark, from verse 9 on, is one of these. Another is John 7:53–8:11, about the woman caught in adultery who came to Jesus. This account first appeared in some Old Latin versions, and, in later Greek manuscripts, it is in three other locations in the Gospels. In many translations these two portions are included but separated from the main text, such as by being put in brackets or being set in smaller type.

This consideration of some isolated verses that clearly are no part of the inspired Bible should not leave anyone with doubts about the authenticity of God’s Word. Rather than undermining confidence in the Scriptures, it should serve to underscore the fact that God has preserved his Word in a remarkably pure state.

The reason they were left out is that the translators of the NIV believed that the evidence was overwhelmingly against those verses being part of the original writing, since the KJV was based on later manuscripts and the NIV on earlier manuscripts.

Wishing you well.

Not to mention where verses were added to the Bible in the early days to make Jesus appear more God like.

This is why I use the King James Bible.

they have not been removed

the person who wrote that is a liar

the people translated the bible to better understand it

verses were then altered to reflect all the teachings into less space

instead of three verses or lines to explain it they used one verse to explain it