MODERN textual scholars do not hesitate to omit from the Bible the spurious passage found at 1 John 5:7-8. It is omitted by the translations ERV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, LEB, CSB, UASV, etc.) Commenting on these words, the greatest textual scholar of the 20th century Bruce M. Metzger said, “these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain …” – Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), 647.
The reason that this text is considered difficult is that one is compelled to think contrary to the leading internal textual principle: Which reading is it that the other reading(s) most likely came from? It is easy to see how “moved with anger” would have been changed to “moved with pity.” In that case, the scribe would have been softening the reading. It is very difficult to understand why a scribe would be tempted to change “moved with pity” to “moved with anger.”
Be honest in all things
Follow the truth regardless
Obey God not man
If textual scholars and translators obey all three of those principles; then, if the text, translation, or interpretation supports our specific doctrinal view, fine, if it does not, fine. A so-called major doctrine does not hang in the balance based on one Bible verse.
WHY IS IT THAT OMISSIONS AS OPPOSED TO ADDITIONS SEEM TO DISTINGUISH THE WH NU TEXTS FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (RECEIVED TEXT)?
Why is it that we have what the KJVOists & TROists call omissions in the Wescott & Hort 1881 Greek New Testament (WH) and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition Greek New Testament (NA), 99.5% same), which the WH NA would argue are actually additions to the original texts.
While Karl Lachmann was the one to overthrow the Textus Receptus, it would be B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881 who
Matthew 1:3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
3 and Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez became the father of Hezron, and Hezron became the father of Ram,