I'm wondering why some passages in the NIV are missing when compared to the KJV, like:

  • Matthew 17:21
  • Matthew 18:11
  • Mark 9:44
  • Mark 11:26
  • Mark 15:28
  • Luke 17:36

…and more. Also there are some passages where the NIV deletes some phrases as in Matthew 5:44:

NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

I don't understand the need to change the Bible from what it was for so many years; I personally find the old versions really rich in culture and those express much more than the new versions do. Also in the old versions, the points and commas were really important to not change the original meaning. And the Bible teaches that God is the one that gives us revelation through the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures, so there's no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'

  • 6
    The NIV didn't "change the Bible" because (a) the KJV is not the Bible, it's a translation thereof; and (b) the NIV is not a revision of the KJV, but a separate translation. Furthermore, if there's truly "no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'", why are you reading a translation at all?
    – TRiG
    Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 1:31
  • @TRiG thanks for the help, but I read the Hebrew and Greek's first versions of the bible, also in other languages as english (KJV, NIV), spanish (RVR60, NVI, LBLA),.. And I found interesting that the new versions doesn't have those verses, and some versions just add it at the bottom of the page. And you know is important to know more about the source of what you are reading.
    – Xoltic
    Commented Feb 9, 2013 at 21:43

1 Answer 1


The NIV has some "missing" verses because it is based on different manuscripts than, say, the King James version.

For some background, we don't have manuscripts of the original writings of the New Testament. We have copies of them, and as with text that is copied manually, there is room for copyist error, or for people to add or remove things - purposely or inadvertently. Note that copyist errors don't affect the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Word. And even though there are slight changes, it's still reliable for doctrine.

The verses that the NIV "removes" are simply not in the manuscripts used for translating it.

There's more detail available all over the web. This is one such page.

  • 7
    It is probably worth noting that the choice of manuscripts used by the NIV are not arbitrary, but include manuscripts not available to the KJV translators and are based on new knowledge. Commented Feb 3, 2013 at 2:04
  • Perhaps, but I thought that might lead to a "which is better?" debate. I'm trying really hard to not provide reasons for debate. Commented Feb 3, 2013 at 14:38
  • well, thanks for the help.. I'm gonna read those links you add.. Anyway even if it's still reliable for doctrine, it lose verses that are really important that I had read in Greek, that explains a lot of things because had amazing implications.
    – Xoltic
    Commented Feb 9, 2013 at 21:37
  • Your last link appears to be broken or unavailable. Commented Dec 28, 2018 at 14:33
  • David, with your last edit this becomes biased since there is an anti-TR site but no longer a pro-TR site. I would prefer references to less contentious sites on both sides, but have not found them easily. The NKJV preface and Marlowe are two candidates. I may consider editing your answer with some quotes. I might even consider writing a partial answer which I hope you will use the meat of and I can then delete it.
    – Bit Chaser
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 19:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .