...Is the NIV supposed to be the 'modernized' version of the King James? Then why are verses missing in the NIV that are in the King James?You have asked two questions here, so I'll answer one at a time.
1. Is the NIV supposed to be the 'modernized' version of the King James?
Not exactly. Most Bible translations fall into one of three categories:
1. Literal ("word-for-word")
2. Dynamic Equivalent ("thought-for-thought")
3. Paraphrase
The King James Version (KJV) is would be classified as literal translation of the Bible, whereas the New International Version (NIV) is a dynamic equivalent translation. In other words, the KJV attempts to translate the underlying Hebrew and Greek words into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word). The NIV attempts to take the original thought in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). An example of the last category - "paraphrase" - is The Message Bible. This translation is neither a literal or dynamic equivalent translation.
For more information on translations, read this gotquestions article or this article on the ESV (Note: The ESV is the translation that I have found very helpful when preaching and reading the Bible).
*As a pastoral side-note, I'd recommend a few things:
- When you're looking at a passage, read different translations. Biblegateway.com will help; it's a website that allows you to search for a passage by translation.
- If you're doing serious Bible study, make sure you read a more literal translation as you want to know what the original author was writing, word-for-word.
- Feel free to use paraphrase translations, but use them for additional study and reflection - not as the primary source.
- Get hold of a good Study Bible. The one I use is the ESV Study. It helps me a lot.
2. Why are verses missing in the NIV that are in the King James?
This question is answered HERE. The authors write (& I think it answers your question very well)...
The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.
It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.
Great question. Keep ones like this coming.
[Answered by Pastor HM]
