Skip to content

Why Modern Bible Translations Differ

The debate surrounding Bible translations, particularly between the King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV), has significant implications for believers and churches.

Words: 2993 / Time to read: 16 minutes

The KJV, published in 1611, has been a cornerstone of English-speaking Christianity, while the NIV, introduced in the 20th century, sought to provide a more accurate rendering based on older manuscripts. While Christians affirm the inerrancy of the Bible in its original manuscripts, the reality is that these manuscripts no longer exist, leaving scholars with the task of studying ancient copies to reconstruct the original text.

The KJV and NIV differ in their approach to translation, manuscript sources, and the inclusion of certain verses. This essay explores these differences in detail, provides a broader context of how modern translations handle textual variations, addresses the perspective of KJV-Onlyism, and discusses the enduring reliability of the Bible despite these differences.


Quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament

One of the intriguing aspects of the New Testament is the way its authors quote the Old Testament. This practice is pervasive, with writers like Matthew, Paul, and Peter often referring back to the Hebrew Scriptures to validate the claims of the Gospel and the identity of Jesus as the Messiah. However, these quotations sometimes appear to differ from their Old Testament counterparts, which can puzzle readers.

There are several reasons for these variations:

  1. Use of the Septuagint: Many New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX), which sometimes differs in wording from the Hebrew texts that most English Old Testaments are based on.
  2. Paraphrasing for Emphasis: At times, the New Testament writers paraphrased Old Testament passages to emphasize certain theological points relevant to their audience.
  3. Composite Quotations: New Testament authors sometimes combined different Old Testament passages into a single quote, blending ideas from several verses.
  4. Midrashic Interpretation: In Jewish tradition, it was common to interpret and apply Scripture in a way that drew out its deeper or implied meanings. The New Testament writers often employed this interpretative approach.

Examples of New Testament Quotations from the Old Testament

Here are 15 examples where New Testament authors quote the Old Testament with variations:

  1. Matthew 2:15 / Hosea 11:1 – Matthew quotes Hosea’s statement, “Out of Egypt I called my son,” applying it to Jesus’ return from Egypt. Hosea originally referred to Israel, but Matthew sees a parallel fulfillment in Christ.
  2. Romans 9:17 / Exodus 9:16 – Paul quotes God’s words to Pharaoh, but the wording in Romans differs slightly from most translations of the Exodus passage, likely due to his reliance on the Septuagint.
  3. Hebrews 10:5-7 / Psalm 40:6-8 – The writer of Hebrews quotes a passage from Psalms, but where the Hebrew text says, “You have opened my ears,” Hebrews reads, “a body you have prepared for me.” This difference comes from using the Septuagint, which interprets the verse more messianically.
  4. 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 / Isaiah 25:8, Hosea 13:14 – Paul combines phrases from Isaiah and Hosea to declare the victory over death, blending the prophetic texts into a single proclamation.
  5. Acts 7:14 / Genesis 46:27 – Stephen, in his speech before the Sanhedrin, says that 75 people went down to Egypt, following the Septuagint’s count, while the Hebrew Masoretic Text mentions 70.
  6. Matthew 27:9-10 / Zechariah 11:12-13 – Matthew attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah that more closely resembles Zechariah. This could be a composite reference or an interpretive tradition linking the two prophets.
  7. Romans 3:10-18 / Psalms 14:1-3 – Paul strings together multiple verses from Psalms and Isaiah to describe human sinfulness, blending them into a single argument about the universality of sin.
  8. Ephesians 4:8 / Psalm 68:18 – Paul’s quotation of Psalm 68 says, “He gave gifts to men,” while the original psalm reads, “You received gifts from men.” This difference is likely a paraphrase to emphasize Christ’s role in bestowing spiritual gifts.
  9. Matthew 13:14-15 / Isaiah 6:9-10 – Jesus quotes Isaiah’s commission, but the wording differs slightly from the Hebrew version, aligning more with the Septuagint.
  10. 1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16 – Peter quotes Isaiah about a cornerstone, but his wording mixes phrases from the Hebrew and Greek texts, adapting it to his point about Christ.
  11. Matthew 21:16 / Psalm 8:2 – Jesus quotes Psalm 8, but Matthew’s Greek version varies slightly from the Hebrew text, a common occurrence when referencing the Septuagint.
  12. Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 – Paul quotes Habakkuk to warn the Jews in Pisidian Antioch. His quotation aligns more with the Greek version than the Hebrew, emphasizing the unexpected work of God.
  13. Hebrews 1:6 / Deuteronomy 32:43 – The writer of Hebrews cites a line about angels worshiping the Son that appears in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, highlighting a variant textual tradition.
  14. Mark 7:6-7 / Isaiah 29:13 – Jesus quotes Isaiah, but Mark’s account aligns with the Septuagint, which differs slightly from the Hebrew text.
  15. Romans 11:26-27 / Isaiah 59:20-21 – Paul’s citation of Isaiah regarding the Deliverer coming from Zion blends phrases from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text, tailoring the prophecy to fit his theological message.

These variations show that the New Testament authors used the Old Testament in ways that suited their context and purpose, and they often relied on the Greek translation (the Septuagint) that was widely read in the first-century Jewish diaspora. Rather than a mistake or inaccuracy, these differences reflect the interpretive practices of the time and the theological richness that the apostles saw in the scriptures. Understanding this context helps modern readers appreciate how scripture can be applied dynamically while maintaining its core message.


A Historical Overview of Bible Translations

The history of Bible translations extends back to ancient times. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament from the 3rd century BCE, was one of the first major efforts to render the Hebrew scriptures into another language. The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 4th century CE, served as the primary Bible of the Western Church for over a millennium.

The KJV emerged in the early 17th century, commissioned by King James I of England to address the divisions among English-speaking Christians caused by earlier translations like the Geneva Bible. It was based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century using a limited number of manuscripts. The translation philosophy of the KJV prioritized formal equivalence, aiming to preserve the original word order and structure as much as possible.

In contrast, modern translations like the NIV were developed with access to a larger body of manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which date back to the 4th century. The NIV translation, begun in the 1960s and completed in 1978, aimed to balance accuracy with readability, making the Bible more accessible to contemporary readers.


Understanding Text Families and Their Impact on Translation

Bible translations are influenced by the manuscript traditions or text families they rely on. These text families, such as the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western, vary slightly due to differences in the manuscripts they include:

  • Byzantine Text Family: Used primarily in the KJV and NKJV, this tradition is characterized by a larger number of later manuscripts, often including longer readings. The Textus Receptus is part of this family, and its influence is evident in the verses included in the KJV.
  • Alexandrian Text Family: Considered by most scholars to be closer to the original writings, this family includes earlier manuscripts like the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Translations like the NIV, ESV, and CSB give priority to these sources, resulting in shorter readings and the omission of verses not found in the earliest manuscripts.
  • Western Text Family: Known for paraphrastic tendencies, this tradition has less influence on modern translations but played a role in early Latin versions.
Text FamilyCharacteristicExamples of TranslationsNotable Features
ByzantineLater manuscripts, more expansive readingsKJV, NKJVIncludes verses like Matthew 17:21, Acts 8:37
AlexandrianEarlier manuscripts, considered closer to originalsNIV, ESV, CSBOmits verses not found in early sources like Mark 16:9-20
WesternKnown for paraphrasing tendenciesSome early Latin textsLess influential in modern translation efforts

Scholars like Bruce Metzger have argued that the Alexandrian manuscripts, due to their earlier date, likely reflect a more accurate representation of the original texts. This is why the NIV and other modern translations sometimes omit verses that are present in the KJV.


Comparing the KJV and NIV: A Closer Look at Key Verses

One of the most frequently cited criticisms of the NIV is that it “removes” verses found in the KJV. However, these differences often result from the manuscript sources used. Here are some key examples:

  • Matthew 17:21: The KJV reads, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,” while the NIV does not include this verse in the main text. The NIV places it in a footnote, noting that it is absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts.
  • Mark 16:9-20: The longer ending of Mark, included in the KJV, is placed in brackets in the NIV with a note explaining that it is not found in the earliest manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus. Scholars believe that this passage may have been added later to provide a more satisfying conclusion to the Gospel of Mark.
  • Acts 8:37: The KJV includes the statement, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” This verse is missing from the NIV, with a footnote stating that it is not found in the oldest Greek manuscripts and may have been a later addition to clarify the requirements for baptism.
VerseKJV TextNIV TextExplanation
Matthew 17:21“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”Not includedAbsent in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
Mark 16:9-20Present, without disclaimerBracketed and footnotedAbsent from the earliest complete manuscripts.
Acts 8:37“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart…”FootnotedAbsent in early Greek texts; likely added for clarity.

These examples show that the differences between the KJV and NIV are not about removing verses but about adhering to different manuscript traditions. This approach is shared by other modern translations like the ESV and CSB, which use similar criteria to determine what belongs in the main text.


Modern Translations and Their Approach to Textual Variations

Modern translations like the NIV, ESV, and CSB take a similar approach in their treatment of textual variants. They often include omitted verses in footnotes, providing transparency about the textual differences:

TranslationPercentage of UseApproachNotable Features
KJV31%Formal EquivalenceRetains longer, traditional verses like Mark 16:9-20
NIV19%Dynamic EquivalenceOmits later additions, includes extensive footnotes
ESV10%Essentially LiteralSimilar to NIV in textual choices but more formal in tone
CSB8%Optimal EquivalenceBalances readability and textual accuracy
NLT7%Thought-for-thoughtFocuses on modern readability, footnotes textual variants

The popularity of these translations demonstrates that while some groups hold tightly to the KJV, many churches and pastors recognize the value of using translations that draw from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.


The Role of the NKJV: Correcting or Retaining the KJV’s Legacy?

The NKJV aimed to update the language of the KJV while retaining its manuscript base, the Textus Receptus. This means that the NKJV includes many of the same verses as the KJV, but with modernized language. However, it also provides greater transparency about textual variants through footnotes:

  • 1 John 5:7: The NKJV retains the KJV’s expanded Trinitarian formula but notes that it is not present in the majority of early Greek manuscripts.
  • Mark 16:9-20: Included in the NKJV’s main text, but with a footnote that acknowledges its absence in key ancient sources like the Codex Vaticanus.

This approach reflects a balance between preserving the KJV’s tradition and aligning with modern textual criticism, making the NKJV a popular choice among those who appreciate the KJV but want more modern clarity.


KJV-Onlyism: Tradition or Dogma?

The phenomenon of KJV-Onlyism has become a significant point of contention in certain Christian circles. KJV-Only churches and pastors assert that the KJV is the only accurate and divinely preserved translation of the Bible in English. They often display phrases like “KJV-Only” on signs, bulletins, and church websites, emphasizing that other translations are not trustworthy.

KJV-Only advocates argue that God providentially preserved His Word through the Textus Receptus, which forms the basis of the KJV. They believe that the NIV and other modern translations undermine biblical truths by omitting verses that are present in the KJV. For example, the presence of Matthew 17:21 and Acts 8:37 in the KJV but not in the NIV is often cited as evidence of this concern.

However, this perspective overlooks the advances in biblical scholarship and the discovery of older manuscripts that have informed modern translations. Scholars like Daniel Wallace, a leading textual critic, argue that the abundance of earlier manuscripts allows for a more accurate reconstruction of the original texts. He states, “The King James Bible is a wonderful translation for its time, but today we have access to better manuscripts and more advanced scholarship, which help us get closer to what the original authors wrote.”

Being dogmatic about the KJV as the only valid translation can lead to unnecessary division within the body of Christ. It can cause believers to focus more on a particular version than on the message of the Gospel. By contrast, many respected evangelical leaders, such as John MacArthur, who uses the NASB, and the late Timothy Keller, known for his use of the ESV and NIV, emphasize the importance of understanding the Bible’s message rather than fixating on a specific translation.

The dangers of KJV-Onlyism lie in the potential for isolation from broader Christian scholarship and community. This rigidity can hinder dialogue with other believers who use different translations and miss out on the richness that comes from consulting a variety of versions to gain deeper understanding. Additionally, it may create an unnecessary barrier for new believers who find the archaic language of the KJV difficult to understand.

The broader Christian community has embraced translations like the NIV and ESV, recognizing that they offer accurate and accessible renderings of the biblical text. This openness has allowed for growth in understanding scripture, fostering a faith that is both rooted in tradition and open to the benefits of modern scholarship.


Trusting God’s Word Amidst Variations

One of the most important aspects of this discussion is how believers can maintain faith in the reliability of scripture, even with the awareness of textual variations. While it is true that no original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible have survived, the meticulous work of textual critics ensures that we have an incredibly reliable text.

The Bible itself speaks to the reliability and enduring nature of God’s Word. In Psalm 12:6-7, it says, “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times. You, Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 also affirms, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Despite minor textual differences between translations, the Bible’s core message remains unchanged. Daniel Wallace has often highlighted that the textual variants do not impact central doctrines like the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, or salvation through faith. Even with differences in verse numbering or footnoted passages, believers can trust that God has preserved His Word through generations.

Bruce Metzger, a renowned scholar in the field, notes in The Text of the New Testament that the vast majority of variations are minor, such as differences in spelling or word order. He argues that the consistency among the thousands of manuscripts demonstrates God’s providential care in preserving His message to humanity.

Christians can find assurance in the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding the church throughout history to maintain the integrity of scripture. While the process of textual criticism and the existence of different translations might seem complex, they also provide a fuller understanding of the richness of the biblical text. By comparing translations like the KJV, NIV, and others, believers can deepen their understanding of scripture and appreciate the depth of God’s Word.


Conclusion: Faith in the Unchanging Word of God

In conclusion, the differences between the KJV and NIV highlight the broader work of preserving and understanding the Bible’s message across centuries. The KJV remains a beloved translation, respected for its historical significance and beautiful language. The NIV and other modern translations provide clarity and accuracy, drawing from a wider range of ancient manuscripts to bring the Bible to life for new generations.

Despite the variations in wording and the occasional differences in verse inclusion, the core message of the Bible remains consistent. As believers, we are called to focus not on a particular translation but on the message that all of these versions communicate: the Good News of Jesus Christ. This focus ensures that we hold firmly to the truth that God’s Word is “alive and active, sharper than any double-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12, NIV).

Rather than allowing disagreements over translations to cause division, we should celebrate the fact that God’s Word has been faithfully preserved and made accessible to us in many forms. The process of translation and textual criticism is a testament to the dedication of scholars and the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding the church to know God’s truth.

By trusting in God’s providence and engaging with His Word thoughtfully, believers can have confidence that the Bible—whether read in the KJV, NIV, or any other translation—remains the reliable foundation for faith and life.


References and Copyright Notes

  • Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament
  • Daniel Wallace, works on textual criticism
  • NIV Translation (c) 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.
  • KJV Translation: Public domain (original 1611 and its derivatives)

Use of the KJV translation is unrestricted due to its public domain status. The NIV excerpts used are for the purpose of analysis and comparison, falling under fair use for educational and discussion purposes.

Published inNavigating Faith and Life
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. (2 Peter 3:18)