“The NIV BIBLE Has REMOVED 45 VERSES And Is Owned By A Person Who Publishes A Satanic Bible” : ERICA CAMPBLELL

“The NIV BIBLE Has REMOVED 45 VERSES And Is Owned By A Person Who Publishes A Satanic Bible” : ERICA CAMPBLELL

Christian singer Erica Campbell of Mary Mary astonished her followers on social media by sharing a post purporting that the NIV version of the Bible has removed 45 verses totaling 65000 words from the bible. The NIV bible is a translated version of the Bible from the original King James version and Erica Campbell has revealed that this Bible is misleading Christians.


Singer Erica Campbell who shared about the NIV Bible

In a post shared on her facebook page Erica Campbell revealed that the NIV Bible has left out words like Calvary, Jehovah , Omnipotent just to name but a few of the words left from the total of 64475 words. The singer went further to warn her fans not to be blinded by Satan as the NEW owner of NIV Harper Collins has also published the controversial Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex.

Image result for erica campbell niv


The New International Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible. Biblica is the worldwide publisher and copyright holder of the NIV, and licenses commercial rights to Zondervan in the United States and to Hodder & Stoughton in the UK.


What’s your take ? (Share Comments Below) 

  1. As Christians, we are to be lovers and proclaimers of truth, and hate whatever is false. However, these posts about the NIV betray profound ignorance and misunderstanding about some very important things, presume knowledge and understanding where there is none, and thus present “information” that is blatantly false. Shame on anyone who claims to be a Christian and spreads such falsehoods.
    My first question when someone says that any English translation of the Bible has “changed” or “removed” something, be it words or verses, is to ask, “changed/removed from what?”
    Usually, their answer reveals that they have a different English translation in mind (most often the so-called “King James Version,” although there is not really just one “King James Version”), and not original language manuscripts.
    It is extremely foolish to have one English translation as your standard.
    I could just as easily arbitrarily decide (with much more sound scholarship behind my decision) that the NIV is my standard, and accuse the KJV of adding 64,575 words and 45 verses.
    How dare those evil KJV translators add to the Word of God!
    We should stay away from their abominable perversion of the Bible!
    But I have two tiers of three translations each that I use for Bible reading, with each translation on a particular tier equal to the other two on that tier, and extremely frequent consultation of reference resources such as interlinears, lexicons, etc. My first tier is ESV, NASB, NKJV. My second tier is HCSB, NIV, NRSV. I do also read many other translations, but they don’t hold near the same weight with me that these six do.
    And, in all seriousness, the real issue, the real question, always is: What did the original autographs say? What did the original authors write? And, then, how is that best translated into English?
    I’ll specifically address the examples Ms. Campbell’s post uses…
    Jehovah: Why would any translation use this antiquated misrepresentation of the tetragrammaton? “Jehovah” was a misinformed attempt at transliterating the tetragrammaton in the middle ages that was known to be incorrect in the English speaking World by the 19th century. The tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament 6,828 times, but the KJV only renders it as “Jehovah” seven times, rendering it as “LORD” or “GOD” every other time. At least the NIV is consistent in always rendering the tetragrammaton as “LORD.”
    Calvary: Why would any English translation use this anglicized form (peculiar to the KJV) of a Latin word not found anywhere in any original language manuscript of the New Testament? What the NIV does is present the actual word used in all original language (Greek) manuscripts of the New Testament (“Golgotha”), and give its translation into English (“skull”).
    Holy Ghost: Once again, the NIV translators were consistent when the KJV translators were not. The NIV always translates the Greek phrase in question as “Holy Spirit,” whereas the KJV does translate it as “Holy Spirit” seven times, and inexplicably so, because it usually translates that exact same phrase as “Holy Ghost.”
    Matthew 17:21 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Matthew. Someone stuck Mark 9:29 here.
    Matthew 18:11 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Matthew. Someone stuck Luke 19:10 here.
    Matthew 23:14 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Matthew. Someone stuck either Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 here.
    Mark 7:16 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Mark. Someone wrote in their enthusiastic agreement with what Jesus said in 6-15.
    Mark 9:44&46 – These verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Mark. Someone stuck Mark 9:48 there.
    Luke 17:36 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Luke. Someone stuck Matthew 24:40 here.
    Luke 23:17 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Luke. Someone stuck Matthew 27:15 or Mark 15:6 here.
    John 5:4 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of John. Someone was trying to insert an explanation (which clearly could not be true, although some people may have believed it was true) for what the man is saying in verse 7.
    Acts 8:37 – This verse does not appear in ancient manuscripts of Acts. Someone felt they needed to add this to the story, but, as you can see, it makes perfect sense without it.
    I very highly recommend the works of Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries on this (and any other) subject.

    • I will go through it

    • Which was printed first the 1611 or NIV?

      • Moreh MattithYah YiremeYah Sep 11, 2015, 10:36 PM

        Neither the KJV or The NIV are close to the truth. many do not know that there were other english bibles before the KJV. Also you have to get back to the original language to understand the intent and heart of the creator not some english bible.

        • Shalum, ahki! May our ABBA give those of us who truly seek the wisdom to desire to search out unadulterated truth.

    • Where is the proof of Ancient Hebrew an those verses not being in there Shalam?

  2. These are the last days

  3. Erica has a point in a way. I am a fan of KJV as it has the word as true as many see it.

  4. Honestly you dk who wrote the bible. People just have to believe in something. All I know is that their is a God, anything else… “You’re not supposed to question it.” Whatever.

    • It may seem trivial to you but just I challenge you to read it just one time. Not the NIV or King James version. An English Or American standard is better. The stories in the old testament are better than Game of Thrones. And the practice wisdom in the New Testament is life changing. Don’t knock it till you try it. 😉

  5. If you look at the foot notes you will find those scriptures. Erica has to be carful what she says. Clearly she didn’t do her research to find out why the NIV have those particular Scriptures not shown. I thought I said look at your footnotes and you will find those scriptures. Plus the Bible still does not lose it’s validity.

    • That’s not true. The foot notes DO NOT give the actual scripture…… it gives a reference. Erica has spoken the truth!

    • Those verses and other words should not be marginalized, this is exactly what they did. The NIV is not reliable. And why support a publisher that publishes filth?

    • Very rare people looks to the foot notes, what is the problem to keep the verses right there. The publisher who so may he or she be, they are not Author of the Word of God Bible.

      • Because different versions use different wording. All of the manuscripts weren’t 100% identical.

    • Image, If you did your research you would know that Erica is right, and has done her research, in order to obtain a copyright, if it is word for word from an original book you don’t have a copyright, it has to been changed somewhere around a third from the original document in order to obtain a copyright, and a footnote stating that other manuscripts have that verse is not having that verse in your text. you are disagreeing with other manuscripts and saying it shouldn’t be there or else we would had put it here, but other manuscripts have it, the NIV has omitted the Virgin Birth stating that a young girl gave birth, not a virgin but a young girl, young girls have babies all the time , but for a virgin to have birth now that a miracle also the NIV has omitted the Blood atonement in Col. someone else needs to do there research

      • This is dumb and nothing new. First of all HarperCollins is not a Christian publishing company they publish all kinds of books. Secondly, if you read the NIV there are footnotes for someone who wants to see what different versions might say. Not all versions say the same thing. It’s usually not a difference in meaning only in text. Whatever you are reading study to show thyself approved and there shouldn’t be any problem.

  6. The 1611 KJV is the closest to the original Hebrew translation…..to get to the intended understanding u should study the Paleo Hebrew

    • actually according to The Word of God, KJV -there is no searching out of God’s understanding… Yet It is Our Heavenly Father’s pleasure to give unto us His little flock the Kingdom. God is revealing His Word unto His Holy Apostles and prophets… : This is our Father’s Will in having SENT Jesus both then and NOw as our Comforter, that Of ALL things given The Son -He should lose nothing (no Word of truth) but That He Jesus should RAISE it up at this the last day. There is nothing hid but THAT IT SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST. Rest in our Lord, Learn of His “Me” and know The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us -HIS CHURCH😇

  7. This isn’t anything new. This was brought to light more than 20 years ago at least. Although somewhat informative, Erica is trying to give the perception that she got a glorious revelation from God. Give credit where’s it due – she didn’t research this – she merely copied and pasted. I’m not hatin’ nor throwing shade, but honey, trying to use pseudo revelation to stay relevant is pathetic to, to say the least.

  8. Warrior for Christ Sep 12, 2015, 4:29 PM

    So while you all argue about if it true if it in there it is not. What really matters in the day that is coming If you are living it and moreover IF THAT WORD IS IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS.People of great statue will be used to show you things that make you say mmmmm. is this true and that true and cause confusion. Don’t let it get to you with all of that. Just know that whatever is personal in your life that is in God’s word that is for you,God will reveal all things to you through manifestation of his spirit and show you himself and who he is. And you will never doubt anything.

  9. all copyrighted so called bibles are not Gods Word but owned by men are taken from phoney catholic corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaticus manuscripts that don’t agree with textus receptus over 5000 manuscripts that were perfect from which we get the perfect non copyrighted kj bible see https://www.facebook.com/groups/585763288112228/

  10. I looked on the Harper Collins website and did not find the NIV Bible, But I did find these: NRSV Bible, The New American Bible (catholic Bible) The Satanic Bible. FYI: the King James Bible is not under copyright Law in the USA but it is under copyright law in England.

  11. How true is this? I’m not questioning your accuracy but with all the hoaxes that circulate our world today, it’s so hard to distinguish a fact.

    • This is no hoax but truth. The devil is out to concur the saints by messing with the very thing we need. That is the VERY WORD OF GOD THE FATHER!

  12. All you have to do is pick up the NIV and look yourself, the verses are missing. They are missing from other versions as well because Satan has been at work to deceive of course. But if you can’t get one, simply go to Bible Gateway or Bible Hub and you can type in the scriptures, and for those verses, it comes up empty and doesn’t show the text. You can verify it yourself, it takes only a few seconds to do so! It’s not a hoax!

  13. How is this different from the many other Versions that put their own spin on translations. The Bible has been changed many times over the years, additions and subtractions and redactions

  14. I just ran into this and found out that all those verses mentioned were actually not included in my NIV Bible app. Those verses mentioned were missing and am using the android app NIV Bible from “Tecarta, Inc.” I sent a message to Tecarta informing a missing verse which I found before and still got no response yet.

  15. The NIV is not translated from the KJV. It is a translation based on “other” manuscripts. The issue is which supporting manuscripts are the most reliable. The most credible KJV supporters base their argument on the reliability of the manuscripts that the KJV is based on, and they discredit the so-called “more accurate” manuscripts.

  16. Helen Thomas, Mrs. Sep 13, 2015, 9:14 AM

    The NIV did not remove anything. Historically, the KJV addad verses! Personally, I am sick and tired of thie foolishness. It is totally unnecessary. Gere’s why: the HOLY SPIRIT is in the hearts and minds of true believers. So no matter what version we read and study, (, KJV, NKJV, ESV, CEV,). HIS WORD, HIS CHARACTER, HIS LIFE, HIS WILL is fully understood.
    People who concentrate on the logos usually are lacking the Rhema.

    Stop devouring your brothers and sisters! Study to be approved!

    Erica, please be quiet and sit down.

    • Can we read the Jehovah Witness Bible too?

      • There are so many errors in this statement I don’t know where to start.

        1) The NIV was not translated from the KJV. The NIV was translated directly from the Greek (as was the KJV).

        2) The KJV was translated in the early 17th century from a set of scrolls generally known as the textus receptus. The earliest of these dated to the 5th Century A.D. Since the translation of the KJV numerous newer Greek manuscripts have been discovered dating to the 4th and 3rd Centuries and even earlier. This led to the creation of the Critical Text from which most modern translations were created.

        3. The NIV, ESV and just about every other modern translation did not remove these passages, they simply were not there in the earlier manuscripts which have been discovered since the KJV was translated and therefore they were left out. Hence, given the best available evidence, it is the KJV that has added to Holy Scripture and is therefore anathema.

    • Helen I have to disagree with you. She is correct the NIV has been leaving out words and verses. To get a copy right there has to be at least a certain percentage of difference in books. How do you think they get this percentage? By leaving out words and whole verses! So you should take your own advice study to be approved! A LOVING BROTHER IN THE FAITH!

    • Lawrence Jones Sep 13, 2015, 7:16 PM

      Rubbish beyond rubbish, these verses were taken from the Geneva bible and beyond, then into the K.J.V. they have served the world well until this past thirty years or so when people have turned to a plethora of man made media books printed to tickle the ears of it’s readers, hence we are living in a world full of chaos with no true faith or morals…..You say that the Holy Spirit is fully understood. Well now lets look at that, Moslems believe in Jesus and worship him as a son of God, not THE SON OF GOD, really. All the various cults say they have the Holy Spirit, really AND I COULD CARRY ON…..However, Jesus say’s we must be BORN AGAIN, not added words…..Jesus say’s we are WASHED IN THE BLOOD, not added words…..Jesus says’s we MUST NOT TAKE AWAY THE WORDS FROM HIS FATHERS WORDS IN THE FATHERS BOOK, not added words.
      I am sorry Mrs Hilary Thomas but it is you who really must STUDY GODS WORD, BELIEVE GODS WORD AND PUT GODS WORD INTO PRACTICE. and not try to defend the words of athiest’s under the guise of being Holy.

      • Excuse me! Muslims DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ is “a son of God”. They accept him as a prophet & important messenger of God & that is it. He is regarded just as the other prophets are. That faith believes that God was not begotten nor did he begat any children. I wish you would ask some Muslims if they worship Jesus Christ!!! That is their main concern with Christianity- that we worship more than God, the Father.

        • Have any of you read what it says in Revelation 22:18,19 – “For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of this prophecy of this book, If any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: vs 19
          And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” Reader’s Digest…also decided to come up with a condensed Bible, in which they deleted all the Begats in the Book of Matthew!! The Begats that they thought were so unnecessary, had to do with Divine Forgiveness all the way back through the Old Testament and to tie the Old Testament Concealed to the New Testament Revealed!! That was this lineage of Jesus Christ the Divine Son of the Living God, Jehovah…the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!! This young lady is very correct, has done her homework and has studied to show herself approved, a workman not to be ashamed!! Also, check out the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6 starting with verse 9! It ends with the word ‘evil’….the power and glory forever has been taken off in the 2011 version on NIV!! Not so in the 1984 version of NIV….It has now been deleted, as in NO longer there!!!

    • I disagree. The KJV is the most accurate. I suggest that all serious students get one, as well as a Strong’s Concordance & do a word by word study. You would be stunned at how far today’s translations are from the original texts/languages. The real danger is when the actual meaning of the verse is changed.

  17. My NLT is missing those as well…

  18. Please refer to Wiki for accurate information: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of International Bible Society in the United States and other countries. IBS, the IBS Logo, and IBSDIRECT.COM and the IBSDIRECT.COM Logo are trademarks and service marks of IBS. All other trademarks, service marks, and logos used in this Web Site are the trademarks, service marks, or logos of their respective owners. Other trademarks of IBS may be added from time to time on this site. In order to preclude confusion among our visitors, the trademarks and service marks of IBS may not be used in any manner in connection with any product or service that is not a product or service of IBS, without the prior written consent of IBS. By using this Web Site, you acknowledge the validity and enforceability of the IBS trademarks and agree that you will not in any way infringe, either directly or indirectly, the IBS trademarks.

    • Anyone can post anything on WIKI. Regardless of what their “rules” are. Wiki is not accurate.

  19. Its also removed on the online app bible in the ESV … when the bible clearly states
    Revelation 22:18-19 ESV

    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

    Proverbs 30:5-6 ESV

    Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

    Deuteronomy 4:2 ESV

    You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

    Deuteronomy 12:32 ESV

    “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

    Revelation 22:18 ESV

    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,

    Revelation 22:19 ESV

    And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

    Matthew 24:24 ESV

    For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

  20. King James Version also has flaws. And the name Jehovah is not in the original Hebrew script

    • Lawrence Jones Sep 14, 2015, 2:32 AM

      No Jehovah is not in the Hebrew script as are many other names also not there, however if we take out the vowels then we have JHVH which is I believe there as are the others without vowels…..The K.J.V. does have flaws as all translations do as it is impossible to translate all words into all languages, however if we look at all the scriptures found in the past 2,000 years we find the K.J.V. to be the closest to them all.
      In the qumran scrolls found in I think 1947, we have the largest piece of an ancient manuscript in the book of Isaiah which is almost identical to the K.J.V. Like I say, because of translations, all versions have minor flaws, but if we look through history, under the teaching of the K.J.V for over 400 years millions have accepted Christ, whole nations have turned their lives around…..Yet in recent years since all these various versions have emerged Christianity is dying a death in the western nations, Christians are fighting each other over scriptures and denominations etc and all because everyone uses ear tickling modern versions which have no substance…..Satan has cause great confusion in the church and the church is losing.

  21. if anyone is in doubt then just watch the documentary “New World Order: Bible Versions” clearly explained and documented

  22. My App as well as my NIV Study Bible do not have these verses, but they both make note that they are missing and refer to other books in the Bible where the same verse is included. I have been using the NIV for years and have been in many bible study classes and the differences in the NIV are not in my opinion, deceiving. I have however taken a stance against people using the book “The Message” in place of a translation of the Bible. The Message is an interpretation of how one person reads the Bible and not a Translation such as the NIV, which goes back to the original Hebrew and translates it into modern language.

    • CHUCK: If you have been using the 1984 Translation of the NIV, it is much different than the newer translation/version as in the 2011 version….they have removed many verses, having to do with the Deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God, Virgin Birth and on and on!! Please try and do your comparison with the 1984 version and the newer and you will see the Erica is indeed very correct!

  23. The King James version is not the Bible the pilgrims brought here when they came to Jamestown and it did not take on popularity here in the U.S until the late 1780s or 1790s and besides the version most 20th century christians read was the third revision of it. The verses the NIV removed are the ones not found in the majority of manuscripts. They neither effect any major doctrines or take away from the deity of the infinite Holy Trinity nor the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all of its magnificent glory or His glorious return. People need to quit worshiping the KJV and look at it as one of many gifts from God as a translation of His word. I am more concerned about how congregations or individuals destroy the text of scripture with their hypocrisy and their denominational idolatrious worship and racism. And their political prostitution. Either their extreme legalism or their loose compromising liberal spineless garbage living.

    • Peter: What NIV translation or version are you referring to? The Copyright 1984 version or the later version 2011? It does make a very big difference!! My advice is to compare the two very different versions!!

  24. If you know anything about bible translations you,l know that this is only the surface.!All translations are flawed and the King James is no exception . No such thing as a perfect translation .A 100 years ago for exams all King James bibles had all apocryphal books in them,same ones in the catholic bible now.point is many verses authenticity cannot be confirmed.Whether you agree with the NiV omissions or not, they at least make the reader aware that there are omissions.Proper study and interpretation requires a comparison of many translations.

    • Actually the KJV translators did NOT use the Apocrypha but the printer added it for comparison as they thought people might want it. It states that it is not biblical.

      Also now that the KJV did not change any doctrine. It is true to the recited texts and agrees with the Tyndale, Geneva etc.

      The NIV indeed is corrupt. It’s made by homosexuals like Virginia Molenkott and Maryin Woudstra. It’s no wonder you won’t find key bible words like SODOMITE, ABOMINATION, REPROBATE in it yet alone the attacks on Jesus’ deity.

      • Sorry, my autocorrect butchered my grammar there. I meant to say that the kjv us true to the Received Text. A.k.a. The Textus Receptus.

        The NIV uses the Alexandrian / Catholic based perversion That was made popular by Hort and Westcott in the 1800’s.
        Just like you are trusting homosexuals for the NIV, they (AS well as the ESV, NLT etc) trust the Hort and Westcott version and they were into the occult!

        Look at the lineage folks!
        The Textus Rexeptus, Tyndale, KJV etc were brought to you by believers. All modern versions since are not.

      • I just read the NIV cause I have a bible of each translation and mine has all those words, nothing is exempted

        • Maria: what translation or version of the NIV were you comparing the 1984 version or the more recent one 2011? It does Make a very big difference….there the deleted many verses and word, just like Erica is stating!!

      • PATRICIA HARVEY Sep 15, 2015, 2:59 AM

        Agreed, Shawn. The Received Text is the basis for the KJV, which was translated for the purpose of education which had been withheld when the Catholic Church dominated religion. The translation of the Bible marked the religious separation from Rome in a way that the political separation did not. Hence the purity of the text. God preserved his Word. He is able; but it is up to us not to let the devil trick us with what is common. Common language changes without rhyme or reason and in the twinkling of an eye. The poetic form of English is why meaning and sense is preserved and can be checked against the Hebrew. Modern English types present difficulties, even with punctuation.

      • Shawn, I don’t see Mollenkott or Woudstra’s names on the list of translators or contributors to the NIV. Where did you get this information?

  25. Everyone’s favorite bible story:: David and Goliath. So, Who killed Goliath anyway? the corrupted niv would give the wrong answer. I believe that the kjv is Gods Word in our English language: infallible, inerrant, pure, word-for-word translation. There’s one thing all modern translations agree upon and that is their stance against the Kjv. I don’t want a new international Jesus or a revised Jesus. Try to revise a Picasso painting, a work of art and see what will happen to you. The KJV is a masterpiece that comes from pure majority manuscripts that’s why I believe it IS “THE WORD OF GOD” ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS CONTAIN THE WORDs OF GOD BUT to call them THE WORD OF GOD– no.

    • Jayla … by that argument then we would all have to read the scriptures in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why? Because King James persecuted the church, and in particular William Tyndale who first translated the scriptures into English, and was burned at the stake by the King.

      So, no. On the other hand, the KJV is a good translation but the RSV is more accurate, albeit somewhat less poetic in its translation. And who speaks in Elizabethan English these days? The idea then, as it was some hundreds of years before (Vulgate = Latin = Common language translation of it’s time) and should be now, is to have an accurate translation in the language of the people who are reading it so that they may read and understand it.

    • PATRICIA HARVEY Sep 15, 2015, 2:08 AM

      Our biggest problem is not getting history correct. James the first had no contact with the Bible except that as patron, he facilitated the translation. it was professionally and efficiently done, by 48 scholars whose main focus was to keep the Word pure and make it available to all. They abhorred what Roman Catholicism had done to the Word. A reading of the Dedicatory letter, which is left out of some KJV Bibles because it is embarrassingly straightforward, would show what the intention of the translators was.
      Led by eminent scholar, John Bois, the six teams of scholars made sure that the KJV was translated into the poetic form of English to match the Hebrew, which is also poetic. it was not translated into the common language. Therefore, it has preserved its integrity over the centuries since 1611.
      For the king, it was a memorable work to bear His name. When the matter was brought to him, he graciously consented and provided funds as all good patrons do. Thus the Word has remained pure .
      Lastly the Bible is a public work. The only way a public work can be legitimately reproduced for sale is for it to have a significant number of differences from all other versions of the work. Thus every other English version of the Bible since 1611 is by its very construction defective, especially those versions that have come from the Alexandrine Codex and all other codices since the Received Text. For reliable info on this, see these two presentations on Youtube by Walter Veith: “Changing the Word”, The Battle of the Bibles, Parts 1 & 2.

      • Thank you for that information! Everyone should read what you had to offer here! 🙂

  26. The 1611 King James is the perfect word of God. If all versions are flawed then God lied to us when he said he would preserve his word. Being the originals do not exist there is no way to go back to anything.

    • Which 1611 edition? There’s more than one. What about the kjv’s plagiarism of Tyndale’s translation? What about the inclusion of words not found in the original texts? I grew up on King Jimmy too and it’s a fair translation but it has problems too, just like the others and some worse. When the Scripture says that all of it is inspired and God-breathed, there was no jkv, so God was obviously referring to the language originally penned in Greek and Hebrew.

    • Lenny, the KJV is a fantastic version of the Bible, one of the most beautiful translations ever, especially that it was translated into English, a language that did not exist at the time of Jesus’s ministry in the flesh. But be aware that the New Testament was originally written in common Greek and the Old Testament in many dialects of Hebrew, plus some ;parts in Aramaic, the language Jesus Himself spoke. But also be aware that several earlier manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered since 1611, and they have helped us understand a bit more. Look at what verses have been omitted from the NIV (and many other versions in English and other languages), notice the notes in the margin about why. The Word of God is infallable and fully trustworthy, but don’t put all your faith in one version, especially a translation from the original languages, even if it IS the King James Version.

  27. I guess, I am really shocked. I have the King James Version along side with a Parallel Bible, New Living Translation. But, I just gave my grandchildren new NIV Bibles for Christmas last year. I am shocked by this information.

  28. Very shocked I purchased one today and I’m upset , I didn’t notice this until a friend told me, I’m upset I spent money on a bible that’s got words missing shm!!??! The bible book store won’t let me return it because my name is in it! How are you selling bibles like this. Riverside CA. I will make this a big thing maybe a law suit. What’s this world coming to

  29. Hi all. I certainly do not like the NIVs and for many reasons. But there is no need to exaggerate the claims against it. The NIVs are not omitting 45 whole verses. This is simply not true. It omits about 17 verses. It also omits about 2000 words from the New Testament – individual words, shorter phrases, but not 45 whole verses. The NIV frequently rejects the Hebrew readings and anything translated from the UBS (United Bible Society)/ Nestle-Aland critical Greek text is using the “inter confessional” text that is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. They come right out and tell you this on page 45 of the Nestle-Aland critical textbook 27th edition. One of the main editors of this UBS text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Just open to the first page and you will see his name.

    The NIV has enough wrong with it, without having to exaggerate its differences.

    Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”


    “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

    God bless.

  30. Corey Stringer Sep 15, 2015, 5:06 PM

    Before rushing to judgment, it is wise to do some research and study before taking someone’s comments as factually true. 1. Most of these versions will tell you in their margins that these verses has been omitted and left out. They are not fooling you or trying to deceive you, it is right there. 2. Bible translations are based on the manuscripts they are translated from. When the KJV Bible was written, it was translated from the oldest manuscripts available. Since that time, older manuscripts have been discovered. If you study those manuscripts, you will find that these verses that are left out are not in those manuscripts.

    As older manuscripts are found, you will probably see more differences in Bible translations, because they are trying to get as close to the original text as they can.

    • Older are not better, mostly they are the ones that were unused as they were corrupt. Any true manuscript got well read and was replaced by a newly written one. There are NO “originals”, all were carefully re-written to preserve them. If there are notes in your bibles that refer to omissions, you do not have the whole word of God as you do need to refer to notes when you read scripture. The NIV is a perverted “bible” as are ALL modern translations/transliterations. Only the King James Bible is the pure and preserved word of God in English. It has stood the test of time and proven itself to us all who use it.

    • Amen, Corey. Finally, someone who understands simple logic and bible translation.

  31. qlynn watkins Sep 16, 2015, 4:57 AM

    Well then its not a bible it a book of itself with an author and now is considered fictional history

  32. These are not omissions, but additions!

    • That’s wrong, just look at the verses Erica posted about.

      • You’re wrong. But my bad I should have explained better.

        The verses in question are spurious. They were discovered to have been ADDED. See Reco’s explanations – and mine – regarding manuscripts.

        And because these were added, they should not have been there in the first place and needed to be removed.

  33. Elizabeth Harris Sep 17, 2015, 11:27 PM

    Even with all of the above accusations about the NIV, God’s will is going to be done, and Jesus’ word will still come through the pages. Every written/spoken word by man is in his/her interpretation. This is why even if we are reading the King James version of the Bible to find the word of God, WE PRAY FIRST that GOD interprets to us what it is that he wants us to understand what is HIS WILL.

  34. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

  35. Erica says, “The NIV bible is a translated version of the Bible from the original King James version…” No, dear, the NIV was a completely NEW translation made by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Do your research.

    • discerningfire Sep 22, 2015, 3:07 AM

      do your research- the NIV is from the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaticus mss owned and manipulated by the Vatican according to the Nestle/Aland 27th edition. The verses missing and doctrinal differences in the text from the Receptus mss are authorized by the Vatican..

  36. The 8th Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) states: “We believe the Bible (King James version)to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly………..

  37. discerningfire Sep 22, 2015, 3:08 AM

    do your research- the NIV is from the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaticus mss owned and manipulated by the Vatican according to the Nestle/Aland 27th edition. The verses missing and doctrinal differences in the text from the Receptus mss are authorized by the Vatican..

  38. Please forgive me for being so blunt, but the level of ignorance this discussion is based on is a bit scary. The verses supposedly ‘removed’ from the KJV were actually added by the KJV and should never have been there in the first place. See the following short discussion: http://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html (especially note the recommended resources at the end of the article. Also consider Googling ‘textual criticism’ and see what faithful and competent Evangelical scholars have to say about the issue.
    Don’t fall for the King-James-Only deception or the heresies that often attend it. Even the editors of the NKJV know these verses don’t belong in the Bible and only included them because they knew it would make their translations sell better. It was an economic decision to include them, not a textual decision.

  39. Not only NIV have omitted those verses, but NLT too.

    • The NLT also (The Living Bible) states that it is a Paraphrase…look at the disclaimer in the front of it!! I remember years ago when the Living Bible was first published and we sent a copy to my Sister-in-law and she refused to read it because it did not have the Pope’s stamp of approval page in the front of it giving Catholics his permission to read it! But, of course she never bothered to read her Douay-Rheims Bible either! This was in the early1970’s.

  40. Just crossed referenced these verses from my phone’s bible app to my 1880 New Testament bible. It’s all there.

  41. Trenicia Spence Sep 14, 2016, 1:06 AM

    The same person that wrote the bible also wrote books with a wide-ranging discussion of witchcraft, necromancy, possession, demons, were-wolves, fairies and ghosts, in the form of a Socratic dialogue.

    • Randall Williams Oct 5, 2016, 6:15 AM

      Not true. Harper Collins did not write it. Biblical scholars translated it and were hired by Biblica and Zondervon. Harper Collins later bought the companies.

    • Derek J Williams Jun 5, 2017, 3:51 AM

      Title Daemonolgie

      • Derek J Williams Jun 5, 2017, 3:51 AM

        King James wrote it

        • King James HAD it redone to accommodate him. The Bible has been revised many times! … This new version may be more relevant, with modern English. This will bring some youth o God that would not read Old English language they can’t understand.

    • Martin Riegler Jun 12, 2017, 12:33 AM

      The Bible was written by any one person. It was written by over 40 different authors in three different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Which of those 40+ authors “also wrote books with a wide-ranging discussion of witchcraft, necromancy, possession, demons, were-wolves, fairies and ghosts, in the form of a Socratic dialogue.”

  42. This has been going on since Constantine a roman so called, translated the original Hebrew script. Then published it worldwide, even unto today. There are missing books that has very important information for believers,followers of the Hebrew way. Most importantly he removed the name of Salvation Yahshua, and the Father’s name YAH. Psalms 68:4 HalleluYah.

    • Randall Williams Oct 5, 2016, 6:19 AM

      There are not missing books. There were then as their are today rigorous test to see if a book can be put into the Bible. All of the books you speak of that are not there failed. Most often they were written in later centuries and tried to be passed as first century cannon.

  43. “Woe unto those who write the book (Torah n Gospel) with their own hands and claimed it is from God, woe unto them for what they fabricate and woe unto them for what they earn from it” (Quran)
    Muslims had long been taught about dis Christians corruption of the Bible by God in the Holy Quran, d Bible through ages was massively corrupted by some Christians doctors to suit their desire. Today Quran remained d only book on earth pure as it was revealed by God. Muslims all over the world memorise d Holy Quran so that it become practically impossible to corrupt it nomatter d mischief. We all invite u to study Quran with open heart, i believe u will c for yourselves how Quran make difference.

    • Oga, The Quran has @ least 3 different versions, teaching their followers different things. ISIS and boko haram are definitely reading a version

    • the qu’ran has major issues as well with manuscripts being burnt. The bible has survived many things the qu’ran hasn’t gone through yet. If you have a problem with a translation, go for the original greek and hebrew manuscripts

    • Martin Riegler Jun 12, 2017, 12:57 AM

      The Quran refers to the Old and New Testaments as being revealed from God, and therefore are the Word of God. It also says the Word of God cannot be corrupted. The Muslims who claim the Bible is corrupted are in conflict with the Quran.

      “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them” (3:84 AYA).

      “And when there cometh unto them (Jews) a Scripture (the Qur’an) from Allah, confirming that in their possession” (2:89 MP).

      “This Koran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book” (10:37 AYA/38 MP).

      “Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers”. (5:47, MP)
      As for the Quran being the only perfectly preserved book, I ask which Quran do you read? The Sana Quran? The 1912 Quran? The Samarqand Quran? The Topkapi Quran? Or any of a number of different versions known to exist that contain scribal errors, editing, omissions, redactions and additions?

  44. Charlesetta Brown Sep 21, 2016, 12:19 PM

    Good looking out Erica!

  45. Steven Moutoux Nov 4, 2016, 6:37 PM

    The KJV was authorized by King James so that he could put his name on the Bible! King James was a notorious homosexual and loved to debate. The KJV was basically a rewrite of the Geneva Bible. The KJV was first published in 1611. It included the 66 books of the Bible that we all know and love, but also included the 14 books known as the Apocrapha (the books in every Catholic Bible). As a matter of historical fact, the yearly editions of the KJV included the extra 14 books until 1629. They were taken out because the Pilgrims put up a big stink about them being in there. Actually the Geneva Bible had stopped putting them in that edition in 1600. Many of the older manuscripts do not have some of the verses that are left out. Mark 16:12-20 are not found in the older manuscripts and seem to contradict other Biblical teaching. There are verses added in Acts, 1 John, etc that are not in the older manuscripts. So the argument is not about changing doctrine of leaving out Scripture, but a desire not to add to Scripture that which was not intended or inspired by God.

    • Martin Riegler Jun 12, 2017, 12:25 AM

      How exactly does Mark 16:12-20 contradict other Biblical teachings?

    • He was not gay, white or homosexual. You people just want to continue trying to hide the fact that black people are the true Hebrew Israelites and you people stole our heritage and history. King James had been proven to not be gay or one of you. He was black with a black wife.

  46. Shakespear hid his name in the Kjv . Also the KJV has over 200 contradictions , don’t believe me look up contradictions of the bible . Talk about misleading people .

  47. Gushmoe Yaholam Makkah Jun 1, 2017, 8:45 PM

    The King Jame I know was not gay and that is a lie that came out decades after he died buy a racist hater by the name Weldon

    • George Davidson Jun 6, 2017, 10:59 PM

      How can you prove it. You see this is the big problem I do not know what the truth is and is there any way of getting to THE TRUTH?

  48. Gushmoe Yaholam Makkah Jun 1, 2017, 8:46 PM

    King Jame has be white wash and lied on.

  49. Cornelius Harrison Jun 2, 2017, 4:12 AM

    You all believing in a lie. Have faith & believe in yourself.. The God from within you.. Not a book published for profit, written by man.

    • Jeff Campbell Jun 4, 2017, 5:23 PM

      Amen my brother teach it bcuz as u can see it’s alot of lost souls out here #StayPrayedUp 🙏🙏🙏

    • Martin Riegler Jun 12, 2017, 12:30 AM

      1) The Old and New Testament Scriptures were not published for profit when they were written. Especially given that it cost a lot of money to have them copied by hand. However, even if they were published for profit, as you assert, that in no way demonstrates that they are lies or contain lies.

      2) Yes, they were written by men; however, these were men inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, even if they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, that in no way demonstrates that they are lies or contain lies.
      3) What evidence do you have that Christianity is a lie or that it contains lies? Do keep in mind, that any assertion you make without evidence to substantiate it will be challenged.
      4) What evidence do you have that god is “from within” each of us? If you are correct, and Christianity is a lie, why would we believe you’re assertion that god comes from within ourselves?

      • Cornelius Harrison Jun 12, 2017, 1:00 AM

        I’m not here to debate with you sir, you have goigle just like i do look it up for yourself. All thus technology out here & you wan debate with me over a dumb ass topic as christianity. Go to google. & type in Christianity is a lie, and see how many searches you will find pick one out and read or watch. The information age is well upon us, you have the tools to find out yourself. Get busy, & learn something.

  50. Colin Fuller Jun 5, 2017, 4:32 AM

    For years we have been calling the niv bible the (not in version) it has been so watered down it’s ridiculous.

    • George Davidson Jun 6, 2017, 10:57 PM

      What do you think of the ESV? I like it and maybe you do too. I use the John Mcarter version.

  51. The NIV was NOT translated from the AKJV 1611… IT was translated from a catholic text found in a trash can in a catholic monastery!!!

  52. Martin Riegler Jun 12, 2017, 12:24 AM

    Those verses were most likely removed through the scholarly science of textual criticism because they are not found in any of the earliest manuscripts. There’s no conspiracy, cover-up or corruption of the text. Those verses weren’t originally there and were later mistakenly added by scribes copying the New Testament. There’s nothing new or controversial about this for those who actually study the Bible and its history.

Comments are closed.