If you’ve ever compared the King James Version (KJV) or the New King James Version (NKJV) to more contemporary translations like the New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), or New Living Translation (NLT), you may have noticed that some verses are absent from the newer texts. For instance, verses such as John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7 are often omitted. Additionally, Mark 16:9–20 is sometimes included in footnotes or brackets. This leads to a common question: Are newer translations removing verses from the Bible?
The answer is no. These translations aren’t taking verses out of the Bible; rather, they aim to present the original writings of the biblical authors as accurately as possible. The omissions reflect the consensus among many scholars that these verses may not have been part of the earliest manuscripts.
To understand this, it's essential to consider the history of Bible translation. The KJV was completed in 1611 and utilized a Greek manuscript known as the Textus Receptus. Since then, numerous biblical manuscripts have been uncovered that date back even further than the Textus Receptus. These older manuscripts are often deemed more reliable. Scholars and textual critics have identified discrepancies between the Textus Receptus and these earlier texts, revealing that over centuries, certain words, phrases, and sentences were likely added to the Bible—either intentionally or unintentionally.
The verses that are often considered "missing" are simply not found in some of the oldest and most authoritative manuscripts. Consequently, newer translations either omit these verses or include them in footnotes, signifying that they may not belong in the original text.
Take, for example, John 5:4. The KJV includes this verse, but the NKJV notes that it is absent in many Greek texts. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) places it in brackets, while the NIV includes it in a footnote. This verse states: “waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.”
How did this verse end up in the Bible in the first place? One possibility is that a scribe, while copying the text, included a marginal note to clarify why the invalid was waiting by the pool. This note likely aimed to help readers understand the context better. However, over time, as copies were made, this explanatory note may have been mistakenly integrated into the actual text. What began as a helpful comment inadvertently became part of the scripture itself.
It’s important to note that the verses in question are not crucial to the central themes of the Bible. They do not alter core doctrines, such as the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the concept of salvation, or the nature of God. The essential truths of the faith remain intact through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who preserves the Word for all generations.
In summary, the discussions surrounding missing verses in modern translations are not about removing or adding to Scripture. Instead, they reflect an ongoing effort to uncover what was likely present in the original manuscripts. Through meticulous research and textual analysis, scholars strive to bring us closer to the authentic biblical text.
