KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse

KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse

Explore the differences between KJV and NIV Bible translations, including omitted verses like Matthew 17:21 and Ezekiel 13:20’s rapture implications

KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse Comparison and Rapture Doctrine Study

As Christians seeking to live by God’s Word, choosing a Bible translation is a deeply spiritual decision. The King James Version (KJV) and New International Version (NIV) are two of the most popular translations, but they differ in ways that spark heated debates. Some claim the NIV makes “dangerous changes,” omitting verses like Matthew 17:21 or altering Isaiah 14:12, potentially confusing new believers or even promoting false doctrines like the rapture. Others argue the NIV’s modern language and older manuscripts bring us closer to the original texts.

In this post, we’ll compare the KJV and NIV through a verse-by-verse analysis, including reader concerns about Matthew 17:21, John 5:4, Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 13:20, and additional verses like 1 John 5:7 and Colossians 1:14. We’ll also study the rapture doctrine in both translations, addressing claims that the NIV’s changes (e.g., Ezekiel 13:20) support a false teaching. Download our free PDF comparison chart to follow along!

KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse Comparison?

The KJV (1611, revised 1769) is beloved for its poetic, word-for-word translation and reliance on the Textus Receptus (Byzantine manuscripts). Its archaic language (“thee,” “thou”) carries a timeless reverence but can challenge modern readers. The NIV (1978, revised 2011) uses a thought-for-thought approach, drawing from older Alexandrian manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, ~350 AD) for readability at an 8th-grade level.

These differences stem from:

• Manuscripts: KJV uses later Byzantine texts (5th–16th centuries), while NIV prioritizes earlier Alexandrian texts (2nd–4th centuries), omitting verses absent in older copies.
• Philosophy: KJV’s formal equivalence preserves structure; NIV’s dynamic equivalence prioritizes meaning.
• Language: KJV’s Elizabethan English vs. NIV’s modern English.

Critics of the NIV argue omissions like Matthew 17:21 weaken doctrines (e.g., fasting), while KJV advocates face scrutiny for relying on potentially expanded manuscripts. Let’s dive into the verses and rapture concerns to uncover the truth.

KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse Comparison

Below, we analyze key verses, including those raised by readers, to assess differences, manuscript evidence, and theological impact. Each comparison evaluates whether changes are “dangerous” or faithful to God’s Word.

1. Matthew 17:21 – Prayer and Fasting

• KJV: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
• NIV: Omitted, with footnote: “Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.”
• Context: Jesus explains why disciples couldn’t cast out a demon (Matthew 17:14–20).
• Manuscripts: Present in Textus Receptus (KJV), absent in Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus (NIV). Likely assimilated from Mark 9:29 (“This kind can come out only by prayer”).
• Impact: The NIV retains prayer’s power in Mark 9:29 and fasting’s importance elsewhere (e.g., Matthew 6:16–18). No doctrinal loss, but KJV emphasizes fasting explicitly.
• Verdict: NIV’s omission is based on early manuscripts, not an attack on fasting. Study both translations for clarity.

2. John 5:4 – Angel at Bethesda

• KJV: “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
• NIV: Omitted, with footnote: “Some manuscripts include… an angel of the Lord would come down and stir the waters.”
• Context: Jesus heals a man at Bethesda (John 5:1–15).
• Manuscripts: Present in Textus Receptus, absent in early Alexandrian texts. Likely a marginal note explaining John 5:7’s “stirred water.”
• Impact: The healing narrative remains intact (John 5:7–9). No core doctrine is altered.
• Verdict: NIV’s omission reflects manuscript evidence, preserving the story’s meaning.

3. Isaiah 14:12 – Lucifer vs. Morning Star

Isaiah 14, Lucifer = bright stare/morning stare. That’s Christ name, Lucifer copy’s Christ does. By removing Lucifer name in Isaiah 14, the newbie wont know which one its talking about?

• KJV: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”
• NIV: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!”
• Context: Taunt against Babylon’s king, often linked to Satan’s fall (Isaiah 14:1–23).
• Manuscripts: Hebrew הֵילֵל (helel, “shining one/morning star”). KJV uses Latin “Lucifer” (Vulgate); NIV translates directly.
• Concern: NIV’s “morning star” matches Revelation 22:16 (Christ), risking confusion.
• Impact: Context clarifies Isaiah 14:12 (rebellious fall) vs. Revelation 22:16 (Christ’s exaltation). Study notes resolve ambiguity.
• Verdict: NIV’s translation is accurate, but KJV’s “Lucifer” aids new readers in distinguishing Satan.

4. Ezekiel 13:20 – Souls Flying or Birds?

Ezekiel 13, the manuscripts clearly say… I am against those that teach my children to fly to save there soles. The NIV translates it to birds flying and that has nothing to do with the subject. You can not wright birds in the manuscripts unless your deliberately trying to change God’s word there and instill the false rapture doctrine.

• KJV: “Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly… and will let the souls go.”
• NIV: “I am against your magic charms with which you ensnare people like birds… I will set free the people.”
• Context: God condemns false prophetesses (Ezekiel 13:1–23).
• Manuscripts: Hebrew נְּפָשׁוֹת לְפֹרְחוֹת (nefashot leforchot, “souls to fly”). NIV’s “like birds” is a metaphor for trapping; KJV is literal.
• Concern: KJV suggests a warning against false rapture; NIV’s “birds” allegedly promotes it.
• Impact: Neither translation teaches rapture (context: deception). NIV clarifies the trapping metaphor; KJV supports varied interpretations.
• Verdict: Both are faithful to the Hebrew; no evidence NIV promotes rapture.

5. 1 John 5:7 – The Trinity

• KJV: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
• NIV: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”
• Context: Assurance of eternal life through Christ (1 John 5:5–13).
• Manuscripts: KJV’s Trinitarian phrase (Comma Johanneum) appears in late manuscripts (16th century); NIV follows early texts (e.g., Sinaiticus).
• Impact: NIV omits explicit Trinity reference, but it’s supported elsewhere (Matthew 28:19). KJV strengthens Trinitarian clarity.
• Verdict: NIV’s omission aligns with early manuscripts, but KJV’s inclusion is valued by traditionalists.

6. Colossians 1:14 – Through His Blood

• KJV: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
• NIV: “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
• Context: Christ’s supremacy (Colossians 1:9–20).
• Manuscripts: “Through his blood” absent in early texts (e.g., Vaticanus); present in Textus Receptus.
• Impact: NIV retains redemption’s meaning; blood’s role is clear in Ephesians 1:7. KJV emphasizes atonement.
• Verdict: No doctrinal loss in NIV, but KJV’s phrasing is more explicit.

7. Acts 8:37 – Baptismal Confession

• KJV: “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
• NIV: Omitted, with footnote: “Some manuscripts add verse 37.”
• Context: Philip baptizes the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–40).
• Manuscripts: Present in Textus Receptus, absent in early texts. Likely a later addition for baptismal liturgy.
• Impact: NIV retains baptism’s importance (Acts 8:36–38). Faith in Christ is clear elsewhere (John 3:16).
• Verdict: NIV’s omission is manuscript-based; doctrine remains intact.

---

Rapture Doctrine in NIV and KJV

Readers have raised concerns that NIV changes, like Ezekiel 13:20’s “like birds,” promote a false rapture doctrine—the belief that believers will be “caught up” to heaven before a tribulation (pre-tribulation rapture, popularized in the 19th century). Let’s examine rapture-related passages in both translations to assess this claim.

1. 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 – The Core Rapture Passage

• KJV: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout… and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
• NIV: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command… and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”
• Analysis:
  • Both use “caught up” (Greek: ἁρπάζω, harpazo, “snatched away”), the basis for rapture theology.
  • Minor wording differences (“shall” vs. “will,” “remain” vs. “are left”) don’t alter meaning.
  • Neither explicitly teaches pre-tribulation rapture; interpretations (pre-, mid-, post-tribulation) depend on other passages (e.g., Revelation 3:10).
• Impact: Identical in doctrine; no evidence NIV promotes rapture differently.

2. Matthew 24:40–41 – Taken or Left

• KJV: “Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
• NIV: “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.”
• Analysis:
  • Both describe a sudden separation, often linked to rapture or judgment.
  • NIV’s “men” vs. KJV’s gender-neutral “two” reflects inclusive language but doesn’t change doctrine.
  • Context (Matthew 24:36–44) suggests judgment (like Noah’s flood), not necessarily rapture.
• Impact: No doctrinal difference; rapture interpretation depends on theology, not translation.

3. Ezekiel 13:20 – Rapture Misinterpretation?

Ezekiel 13, the manuscripts clearly say… I am against those that teach my children to fly to save there soles. The NIV translates it to birds flying and that has nothing to do with the subject. You can not wright birds in the manuscripts unless your deliberately trying to change God’s word there and instill the false rapture doctrine.

• KJV: “Hunt the souls to make them fly.”
• NIV: “Ensnare people like birds.”
• Analysis (See above):
  • Hebrew נְּפָשׁוֹת לְפֹרְחוֹת (souls to fly) supports both translations.
  • Context: False prophetesses deceiving Israel, not eschatology.
  • Claim that NIV’s “like birds” promotes rapture is unsupported; the passage condemns deception, not a “flying away” doctrine.
• Impact: Neither translation teaches rapture. KJV’s literal phrasing may align with anti-rapture views, but NIV’s metaphor is equally valid.

4. Revelation 3:10 – Kept from the Hour

• KJV: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”
• NIV: “Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.”
• Analysis:
  • Both suggest protection from a global trial, often cited in pre-tribulation rapture theology.
  • Minor wording (“temptation” vs. “trial,” “dwell” vs. “inhabitants”) doesn’t alter meaning.
• Impact: Identical in supporting rapture interpretations; no NIV bias.

Rapture Conclusion: The NIV and KJV present rapture-related passages (1 Thessalonians 4:17, Matthew 24:40–41, Revelation 3:10) with no significant differences. Ezekiel 13:20’s “like birds” (NIV) doesn’t promote rapture, as it addresses deception, not eschatology. Rapture doctrine depends on theological interpretation, not translation changes. Study both versions with resources like The Rapture Question by John Walvoord for clarity.

---

Which Translation Should You Choose?

• KJV:
  • Pros: Poetic, traditional, includes Textus Receptus verses (e.g., Matthew 17:21), resonates with those wary of modern changes.
  • Cons: Archaic language (12th-grade reading level), later manuscripts may include copyist additions.
  • Best For: Traditionalists, in-depth study with Strong’s Concordance, those prioritizing “Lucifer” (Isaiah 14:12) or fasting (Matthew 17:21).
• NIV:
  • Pros: Readable (8th-grade level), based on older manuscripts (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus), accessible for new believers.
  • Cons: Omits verses (e.g., John 5:4), “morning star” (Isaiah 14:12) may confuse without study.
  • Best For: Teaching, children, non-native speakers, those seeking modern clarity.
• Hybrid Approach: Use both via BibleGateway.com or a Comparative Study Bible. Cross-reference omitted verses with footnotes and study notes.

KJV vs NIV Verse by Verse Comparison.