Do Newer Translations Leave Out Verses?

A meme has been passed around a good bit, usually with a warning that these newer versions, like the NIV, have removed certain phrases and verses. This is quite misleading and does not comport with how translations work and why certain phrases and passages are “missing.” The truth is, one could just as well argue that the KJV and some older translations “added” words to Scripture, which is just as wrong. But this all really misses the point.

Take the passages in the meme. Luke 9:56 in newer translations does not have what the KJV has. This is not because of some sinister plot to take things out of Scripture. Rather, passages like this are simply not present in the older manuscripts. Since the KJV was done, many more manuscripts have come to light, and most newer translations use the earlier manuscripts instead of the later ones that were relied upon by those who did the KJV.

Further, the exact same teaching appealed to in Matthew 18:11 is found in Luke 19:10, and the NIV didn’t remove that. If there was some conspiracy to remove things from Scripture, why leave in a passage that says the same thing elsewhere? It comes down to the use of ancient manuscripts that were not available when the KJV was made.

In fact, the reason certain passages like that are missing is due to efforts to be true to what is legitimately Scripture. If phrases and words are added where they do not belong, is that not also a problem? This is why the work of textual criticism is so important (i.e., the task of finding and verifying the original text, necessary for any translation to exist).

We have at our disposal a great amount of information that we can study to learn how the process works. It’s not like printing NIVs or ESVs or NASBs is going to make the KJV and NKJV disappear, translations that rely on other, later manuscripts. Those who worked on those newer translations were not trying to pull a fast one and take stuff out of the Bible. They include or don’t include passages and phrases because they want to be as accurate and honest as possible with the evidence they have in the manuscript families.

We need to be accurate and honest, so if there is evidence that the earliest books of Scripture did not contain some words that were later added, what should our response then be? Unless you begin with the premise that the KJV is somehow the only inspired translation allowed (which is not tenable), we need to make sure we aren’t overstating a case based on a lack of knowledge about how this works.

You might agree or disagree with translation choices (the NIV is not my favorite), and you might argue that we should be using later manuscripts or even the majority text, but we cannot rightly make an argument about it until we understand the reasons for the choices made in these versions. And let’s remember that these newer translations (not to be conflated with paraphrases) will still lead us to understand God’s will, as will the KJV and NKJV. No vital teaching is changed. But bad arguments and misleading memes will not help us.