The following NIV Bible Quiz is from a web site, not by Gail Riplinger, but by someone typical of her and her enthusiasts. That web site’s words are in black, and my words are in blue. There were a few other passages discussed, but I have only included the ones in the gospels, since that is my area of specialty.

NIV Bible Quiz

Bet you can’t find answers to the following questions using a New International Version (NIV) bible! Answers must be found in the text, not in the footnotes. This is an easy test, because it is open book. But it is an important test. Your salvation is at risk! (Take note of this assertion; let’s see if any of the examples given would put your salvation at risk.)

1. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

NIV: Matthew 17:21 is entirely missing.

KJV: “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.“

The only way certain devils will go out is through prayer and fasting. Yet, this vital information is missing from the NIV text.

His statement that the only way that this kind of devil will go out is through prayer and fasting, is dependent on the King James Version having the correct reading. But what if the earlier Greek manuscripts that do not contain this, are the correct ones? Then his assertion would be false. Thus his argument hangs on itself, on a hook in the sky attached to nothing but his own argument that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV. The point is, he has not proven or backed up his assertion in any satisfactory way whatsoever. What we should do is (A.) examine the textual evidence in the variations of readings in the Greek manuscripts, and (B.) examine the internal evidence of the Bible story itself.

A. The textual variations

Witnesses not containing Mt 17:21	Witnesses containing Mt 17:21
Aleph, 4th century, Alexandrian Branch	C 5th century, Alexandrian Branch
B 4th century, Alexandrian Branch	D 5th century, Western Branch
Italic e, 5th century, Western Branch	W 5th century
Syriac, Sinaitic, 3rd-4th cent, Western Branch	Italic a, 4th century, Western Branch
Syriac, Curetonian, 3rd-4th cnt, Western Branch	Italic b, 5th century, Western Branch
Syriac, Palestinian, 6th cent, Caesarean Branch	Italic d, 5th century, Western Branch
Coptic, Sahadic, 3rd cent, Alexandrian Branch	Vulgate, 4th-5th century, Western Branch
Coptic, Bohairic, 3rd cent, Alexandrian Branch	Coptic, Middle Egyptian, 4th-5th century
Ethiopic, about year 500	Armenian, 5th century, Caesarean branch

Observe that the gospel of Matthew WITHOUT verse 17:21 had spread to Caesarea, Syria, Egypt, and Rome by the 200’s, before the verse was ever added. There would have been no reason to take the verse out. What happened is that some copyists added the verse to harmonize Matthew’s account with Mark 9:29. This adding a verse to one gospel, to make it harmonize with one of the other gospels, is one of the most common reasons that words were added to the text, that were not originally penned by the author.

B. The Internal Evidence of the Bible Text Itself

14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, 15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is a lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. 16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. 17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. 18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. [21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.]

I would make four observations: (1.) Jesus succeeded in casting this demon out, and he did not have to fast to do it. (2.) Jesus told the disciples very clearly and specifically, that the reason they could not cast this demon out, was because of their unbelief (not their lack of fasting.) In fact, he said you don’t even have to have faith any bigger than a mustard seed, so fasting won’t improve your faith. (3.) If fasting is indeed necessary to cast out this demon, then how long must you fast? A fast means going without meals, so that would have to be at least half a day, to even begin to be maybe considered a fast. What do you do with the demoniac in the meantime, while you are fasting? Imprison him? Shackle him? Drug him? (4.) There is not a single instance in the Bible where Christ or his apostles had to fast in order to cast out a demon.

CONCLUSION: In the parallel passage in Mark 9:29, the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the word “fasting” there, either. Ascetic elements gained much influence in the church a few centuries later, but the apostle Paul warned us in Colossians 2:23 against the idea that harsh treatment of the body has any spiritual value. And in terms of textual genealogy and the science of determining which is the original reading, this case is given an “A” rating of certainty by the United Bible Society’s editorial committee, that it is certain that the original did not include Matthew 17:21.

2. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus say He came to earth?

NIV: Matthew 18:11 is entirely missing.

KJV: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.“

What a tragedy. This important verse on the reason Jesus came to earth is lost to the readers of the NIV.

My immediate response to this is just to laugh. Such alarmism. This concept is not lost to readers of the NIV! The NIV says in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” In fact, the entire 15th chapter of Luke, is devoted to this single concept! Matthew 18:11 is only a “tragedy” if you are the kind of interpreter of the Bible who relies on only one verse as basis for your teaching. That is what cults do: rely on only one verse for their doctrine. (And my experience is that cults overwhelmingly prefer to use the King James Version.) At any rate, the verse Matthew 18:11 is absent in essentially the same witnesses as was Matthew 17:21, and I am confident that the original gospel of Matthew did not contain this verse.

How can you properly study the Bible when vital passages are missing? Even the command to “study” is missing from 2 Timothy 2:15 in the NIV.

NIV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

KJV: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

The Greek word in question is speudw, which simply does not mean “study.” It means, “urge on, exert oneself, hasten, seek eagerly, strive after, be industrious.” There is not one instance in any Greek literature anywhere, where it means “study.” Perhaps in the year 1600, the English word study did not mean what it means today. This is a good example of what is wrong with the King James Version.

3. Who commits adultery by marrying a divorced woman, according to Matthew 19:9?

NIV: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

KJV: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.“

The entire clause on marrying a divorced woman is omitted in the NIV. Someone might be deceived into marrying a divorcee and not realize he is committing adultery. The NIV does not tell him about the sin he is committing.

Yes, the NIV does. Matthew 5:32 in the NIV says, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” And Luke 16:18 in the NIV says, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

This is a grave omission because, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9, adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

As I have shown, the NIV does not omit this teaching. In fact, it teaches again, a THIRD TIME, in I Corinthians 7:10b-11, that a divorced woman is not allowed to remarry. “A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband…” I think three instances of this teaching is enough to show that the NIV does contain it! Just because it does not say it in Matthew 19, is hardly any excuse for someone not to know the teaching. It is found elsewhere in Matthew in the NIV, and also in Luke and I Corinthians. It is certainly clear that the translators of the NIV had no agenda to remove this teaching from the Bible.

4. At Matthew 23:14, who are the ones who devour widows’ houses?

NIV: Matthew 23:14 is omitted in its entirety.

KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

That’s a harsh indictment against the scribes and Pharisees. But you won’t find it at Matthew 23:14 in the NIV because that verse has been stripped out.

No, not stripped out of the Bible, but ADDED to the Bible by scribes to make Matthew harmonize with Luke 20:47 and Mark 12:40. So the NIV does have this accusation against the Pharisees, in the gospels of Mark and Luke.

The NIV makes Jesus a little more polite. He has been toned down. Jesus is made more palatable to everybody in the NIV. He’s not so offensive. Maybe now more people can carry the Bible. Maybe the Way is not so narrow. Maybe the Way is much wider now than when Jesus preached. If you look back at Matthew 16:3, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites in the King James Bible. But in the NIV, the phrase “O ye hypocrites” is omitted.

5. According to Matthew 25:13, we don’t know the day or hour of what?

NIV: Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

From this verse, it is impossible to know what we are supposed to be watching for. (Yes, it is impossible IF you are the kind of exegete that only looks at one verse. The rest of the context around this verse answers your question. The entire context, over a couple chapters, is one of the coming of the Son of Man.) How can we watch for something when we don’t know what it is? The King James Version tells us we are to be watching for the coming of the Son of man.

It is the same with the gospel of Mark, in the NIV. The whole passage of Mark 13:32-37 is about watching for the return of the Son of Man, and that we don’t know the day or the hour. 13:31: “No one knows about that day or hour, …v. 35 Therefore keep watch because you do not know…”

KJV: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

6. Fill in the missing words of Jesus in Mark 2:17, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners ________________” to what?

NIV: “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Jesus is calling sinners, but to what? For all we know He is calling them to dinner. Yes, he is in fact calling them to dinner (among other things). That is what Jesus and the sinners were doing when he said this.

KJV: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

In the NIV, the words “to repentance” are found in Luke’s account of this story of the calling of Matthew, in ch. 5 v. 32. The gospel of Mark is much shorter than Matthew or John (the real gospel of Mark). Again, this is an example of copyists adding a phrase to one gospel to make it harmonize with another one. This addition to the gospel of Mark is so clearly not originally in Mark, that I would bet if you found a real, original 1611 KJV, its marginal note on this passage would admit that the words “to repentance” are not in most of the Greek manuscripts of Mark.

7. At Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to do what?

NIV: “And to have authority to drive out demons.”

It doesn’t say anything else. That’s the only power you receive, according to the NIV at Mark 3:15.

KJV: “And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.”

Jesus Christ gives His followers power to heal sicknesses. Today we have plenty of doctors. Still it concerns us that the NIV threw out that passage. What if a doctor is not around? We would rather have the power from on High so that we can heal the sickness.

8. There’s another verse about healing sickness at Luke 8:43. According to this verse, how much did the sick woman spend on doctors?

NIV: “And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her.”

NIV does not mention physicians or how much she spent trying to get well. But the KJV tells us:

KJV: “And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,”

Maybe the NIV translators did not want to offend the physicians so they left this phrase out.

This is reckless, unscholarly, unloving, and carnal. Here the writer of that web site has committed a sin. He has judged the motives of his brothers in Christ, falsely. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that not offending physicians was NOT the reason the NIV translators left this phrase out. The reason they left this phrase out, is because many early and diversified manuscripts and versions do not contain it. The NIV does, however, contain this phrase in Mark 5:26: “She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse.” I don’t think anybody anytime deliberately expunged anything originally written by Luke. If the NIV translators wanted to avoid offending physicians, would they not have also left the phrase out of Mark 5:26? But if anybody had a motive to go easier on physicians, it would be Luke himself, since he was a physician. It is more likely for Mark to have written this, since his main source was Peter, a more blunt kind of person. And indeed, the gospel of Mark is known for being more blunt.

9. Here’s an easy one. According to Mark 6:11, it shall be more tolerable for which two cities in the day of judgment than for that city?

NIV: “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

No cities are mentioned.

KJV: “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.“

This is a warning to the cities that refuse to receive Christ. Yet NIV readers are not aware of the condemnation that comes to entire cities.

Yes, NIV readers ARE aware of the condemnation that comes to entire cities. Try Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:22, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12, and Luke 10:14 in the NIV. But the fact that the phrase about the cities, was not in the original text of Mark 6:11, is a slam-dunk as far as textual science goes. I would bet that if you found a genuine, original 1611 King James Version, it would have a marginal note by the KJV translators, stating that most of the Greek manuscripts do not contain this phrase.

10. According to Mark 11:26, is it required to forgive in order to be forgiven?

NIV: Entire verse is missing.

KJV: “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.“

This is another critical doctrine. If you don’t know you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you, you could be shut out of the Kingdom.

Yet another instance of scribes adding a phrase to one gospel to make it harmonize with another gospel; in this case, Matthew 6:15. The verse known as “Mark” 11:26, is absent from many early witnesses, Greek manuscripts and versions that represent all branches of textual tradition, making this another slam-dunk case. There should be no doubt that “Mark” 11:26 was not in the original gospel of Mark. At any rate, this “critical doctrine” IS found in the NIV, in Matthew 6:15.

11. What old testament prophecy did Jesus fulfill at Mark 15:28?

NIV: Entire verse is missing.

KJV: “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.“

Here’s a major Bible prophecy that is missing from the NIV. Check out Matthew 27:35 where another Bible prophecy about the parting of Christ’s garments is fulfilled – but is missing from the NIV.

More examples of scribes harmonizing the gospels. What you want is a harmony of the gospels, which I am working on. As for Mark, he is not usually known to quote the Old Testament. If Mark really did quote the Old Testament in 15:28, that would be a very rare instance. But the earliest and best manuscripts and versions from the Alexandrian and Western branches of text do not have this verse in Mark. Some, however, do have it in the margin, as a note mentioning what Luke 22:37 says. Later copyists incorporated it into the actual scripture text of Mark. This is one way in which words got added to the original text of scripture. It is certain that Mark 15:28 is not original in Mark.

In the Matthew passage, it is even more certain that the phrase in question was added later, influenced by John 19:24.

12. At Luke 4:4, what shall men live on besides bread?

NIV: “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.'”

That’s the end of the verse. It does not state what man lives on besides bread.

KJV: “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

The NIV leaves out the fact that we are to live by every word of God. Yet, over 64,000 words have been removed from the NIV which were originally in the King James. There are also many verses that are entirely missing. Won’t NIV readers be left starving because they do not have “every word of God?”

Did you notice the setting for the above verse? The devil is tempting Jesus in the wilderness. I wonder if the devil had a hand in writing the NIV. Later in the same chapter, at verse 8, Jesus said to Satan,

“Get thee behind me, Satan.“

However, that phrase is entirely missing from verse 8 in the NIV.

But the phrase IS found in the NIV, in Matthew 4:4 (and Deut. 8:3). Again, a case of copyists adding words to one gospel, to harmonize it with another gospel. Do you see a pattern yet?

These are just a few of the many omissions and distortions we found in the NIV. Can the NIV and other modern translations even be called the Christian Bible with so many doctrines missing or mutilated?

No doctrines are missing! The doctrines are still there, in other passages in the other gospels. This is simply false. Actually, let’s call it what it is: LIES. People who write this kind of stuff are simply LIARS, and we know who is the father of such people. They know full well that those doctrines are not missing from the NIV, but they want to mislead people and make disciples for their heresy. If they are not consciously lying, then they are pathetically ignorant of the Bible, and do not deserve to have any students or readers of their worthless writings. They certainly do prey on the new Christian and the unlearned. Rather than feeding Jesus’ lambs, they are confusing them and putting hate in them for other believers who have other translations of the Bible. This kind of false teaching needs to be firmly and universally condemned.

All these different translations have added confusion to the Church. Just try having a Bible study on John 7:53-8:11. It is the story of the woman caught in the very act of adultery. Some modern versions have deleted it from the text. Others like the NIV, cast doubt upon it by saying, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”

No, I wouldn’t try having a Bible study on “John” 7:53-8:11, since that may not have been originally in the Bible. (I have noticed over the years, that the people who quote that story most, are people who are deliberately living in sin, and don’t want you to call them on it.) Even if you believe that the story is scripture, it would not be wise to make a big point from it, in view of the fact that so many of your brothers in Christ do not accept it as scripture.

I disagree that it is the modern translations that are to blame for the confusion. The fact is, that if the copyists of the Bible manuscripts over the centuries had not added words to the Bible, we would not have this confusion. Perhaps the Devil had a hand in getting all those words added to the Bible. The effort to remove words that are not authentic scripture, is an effort to LESSEN the confusion, and restore the true Bible. I would rather have a little confusion, than have a Bible that has words added to it from traditions of the dark ages.

The translators of the King James Bible knew about these earlier manuscripts, but they rejected them because of their questionable source and accuracy. They have been kept in the custodial care of Rome and they originated with Constantine.

This is fiction, propagated by Peter Ruckman and others like him. These are the same people who say that the Septuagint was not done before the time of Christ, but instead done by Catholics centuries after Christ. This defies all historical facts, and contradicts what the KJV translators themselves said in their foreword. It is humorous how this type of people denounce Catholic tradition, yet defend a version of the Bible, the King James Version, which contains so many additions to the Bible which are from the Latin Vulgate, or are solely from Catholic tradition! (They like to say the KJV is from the Old Waldensian Bible, which in turn was translated from very Old Latin, but the Waldensian Bible has been proven to have been translated from the Vulgate, which is more recent than the Old Latin they claim.)

The fact is, there are several manuscripts that do not contain the passage of the woman caught in adultery, that were not discovered until well after the King James Version and Tyndale’s were translated: Codex Sinaiticus, Papyrus 66, and Papyrus 75. In addition, there are many other manuscripts which do not contain the passage. No church father prior to the 12th century comments on the passage, either. So how could the KJV translators have “rejected” those manuscripts since they did not know they existed? It would be interesting to know what the KJV translators would have done had they had Codes Sinaiticus, Papyrus 66 and 75 in front of them. Maybe the KJV would not contain the passage today.

The NIV was translated by scholars, but not necessarily by men called by God. One NIV translator is a confessed lesbian. She doesn’t confess Jesus. She confesses lesbianism.

This is not true. The woman in question was not a translator. She was consulted on English style and wording. And the NIV committee did not know at the time that she was lesbian. But this brings up another point. Are we as Christians not able to learn one thing from nonbelievers? I think it is arrogant and ugly, this attitude that no non-believer can teach us anything. It is a poor Christian testimony. At any rate, many people today would have labeled some of the KJV translators non-believers also. And many KJV enthusiasts would think unqualified the KJV translator who had a whiskey night cap every night.

Those who put together the NIV did it to make money. The NIV bible is a copyrighted book.

Really? How do you know the motives of another human being’s heart? Only God knows that. Besides, translators and publishers need money like the rest of us. They have to eat, provide for their families, pay their living expenses, and purchase equipment. Yes, the NIV bible is a copyrighted book. I hate that also. It is a shame. But in this world, there are so many evil, unscrupulous people, that perhaps the Bible needs to be copyrighted in order to protect it from evil people. The King James Version was also copyrighted. Only certain publishers had a right to print (copy) it. This right could only be granted by the king of England. All copies of the KJV stated this in the front, in a Latin phrase that means (by privilege). Even today in England, only designated publishers can print the King James Version, because it is copyrighted by the Crown and its church, the Church of England. This is what is meant by “Authorized Version.” Authorized by a church you probably don’t even agree with.

The King James Bible, on the other hand, is 80 to 90 percent the work of William Tyndale. He received revelation from God to translate the Bible into English so that even the plowboy could understand the scripture.

Good! Tyndale put the Bible into language that a plow boy could understand. Today, a plow boy cannot understand the King James Version (or Tyndale’s either). That is why we need modern translations. And the people doing the modern translations are also persecuted, by people like you.

He tried to obtain a license from the State church, but was turned down. Because God was calling him to do it, he fled England and went to Germany. He secretly translated and printed the Bible, often fleeing for his life.

Do you really want to bring up the issue of licenses? Your pastor is probably licensed, and your church is probably a state corporation. This is contrary to both the Bible and the founding fathers of America. Patrick Henry said his famous “Give me liberty or give me death,” after seeing a pastor being whipped until dead by British authorities for not having a license to preach. My Bible says we already have authority to go and preach in all nations. And that in this matter “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

I am translating the Bible, without a license from the state church. I never applied for one in the first place. Neither did I ask permission from the scholars’ club. I believe I am called by God to do it. And I am persecuted for doing it. I do not rely on Roman Catholic tradition and all the additions made to your Bible by that tradition. I am so independent, I am denounced from the right and the left. I must be doing something right.

Tyndale’s concern was not making money or copyrighting the text. Even today the King James Bible is not copyrighted. Tyndale was driven by God to do the translation and was eventually strangled and burned for his efforts.

Verses Missing from the NIV New Testament:

Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37; Acts 15:34; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29

Romans 16:24

Just change the caption to “Verses in the KJV that were ADDED to the New Testament.” Note also, that there are Bible versions that include those verses, that are not the King James Version. Here is a modern English Bible based on the Textus Receptus, and this Bible version in more modern English does contain them. It is a PDF file, click here.