And that is your opinion -- only. There are
no missing verses in the NIV. As I'm sure you're aware, the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and
every other Bible (English or not) are
translations from the oldest and best ancient documents. => There are
NO originals of any of the "books" of the Bible <= Every translator must make many decisions of what is included in the translation, so it means nothing that the KJV has different verses -- there weren't any verses in the source documents -- than the NIV (and many other translations). They used the best sources that they had 400+ years ago, but today there are many, many more sources available that give translators a clearer picture of what the original texts
PROBABLY said.
You're probably not interested (which is okay) but IMHO the best translation is the NET. Aside from being very readable and therefore understandable there are over 60,000 translators' notes that explain variant and/or missing text as well as notes to explain what the more difficult passages meant to the ancients.
Here, for example is Romans 1:1, "From Paul,[
a] a slave[
b] of Christ Jesus,[
c] called to be an apostle,[
d] set apart for the gospel of God.[
e]" Footnote [a]:
tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter; footnote
: tn Traditionally, “servant.” Though δοῦλος (
doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). One good translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος) in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force. Also, many slaves in the Roman world became slaves through Rome’s subjugation of conquered nations, kidnapping, or by being born into slave households. sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s “slave” or “servant” is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For someone who was Jewish this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (
Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (
Josh 14:7), David (
Ps 89:3; cf.
2 Sam 7:5,
8) and Elijah (
2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.
”; footnote [c]: tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (P26 א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 M), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P10 B 81
pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely autographic (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.; footnote [d]: tn
Grk “a called apostle.; footnote [e]: tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (
euangelion theou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see
ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick,
Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in
v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.
I hope this gives you (and everyone else) a glimpse into the art/science of translation, and why it is absurd to call any single translation "
the Word of God". They are all
translations of the earliest Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek documents, and none of them are perfect.
You can conclude that a NKJV is better than an NIV translation if that what "floats your boat" but it has no value outside of your opinion.