KJV vs NIV
Two translations four centuries apart, built on different Greek texts and different ideas of what English should do. Fact for fact, meter for meter. We do not pick between them.
Compared January 2027 · refreshed every December · the 1769 text of the KJV and the 2011 text of the NIV
Comparing current editions. Open each listing for historical editions, sources and verification status.
King James Version (KJV)
1611; text as commonly printed since 1769 · public domain in most of the world
Read online at Bible GatewayLink not enabled · Read in REVALink not enabled (our app) ·Full page
New International Version (NIV)
Biblica, the translation sponsor · Committee on Bible Translation · published in the US by Zondervan
Read online at BiblicaLink not enabled · Read in REVALink not enabled (our app) ·Full page
Both shares are shrunk toward the prior of 70% with C = 7. A gap of a few points at these counts is inside the noise. Methodology
Fact for fact
| Fact | King James Version (KJV) | New International Version (NIV) |
|---|---|---|
| Made by | Commissioned by the Church of England; translated by six companies of scholars; public domain in most of the world | Biblica, a nonprofit Bible society; published in the US by Zondervan, a Christian imprint of HarperCollins, a general company |
| Translation philosophy | Word-for-word, in the English of 1611 | Between word-for-word and thought-for-thought; the publisher describes it as a balance of the two |
| Textual basis, Old Testament | Masoretic Text (Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible) | Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Masoretic Text); Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch and ancient versions consulted |
| Textual basis, New Testament | Textus Receptus (Beza, Stephanus) | Eclectic Greek text, drawing on the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions |
| Canon | 66 books in most printings; the 1611 edition placed the Apocrypha between the Testaments | Protestant, 66 books |
| Reading grade level | No published figure | No published figure |
| Gender language | Follows the forms of the source languages; "brethren", "man" for people in general | Uses gender-inclusive English where the committee judges the original refers to people in general; language about God unchanged |
| Verses in footnotes | None; the Textus Receptus verses are in the main text | Not published |
| Licence | Public domain in most of the world; printing rights in the United Kingdom are held under Crown letters patent | Copyright, Biblica. Up to 500 verses may be quoted without written permission, within the publisher's limits |
| First published | 1611; standard text 1769 | 1978, full Bible; current text 2011 |
| Committee | Not published | Committee on Bible Translation, 15 members from several denominations (committee statement) |
Sources and fetched dates for every row are on each listing's page.
Meter for meter
Neither end is better. KJV: 0 written reviews counted. NIV: 0.
Readability · Dense to Easy
Literal to idiomatic feel · Literal to Idiomatic
Study helps · Bare to Extensive
Devotional to academic feel · Devotional to Academic
Questions people type
Which is more accurate?
They are accurate to different things. The KJV renders the Textus Receptus closely in the English of 1611. The NIV renders an eclectic Greek text in current English and tells you in footnotes where the two Greek texts differ. The answer depends on which Greek text you hold to and how much interpretation you want the translator to do. We do not score it.
Why are verses missing from the NIV?
They are not missing; they are in footnotes. The NIV’s Greek base text does not include some verses the Textus Receptus does. See the guide on why some verses are in footnotes.
Can I use both?
Many readers do: one for reading through, one for checking wording.