In the NIV Bible why is there no Matthew 18:11?

Answer 1

Some manuscripts do not have it so the NIV omits it. Do you have Luke 19:10? It says the same thing. The omission of 18:11 does not make the NIV wrong.

Answer 2

I could only find one of my NIV bibles, but you are right in Matthew 18, there is not 11, the bible reads from 10 and then 12. This had to be a manufacture's misprint. Thank you for bringing that to my attention

Answer 3

The NIV (New International Version) Bible has often been accused of being “incomplete” and having missing verses.
Some proponents of earlier Bibles (specially the KJV – King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version or AV) have attacked the NIV Bible for these omissions.

http://www.anointedlinks.com/niv_omissions.html

`

Answer 4

It is in the footnote at the bottom of the page.

Any verse that appears in some ancient copies of the Bible, but not others, are placed in footnotes because it is unclear if these verses were in the original or not. It is the translators simply being honest about how there are minor variations in ancient copies of the Bible, that's all.

===edit===

From the "Preface" to the NIV:

...In the New Testament, footnotes that refer to uncertainty regarding the original text are introduced by "some manuscripts" or similar expressions...

===edit2===

I'm amazed at how many people don't seem to realize that the "omitted" verses in the NIV are NOT actually omitted, but are located in the footnotes at the bottom of the page. There are no "missing" verses in spite of what some people have said, and this is not a printer's mistake, as one person said. The numbering of verses follows the convention applied to the original Byzantine manuscripts -- which has more verses than what you will find in some of the older versions. The "extra" verses were not omitted, but were placed in the footnotes. Since the numbering of verses follows the King James convention, the numbering appears, at first glance, to be inconsistent. Read the "Preface" to the New International Version, and it explains all of this.

Answer 5

The NIV is a Bible paraphrase translated by committee.
Search out the committee members, and you'll find out why Matthew 18:11 and other verses were "overlooked."

Answer 6

I love the NIV, and it is the most accurate as far as conveying ideas, NASB is most accurate as for word to word translation from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. As anyone who studies foreign languages knows, there are some words in one language that don't have an equivalent in another.

I would trust the NIV. It is accurate, and the previous answers show how it aspires to be accurate, by explaining the absence of that particular scripture.

Answer 7

The NIV (New International Version) Bible has often been accused of being “incomplete”

Answer 8

The New Revised Standard Version puts it in a footnote mentioning "other ancient authorities add verse 11, ..." Apparently it isn't in the oldest known copies of the manuscript.

Answer 9

Wow. I never even noticed it. I have read in that book recently too. It just skips from 10-12.

In the KJV it says in Mat. 18:11
For the son of man is come to save that wich is lost.

Answer 10

cause that verse also 1 John 5:7 ( three in heaven father son and holy spirit) and Luke 23:17 wasn´t in the Vatican Codex and Sinaitic codex, valuable for been from the fourth century.
other bibles are based in manuscript from sixteen century (1200 years laters)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31


see the comment in the footnote.