Perhaps some of you already know that there are some verses omitted or relegated to footnote in NIV Bible.
An article puts this problem as follows:
"Claims that the NIV Bible has cut 64,000 words, or 45 complete verses, have been around for decades. They’re not the result of a “new” edition released by HarperCollins. They started in the early 1990s when author Gail Riplinger stumped for exclusive use of the King James Bible in her book “New Age Bible Versions.” Riplinger often repeated the claim on television appearances promoting her book. Then, in July 2015, the eRumor went viral when singer Erica Campbell posted a meme on her Facebook page that quickly generated 100,000 shares:
As of myself, while I got a dual-language bible including a NIV version, to be honest I rarely read that English version.
Only recently, I got into some notes suggesting that the reason of omitting those verses by NIV editors were not merely caused by some technical or textual reasons. There is deeper cause of that, i.e. to undermine the true Christian faith towards God Almighty and Jesus Christ.
Among other things that makes me suspect of such deeper cause of alteration of words or relegation to footnotes of some verses in NIV, e.g.:
a. In preface of NIV Bible, it is written: "At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation." This means that the editors of NIV worked a contextual meaning of verses, instead of literal translation such as in KJV.
I found that some articles discuss how the editors rely on the so-called Westcott-Hort theory, which is nothing more than liberal historical-critics theory of interpretation, which influence so many modern Bible versions.
As another writer puts it:
"“THE DEAD HAND OF FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT LIES HEAVY UPON US. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS. ... Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—AND STILL SHAPES—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language” (emphasis added) (Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J.P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press, 1965, p. 370)." 
b. They also wrote : "The Greek text used in translating the New Testament was an eclectic one." What does it mean? It seems that they choose deliberately what kind of NT text they will use in matter of disputed verses.
c. one of literary consultant of NIV Bible was a left-wing lesbian who actually did not believe in God. "Virginia Mollenkott testified, My lesbianism has always been a part of me."
d. The first paragraph of NIV also admits: "this group, though not made up of official church representatives.." -- so nobody knows where this group came from. Of course, many source argues that the group was not under control of HarperCollins...but whom they actually stood for?
"Biblica denies that HarperCollins, or any other group, has editorial control over the translation:
So, I decided to upload some articles which I consider them to be helpful for general readers in order you can investigate yourself on this matter.
Thank you for your kind attention and best wishes.
Monday, 9th July 2018
Founder, The Second Coming Institute