That seems deeply inconsistent to me.Your attention to the various Bible translations is important ...
So I was liberated from contending over mere words and translations.
The KJV is the Bible I grew up with, and still the one I prefer for most purposes, and the only one I've read all of. I also have a Revised Standard Version and The Jerusalem Bible. The NIV I'm not familiar with except as the name of another version. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find out that there are inconsistencies in these various texts, some of them fairly significant in terms of their impact on Christian dogma. Fairly early on in my search I came across a page from a man, clearly an evangelical fundamentalist, who argued urgently (but not very well) that the NIV, to use his phrase, "molests and corrupts" the Word and you should discard it. It's a weak and silly argument so I won't waste your time by providing a cite, but he does provide many examples of where the KJV and the NIV texts differ. Given that his quotations are correct, there are some significant differences in wording, including both additions and deletions, that bear on the nature of Christ and Creation. It's a micro version of an old problem: given the multiplicity of faiths available, and the multiple sects within them all, on what basis can one make a choice among them? Clearly they can't all be right, just as the available translations of the Bible can't all be right, because they're inconsistent.
The sensible response for me is to conclude that none of them are right and thus needn't be taken seriously as anything but mythology. Mythology has its uses of course, but a guide to life or an explanation of reality is not among them.