The Bible Version Issue covers a wide range of points; Text, Translators, Technique, and Theology..some believe it is as simple as Translation, but the issue goes beyond that. You can’t Translate correctly if the Text is different.A-TEXTWhen looking at Bible Versions you really have only TWO options..a Bible Translated from the Traditional type Text which underlies every Version before the late 1800s and has a steady history behind its translation, represented by 99% of all the Textual Evidence available or a Bible Translated from the Critical Text type which underlies most all versions after 1880 that has no steady history of Translation..corrections to the text are made from a few early manuscripts that where not found in any translation for nearly 1500 years and represented by about 1% of Textual Evidence.B-TRANSLATORSWhen looking at Bible Versions there are a mass of Variants available..we should look at the Qualifications of the Translators and their Personal beliefs. For Example..Gerbers Translation, a great one..yet he was a spiritualist, thus we have oddball Unfounded translations such as "a god" at John 1:1, (the New World Translation has the same unfounded Biased Translation from their own Doctrines) With a little Reaserch One is able to find out Qualifications and background of Translators..Moffatt was a Highly Qualified Translator, and Men such as John Bois who could read the bible in hebrew before age five, william Bedwell who had such knowledge of te cognate Languages He wrote a Persian Dictionary, Francis Dillingham who not only was Knowledgable in the Greek but Could Debate in the Greek, Henry Savillie who translated most of the Early Greek science texts, such as those on geometry, these 4 men were among those who worked on the KJV translation..most all the men who worked on the KJV were Godly ministers beyoond reproach..versions like the NIV have some great scholars, tho not nearly as Qualified as others, yet they had Virgina Maloncott who is a lesbian and believes God is a woman..a little bit of research behind Translators would prove fruitfull for those who want an Good accurate Translation.C-TECHNIQUETheir  are really only two schools of Translation Tecnniques..one is called Dynamic Equivalence, that is words are translated by Thoughts, instead of translating a Noun for a Noun, they would use maybe a Pronoun or adverb to retain the Thought of the Text..this Technique sometimes goes beyond words, it is how Paraphrases such as The Living Bible come forth..the Technique is adopted by most all modern versions in their Translational work..the other school is Verbal Equivalence, That is they translate the words , word for word as close as they can from one language to the Next..noun to noun..verb to verb and so forth. Its a matter of which you think is more vital and important..the Words or the Thoughts.D-THEOLOGYAny good able bodied student of the Bible knows you cannot base a doctrine on one text alone. The above 3 points affect this last one a great deal..some versions change words, add words, and remove words that thus will either remove or change Doctrines or at best Weaken a doctrine. the NWT has "a god" at John 1:1, the NIV adds "His name" to Rev 14:1..the list could go on and on..some argue that at times Teachings are still found in their Bibles but not as much or at same places..its like a stool..is it more stable with  legs  three or two..some Texts are Doctrinally important and to change them means a weaker foundation. which if you rest upon will only lead to a fall.Now in My OpinionTEXT- The KJV is the Best representaion of the Traditional Text and follows it more solid than any other..those who favour the Critical Text have a toss up between the NIV,  and the NASB, since they pick and choose when they will follow this or that text.TRANSLATORS- I believe the KJV has the superiour Translators.TECHNIQUE- if you favour Dynamic Equivalence totally then the LIVING BIBLE is your best one, and if you like the Idea but still want the WORDS, then the NIV or NASB is your choice, now if you prefer VERBAL Equivalence..then the KJV is the best of the Traditional Text and the NWT is the best of the Critical text.THEOLOGY- Looking at the mass of diffrences between the TEXTS the KJV has the more superiour Theology.Some points to consider; For Now the Defenders of these modern Versions are content with brushing aside the changes in the Text with stuff like "well its out here, but they leave it over here" when they excuse away removeing from the Words, or their "well basically it still says the same thing" when they excuse away Changing the words, and their "well the best manuscripts have it" when excuseing away adding to the Words..the whole while Each new edition brings a new copyright and new changes, and every several years a newer revised text is released for them…Its just like chopping a tree down; one whack at a time eventually the tree will fall..and folks are just like frogs the whole time, why? Because if you were to heat a Pan up red hot and sit a frog on it, why he will jump right back off that thing! But you put a frog on the pan first and then Heat it up, well he will sit their and Cook away dead, he will take the tempature change as Natural and adjust! For now they are content holding their modern Treasure able to say well its still here, just in a different place and thought..slowly cooking till the Next edition and the next and the next….B and Aleph, the Modern Versions Textual Champions , those "oldest and best MSS" as they are commonly called, DO NOT CONTAIN THE BOOK OF REVELATION AT ALL. Aleph instead ends with two other books..The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas…40 years ago if someone wanted to remove the book of Revelation NO ONE would even Dream of such an act, but who knows now, with that chop by chop, little by little turning up the fires..what about 50 or so years from now? 100 years from now? Why Revelation Just might be tossed aside as an old relic just like the KJV, huh? 2 Cor 8:7 as an example of these Modern textual critics methods.NIV Ignores P46 and B, follows Aleph and MajorityNASB Ignores Aleph and Majority,follows P46 and BGal 1:3 Ignores P46 and B, follows Aleph Gal 4:25 Ignores P46 and Aleph, follows B Gal 4:28  Ignores Aleph and Majority, follows P46 and BGal 6:13Ignores P46 and B, follows AlephDo folks Really believe this is How the Texts of our Bibles should be handled? Yet That is Exactly the Methods of these Modern Versions! While we who are AV adherents are ridiculed and plumited with comments like "the oldest Manucripts" or "the Best Manuscripts" or whatever other footnote those who use and love these modern versions  want to toss at us, Those scribes play shell and pea with a method that must have been the motivator for the slogan "Have it your way today". Why this shell and pea game? Well Hort-Westcott  the founders of the modern Textual Methods taught that the Textual critic should use his "intuitive powers" to determine if a verse had a "ring of genuineness and its Leaders such as J.B. Philips tout the same horn as he says the reader should "try to make his own translation" Of course this is the very same thing the New Agers and their channeled  spirits would guide us to also; "It is Likely that a new Kind of Religon will develop in which each man will discover and work out his own sermons for himself" Looks like this New Religon already has New Bibles

Reccomended Reading