The subject of Bible versions can get very controversial among Christians, with sometimes rather heated feelings on all sides. There are those who say the King James Version is the only reliable version and that all other versions are "perversions." Then there are others who say it doesn't matter which Bible versions one uses, that they are all reliable in their own right.

This book takes a middle approach. It disagrees with the KJV-only advocates in recognizing there are some modern Bible versions that are just as, if not more reliable than the KJV. But this book also recognizes that there are significant differences between Bible versions and that not all versions are reliable.

Specifically, this book has three main standards when it comes to Bible versions:

1. The Hebrew and Greek texts should be translated word for word as possible.

2. The translation should be as readable as possible, but without sacrificing accuracy.

3. The NT should be translated from the Textus Receptus or Majority Greek Text, rather than the more popular Critical Text.

Detailed explanations of why these standards are used are given in the book. In addition, over thirty different Bible versions are evaluated as to how they fit these standards. This book also contains an extended section critiquing "KJV only" arguments.

The material in this book is written as simply as possible so that the average layperson can understand the arguments. But appeal is made to the Hebrew and Greek texts as needed. And most of all, the heated rhetoric often seen in this debate is absent from this book. The material is presented in as straightforward and balanced manner as possible.

So if you find yourself caught in the middle of the Bible versions controversy, not sure which Bible version to use or why, or you simply want to understand the reasons for the differences between Bible versions, then this book is for you!

"This principle of complete (or formal) equivalence seeks to preserve ALL of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form . . . Complete equivalence translates fully, in order to provide an English text that is both accurate and readable" (Parallel, p.xxi).

However, the NIV follows a quite different principle known as dynamic equivalence:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the THOUGHT of the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for MORE THAN A WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the MEANING of the writers demands FREQUENT MODIFICATIONS IN SENTENCE STRUCTURE and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words (NIV preface, p.x).

Adhering to these divergent principles leads to several differences between how the KJV and NKJV handle the original text versus how the NIV does.

The KJV and NKJV attempt to translate the original text as word for word as possible. But the NIV seeks to be a thought for thought translation.

A simple example of the difference between these two philosophies can be seen in Matthew 11:4. The first part of this verse reads in the KJV, "Jesus answered and said unto them." The NKJV says, "Jesus answered and said to them." So these two are virtually identical. And this type of phrase occurs throughout the Gospels.

Now compare the NIV, "Jesus replied." This rendering is simpler to read and captures the MEANING of text, but it obviously is not a word for word translation of what Matthew, as he "was moved by the Holy Spirit," actually wrote (see 2Pet 1:21).

Moreover, what happens if the meaning of the text is not clear? Burton L. Goddard, a member of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation writes, "Despite their expertise they [the NIV translators] frequently found themselves FAR FROM CERTAIN about the MEANING intended by the Holy Spirit, the primary Author of Scripture."

A good example of where the meaning may be "far from certain" can be seen in the first half of Leviticus 20:17. In the NKJV it reads, "If a man TAKES his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and SEES HER NAKEDNESS AND SHE SEES HIS NAKEDNESS, it is a wicked thing." The KJV is virtually identical.

However, take a look at the NIV, "If a man MARRIES his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and THEY HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS, it is a disgrace."

When Moses WROTE "takes" did he MEAN "marries?" And is it possible to SEE a person's "nakedness" without having "sexual relations" with that person?

The NIV translators were so "certain" they knew the answers to these questions that they inserted their interpretation into the text without any indication they have done so. But the KJV and NKJV allow Bible readers to decide for themselves.

And less anyone thinks this is an unimportant point, there could be some important instruction here for single Christians like myself. This verse may help answer the very pressing question, "How far can I go (sexually) before I get married?"

In the New Testament, Paul commands Christians to treat members of the opposite sex like brothers and sisters (1Tim 5:1,2). Could these passages taken together forbid an unmarried couple from simply SEEING each other's nakedness even if they do not "go all the way?" In the KJV or NKJV this could be. But the NIV hides this possibility.

There is a divergence in how interjections and conjunctions are handled between the two principles. A study of Luke 2:10 will show this. Here, an angel says to the shepherds, "Do not be afraid, FOR BEHOLD, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people" (NKJV). Again, the KJV is similar.

However, the NIV does not translate "for behold." But does this matter? In the Bible, the interjection "behold" is used for "dramatically calling attention to a spectacular scene, or an event of profound importance" (Parallel, p.xxi).

But the NIV does not consider this point to be of sufficient importance as to always translate "behold." Another example in a familiar verse is Isaiah 7:14.

And, as indicated, the conjunction "for" was also left untranslated. This conjunction and others (and, but, etc.) are often not translated in the NIV. But conjunctions have an important purpose. They show there is a relationship between the statement to come and the preceding one and what this relationship entails.

This importance can be seen in Romans 1:16-18. In the KJV and NKJV, each of these three verses begins with "for." However, the NIV only translates one "for" (v.17). As a result, the NIV looses Paul's progression of thought in this passage.

Sometimes the leaving out of words can extend beyond just interjections and conjunctions. At times, the NIV leaves out other words and even entire phrases. This can be clearly seen by studying Joshua 1:8. The KJV has 48 words in this verse; the NKJV has 49 words. But the NIV only has 30 words. Obviously, there is a big difference here!

Words added for clarity are handled in dissimilar manners. The KJV and NKJV put such words in italics. However, the NIV translators make no such effort to distinguish between their own words and the God-inspired words of the original.

A simple example of this can be seen in the second half of 1Corinthians 7:9, "for it is better to marry than to burn" (KJV).

Herbert Wolf, one of the NIV translators, comments on this passage, "Most INTERPRETERS feel that 'burn' refers to the flames of passion that can only rightly be satisfied in marriage. To make this clear both the NIV and the NKJV translate the verb, "to burn with passion" (Barker, p.131).

A couple of comments are in order on Wolf's comment. First, note that he freely admits the NIV translators depended on what "interpreters" had to say about a passage to determine how to "translate" it.

Second, it is true the NKJV adds the words "with passion" to its text. Wolf, however, fails to mention an important point: in the NKJV these words are in italics, but in the NIV they are printed in the same type as the rest of the verse.

This difference is important as there are actually two possible ways to take what Paul meant by "to burn" in this passage. Greek scholar Fritz Rienecker comments, "It may mean 'to burn with passion' but may possibly mean 'to burn in Gehenna (hell)' beca