Why not the King James Bible?

[Dajuid]

OK, I consider myself a King James Bible only type of person. And, I have noticed that there only seem to be a small majority on this board who share my view. The rest tend to lean toward more 20th century versions. Now, rather than getting into a debate as to which ones are better, I want to be educated. So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible? Again, this is not meant as a debate for or against the King James Bible. It is to better understand those who prefer other versions.

Thank you for your time in this. And please, keep away from negative comments about any version.

Dave

[Kiffin]

I use the 1982 KJV or NKJV. The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use is a fine translation possibly only second in greatness and influence to Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

So in a real sense if one uses the NKJV they are still in the KJV tradition. I like the NKJV because it retains the KJV dignity yet makes the 1611 KJV contemporary. I also use the NKJV because I am not certain that the Alexandrian manuscripts are superior to the Byzantine and believe caution should be used. I think all people on this board have a great respect for the 1769 KJV but just don't believe that it is the standard by which all translations should be judged.

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dajuid:
And, I have noticed that there only seem to be a small majority on this board who share my view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture that it is a sizeable minority rather than a small majority.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rest tend to lean toward more 20th century versions...So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the words of the KJV translators,

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures..."

Likewise, I use several translations, depending on the situation.

For day to day reading, the NIV. It reads smoothly and is organized in paragraph form that is easier to follow and prevents taking every verse as an independent thought (by keeping them in context).

For serious study, the NASB or NKJV. The NASB is a fine formal equivalency translation of the CT. I consider it to be the most accurate translation/textual base on the market (my opinion; I know that there are others who disagree).

The NKJV does a similar job in terms of quality of translation, but of the TR. And, I believe it reads a little more smoothly than the NASB. With its foot notes, even the textual base doesn't bother me too much, just as long as the variants are made clear (after all, "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point...Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."-the KJV translators).

For memorization, the KJV 1769. Let's face it, the Shakespearean language is beautiful. When quoting passages this is the way to go as long as current meaning is not compromised.

Just my thoughts,

[Alex H. Mullins]

If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.

As a result all, except the KJV, are mere commentaries. They may have some limited value to help illuminate and make clearer, certain verses but I have not met anyone who claims them to be God's pure, preserved, perfect Word.

On the other hand, there are thousands who have not waivered, have not been tricked and who believe that the KJV is the infallible, inerrant word of God, every jot and tittle exactly where God intended it to be.

Why would He want less for His children?

It is a difficult concept to grasp, that God would preserve a perfect Word for us in our language and that satan would simply overlook the idea of getting into and messing with God's word. Certainly, Satan would never even think of doing such a thing. RIIGGHHTTT!!

Why would anyone even consider want a counterfeit when the real McCoy is so easily available today?

The KJV is the genuine Word of God. Again, All the others are commentaries.

The KJV is adequate and easy for anyone who is a true believer to read. The Holy Spirit, if you have Him, will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings but are exactly what God intended for us to read and apply.

This precious book is far more than our "instruction for living" manual. This is the revelation of Jesus Christ and God's plan for the ages. Satan has succeeded in getting into the Word, watering it down, perverting it weakening it and making many believers less effective than they would be had they not been sidetracked.

As a result, we now have 2 1/2 generations of believers being weened and fed on "commentaries".

This, however, is part of the plan for the end-times. Prophecy is being fulfilled.

The reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board is because they are out there winning souls, not trying to figure out which of the 150 "bibles" they should be reading and pushing. They have the TRUTH.

Which reminds me, I had better get out there myself, right now. I have spent too much valuable time trying to get you folks on the right track. There is a whole world out there headed for the Lake of Fire. Who will save them if me and my KJ faithful do not.

God Bless you all for seeking, finding truth and getting with the program.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What about those of us who use a KJV which is not the 1769 (Oxford) edition. I use a 1762 Cambridge edition. Doesn't the 1762 count as a KJV? smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Dr. C,

Maybe you should consult with the Ruckmanites in their heresy of departing from the KJV faith smile.gif LOL and not holding to the original 1611. I'll stick with my 1611 NKJV! :D

[DocCas]

Kiffin, why should I consult with the Ruckmanites regarding your error? :D

[Chris Temple]

Alex:

Once again you have exemplified the futility in discussions with a KJVO. You make a papal proclamation without a shred of evidence (and in fact repeat a known error refuted many times on this board concerning the NKJV) and assume everyone to just accept what you have said.

No, the KJV is not pure.
No, the KJV is not perfectly preserved.
No, all other translations are not commentaries.

In fact the large majority of believers use MVs because they are more accurate, easier to understand, and many believe based on better mss. If one prefers the mss behind the KJV, then the NKJV is more accurate and easier to understand.

This discussion is like trying to climb a
mudslide - work your way to the top and then slide all the way down to the bottom and start all over again. :rolleyes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kiffin]

Hey Dr. C.,

What error? :confused: :D If you gonna say 1611, you better be using the 1611 and not the 1762, 1769, 1982, 2001 etc, etc...KJV. If you are they want to call your 1762, 1769 KJV a 1611, I'll call my NKJV a 1611! ;)

[DocCas]

Kiffin, you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My post indicated that all KJVOs do not use the 1769, but many use the 1762. See? :D

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
No, the KJV is not pure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it is pure in one sense. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, the KJV is not perfectly preserved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it is in one sense. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, all other translations are not commentaries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, in the sense of non verbal translation, several of the MVs could be considered more commentary than translation. The "thought to thought" rather than "word to word" kind of thing. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact the large majority of believers use MVs because they are more accurate,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean they believe they are more accurate? :D

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex,

As usual, you are making statements of opinion without fact (or, in this case, with the facts against you).

Please stop saying the NKJV is "derived from different 'original' manuscripts which were corrupted." THE NKJV WAS TRANSLATED FROM THE VERY SAME TEXT (your hallowed TR) THAT THE KJV WAS. STOP SAYING IT WASN'T.

If you honestly believe it was translated from different manuscripts, then you are ignorant of the facts. A little honesty would go a long way toward strengthening your credibility. Right now, you seem to know nothing but you seem to be full of opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a result all, except the KJV, are mere commentaries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they aren't. They are translations--better translations than the KJV. Most of the "differences" are due to the manuscript base followed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I have not met anyone who claims them to be God's pure, preserved, perfect Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is because most MV users live in a land far, far away from KJVOdom. It is called reality, and in reality perfect translations were neither promised in scripture (show me the verse that says they are), nor do they exist in English. Every translation has its problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, there are thousands who have not waivered, have not been tricked and who believe that the KJV is the infallible, inerrant word of God, every jot and tittle exactly where God intended it to be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie.

BTW, Alex, where are the "jots and tittles" in your Bible? If the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings.

Why would He want less for His children?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a difficult concept to grasp, that God would preserve a perfect Word for us in our language and that satan would simply overlook the idea of getting into and messing with God's word. Certainly, Satan would never even think of doing such a thing. RIIGGHHTTT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Satan, like the serpent he inhabited, is subtle above all creatures. In order to keep people from the meaning of God's word, he tricks them into believing it may only be found in an archaic English translation. People so deceived are then in bondage to a language different than their own, not ever actually having a full understanding of even the basic language of the Bible, let alone some of the deepest theological implications.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The KJV is adequate and easy for anyone who is a true believer to read. The Holy Spirit, if you have Him, will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings but are exactly what God intended for us to read and apply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is simply ludicrous. WHERE in the Bible (any version), does it say that the Holy Spirit "will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings...?" Tell me chapter and verse. Alex, your credibility is slipping with me and, I would venture a guess, with many others on this board.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board is because they are out there winning souls...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You idealize your fellow deceivees too far. I would assert the "reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board" is because there aren't as many as you think. I also doubt that using only the KJV makes you more or less of a "soul winner."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is a whole world out there headed for the Lake of Fire. Who will save them if me and my KJ faithful do not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These statements epitomize what is wrong with your thinking. Think about what you have written.

Jesus Christ will save them, not the KJV, not you, not me. Jesus alone can save.

Starting to look a little scary toward the end here, Alex...

[DocCas]

Blade, you chastize Alex for stating his opinions as if they are facts, but don't you do the same thing? Examples: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are translations--better translations than the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean, in your opinon they are better translations? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Every translation has its problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean, in your opinion every translation has its problems? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean in your opinion "thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, Alex, where are the "jots and tittles" in your Bible? If the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean in your opinion if the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings? After all, shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard you hold Alex to? smile.gif

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Blade]

Dr. Cassidy,

There is nothing wrong with presenting opinionated statements; I have absolutely no problem with it (you do it, I do it, etc. and it makes the discussion more interesting).

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Alex's posts are purely opinion. He never argues from the mss. evidence. He never addresses specific passages. He never does anything but say "The KJV is the preserved Word of God...MVs are commentaries...MVs are watered down...yada, yada, yada..." Alex makes statements, but never attempts to support them with evidence of any kind.

Furthermore, my answer to him was simply opinion for opinion. There was no fact or evidence that he presented with which I could take issue.

I would figure you, of all people, would demand a few facts here as well. If a MV proponent made statements like that against the KJV, you would demand evidence; I am no different.

Sincerely,

[Kiffin]

Dr. C,

My point is that it is not the 1611 that anyone uses today as KJVO's say. Not trying to debate a minute point of 7 years whether it be 1762 or 1769 KJV or even my 1982 KJV. smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Excellent post Blade! What shocks me however is that if anyone on this board would say that the NIV is the only pure word of God and that all other translations are just commentaries, they would be accused of heresy. A KJV Only can say that about the KJV and we are to take that opinion seriously?

[Dajuid]

It seems people didn't read my original question... :confused:

I said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible? Again, this is not meant as a debate for or against the King James Bible. It is to better understand those who prefer other versions.

Thank you for your time in this. And please, keep away from negative comments about any version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just want to hear why people use a version other than the KJV. Like I said, I prefer the KJV. I have done countless research on the KJV so there is no reason to convince me other wise. I am just curious to hear other's reasoning for using a different translation. Please, let's not debate this.

Again, thanks!

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dajuid:
So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK... I prefer both the NKJV and the NASB over the KJV because:

1)It is too difficult to read. I am a good reader; I have a B.S. in Biology, worked for 15 years in biotechnology, and am now in Seminary working on my M.Div., but I don't understand much of the KJV. I was not raised Christian, and if I was perhaps I might have a better familiarity with the KJV.

2) Its 17th or 18th C archaisms render it inaccurate for the 21st Century. That does not mean it is in error for its time, but the words mean different things in the 21st C.

3) There is no need to learn to read an archaic translation, because it is not monolithic. The Bible is a history of revision up to the KJV and it has been since the KJV.

4) Both the NKJV and the NASB translate the original languages better (i.e., in accurate 21st century renderings) than does the KJV.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
My point is that it is not the 1611 that anyone uses today as KJVO's say. Not trying to debate a minute point of 7 years whether it be 1762 or 1769 KJV or even my 1982 KJV. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My point was, you criticize Alex, Pioneer, et. el., for posting inaccurate information, then you turn around an do the same thing. Not all KJVs in present use are 1769s as you stated.

[Dajuid]

Thanks Chris! That was exactly what I was looking for. So, if everyone else could take the excellent example that Chris has made, I would appreciate it.

What will I do with this information. Who knows, I just like to see what others think. And, this is an important topic to me. It is so much easier to converse with others who have opposing view points when you know what those views are. Rather than saying "Mine is better because."

Thanks again Chris, and to all of you who have answered my question!

Dave

[Kiffin]

Dr.C,

There is a major differance between making a mistake regarding 1762 and 1769 as I did .....and posting not just inaccurate information but heretical information that only the KJV is the Word of God and all other Bible translations are commentaries. I would think that a learned man such as yourself who claims not to be a Ruckmanite would be outraged. All of us who use modern versions declare the KJV do be the Word of God and do not call it a commentary or perversion. KJV only's who make such comments do more to hurt the cause of the Textus Receptus than Westcott and Hort have ever done by making such blasphemous statements.

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

[Dr. Bob]

In answering your query, Dajuid, we are not talking about different BIBLES. We are talking about different English translations and versions of the Bible. Big distinction!

Remember, it is NOT the "King James Bible" - that is a new KJVonly prejudicial rewriting of history, to make it appear to be the true "bible". It is the King James VERSION of the Bible. A "version" - correct in that it accurately reflects what the BIBLE said. And the one I use (Scofield 1769 KJV) is a great REVISION of the AV1611! 50,000 changes - Dr Cassidy has ably explained the hundreds of MAJOR changes.

So - my preference is to correctly handle the Greek and Hebrew to reflect as accurately as I can in a receptor language (2001 English) what the Word of God says. I would want it to say it clearly so someone today would have no excuse.

My brother-in-law asked about a verse in Revelation (about Armageddon); KJV1769 said the blood flowed 1600 furlongs. He didn't know how far that is (doesn't bet on horses, I guess). So I asked him to look it up in another version.

NIV said 1600 stadia, a more accurate Greek word, but MEANINGLESS to a modern English reader. So we pulled out the dictionary and figured it was 180-200 miles.

So my favorite would be the Griffin Expanded Translation which would use the simple 200 miles to describe this verse.

And don't all preachers do this type of thing as they translate and prepare for proper exposition of the Word?

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
In answering your query, Dajuid, we are not talking about different BIBLES. We are talking about different English translations and versions of the Bible. Big distinction!

Remember, it is NOT the "King James Bible" - that is a new KJVonly prejudicial rewriting of history, to make it appear to be the true "bible". It is the King James VERSION of the Bible. A "version" - correct in that it accurately reflects what the BIBLE said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. That explains why KJVOs call the KJV the King James Bible and they call the New American Standard Bible the NASV!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And the one I use (Scofield 1769 KJV) is a great REVISION of the AV1611! 50,000 changes - Dr Cassidy has ably explained the hundreds of MAJOR changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if the KJV had 50000 changes from 1611 to the 1769 version, and KJVOs still call it the KJV, why do they not consider the NKJV the KJV with about the same amount of changes from the 1769? :eek:

Maybe the NKJV publishers should have never called it "New", as every update of the KJV was "new". :D

[Gina B]

I use the KJV because I believe it to be the most accurate.
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up. And some concepts just aren't found in other translations. Take for instance the seven Spirits of God under general discussions. (I hope that's where it is) Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Seven could be found in the RSV or a few others, and it was worded so differently it totally took Spirit out of every verse, replacing it with an ideas that had nothing to do with the Spirits of God.
I think this could be a very dangerous thing. If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the other translations might be interesting and even useful as a study-mate, like any other religious book might be, but as far as taking your average knowledgable person and giving them another version it seems it would lead to a lot of false beliefs.
That is why I use the KJV.
Gina

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I use the KJV because I believe it to be the most accurate.
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God bless you Gina that you are comfortable with the KJV. But may I ask, why do you believe it to be the most accurate? Is it because it matches up with preconceived notions, or have you checked it against the original languages?

You say that the MVs don't "match up". Match up to what - the KJV rendering? Is the KJV the standard? Perhaps the MVs are even more accurate?

smile.gif

[Gina B]

They don't match up with other concepts within the Bible. Like the example I gave. Check it out. I suppose I am guilty of comparing with the KJV, but I have also gone back to studying the original language meanings, and also to seeing how the KJV came about as deciding factors to begin with.
Also, it seems in my personal life I am a lot more blessed in my understanding when I use the KJV. I figure that since it most definately isn't because it uses the most modern wording, perhaps it's of God?
All who are burning to express their horror over my last comment can sent it in the form of a letter to my complaint department at 222 Yemen St., Yemen, or call me at 1888IMOVEDTOYEMENTOAVOIDYOU. tongue.gif

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I used to use other versions to get a new take on a passage or in the hopes that it waould help clarify something that seemed confusing, but I found that too often it didn't match up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To echo Chris Temple's query..."didn't match up to" what? I fear that where MVs and the KJV differ, by default you assume the KJV to be correct and the MVs incorrect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And some concepts just aren't found in other translations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question should be whether or not those "concepts" are found in scripture instead of just the KJV. We ought to judge our theology by what the original scriptures said, not visa versa.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Take for instance the seven Spirits of God under general discussions. (I hope that's where it is) Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Seven could be found in the RSV or a few others, and it was worded so differently it totally took Spirit out of every verse, replacing it with an ideas that had nothing to do with the Spirits of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina, forgive me if I am on a different page here, but do you refer to the "Seven Spirits of God" of Revelation 5:6? I will presume you do and you can correct me if I am wrong.

Every version I have at my disposal (NIV, NASB, Amplified, and KJV) do indeed have the reading "seven Spirits of God." The NIV and Amplified have footnotes that say it might read as "seven fold Spirit of God," but that doesn't take away from the meaning and may be the correct one over against the KJV. Again, just because it "ain't in the KJV" doesn't mean it is wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the other translations might be interesting and even useful as a study-mate...but as far as taking your average knowledgable person and giving them another version it seems it would lead to a lot of false beliefs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would simply answer you with, "If you know enough about the scriptures it seems the KJV might be intersting as you could read between the archaisms."

And, I disagree totally with the last statement. It seems the KJV has proven the source for many more cults than any MV. And, like the case of the JWs, it is usually inferior translation of a passage or archaic terminology that had a different meaning in 1611 that leads to these "false beliefs."

Indeed, it seems to me that one might more easily understand the Word of God from MVs written in contemporary English rather than stumbling over archaisms that make little sense (or mean something totally different [read 'prevent' here] today) and obscure the meaning of scripture.

Sincerely,

[Gina B]

Yes, in Revelations, and 1:4. The Explanation for the spirits is in the following.
Eph. 1:13, John 15:26, Heb. 10:29, Rom. 8:15, Rom. 8:9, Rom. 8:10, and Rom. 8:2.
I haven't had too much of a problem with the "archaic". Is it thee or thou that confuses you? ;) Just kidding.
The text it was copied from, how it was copied, and personal experience is my reason for using it. Altogether, the separate teachings in all the different sections fit together and are more compatible. It doesn't change to fit the times, doesn't make He and She indistinguishable for the sake of the women's lib. movement. Another example is where God called man became a living soul. Other versions replace it with being. Mormons love that. Helps prove their souls prej-existence argument when you take soul out and replace it with being.
They may seem like subtle, more easy to understand differences, but they may make the difference between teaching false doctrine and teaching truth.
Gina

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It doesn't change to fit the times, doesn't make He and She indistinguishable for the sake of the women's lib. movement. Another example is where God called man became a living soul. Other versions replace it with being.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most mainstream translations in common use in the United States are not gender neutral in reference to God. There are some that do exist, however, and they are wrong (remember, no translation is perfect and, in cases where this occurs, it is willful mistranslation).

I did come across something you might find interesting, though. It is a list of MVs and how they deal with the translation of masculine references to God (and others). It is put out by Zondervan (the American publisher of the NIV). The NIV was burned a few years ago when their British publisher came out with a gender neutral European NIV. They are adamantly against this and have made every attempt to prevent this in the future.

Here is the site:

Contemporary Bible Translations (http://www.zondervan.com/nivtable.htm)

Another good site that pertains to the actual method of translation, average reading level, number of translators and other info. Here is that site:

Bible Translations Comparison Chart (http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm)

You are correct that not every translation does a good job of translation. In fact, some even willfully mistranslate certain issues to be "politically correct." They are wrong for doing this; however, it is not difficult to find out which versions are trustworthy and which ones are guilty of this type of heresy. Indeed, a little "study to show thyself approved" guards against both intellectual laziness and becoming an unwilling participant in heresy of this sort. The answer isn't (and does not have to be) "the KJV by default."

Sincerely,

[SaggyWoman]

My head hurts.