Hello. For a long time I really panicked about which Bible translation to use, but I discovered a few things. First, any translation from the Greek or Hebrew into English is an interpretation. No matter how accurate one is in finding the best word equivalent, phrase, or whatever, the scholars who translate ARE "interpretating" to the best of their ability. Second, when I looked at the Received Text, the UBS, the Nestles, etc., I have always thought that these were the primary manuscripts that were bound up and published and considered to be the best Greek manuscripts available that were found hundreds of years ago and compiled. But now I realize what I thought was not exactly true...these manuscripts, I venture to say did not come first, but the "translation" came first. Consider this. When the NIV came out, I certainly remember reading those advertisements about it. Their strong points of advertising was that they had used so many various manuscripts, did a lot of comparing, etc. and there it is. But now what...years later? You can go to the store and buy the interlinear "NIV" English/Greek text. It is easy to see that the NIV was compiled from various Greek manuscripts and pasted together. In the same way, I believe that the KJV came first, for I have read that various manuscripts and translations (such as the Bishops) were used to formulate the translation. But do you notice that it follows pretty accurately the "RECEIVED TEXT"? So, which came first, the Received Text or the KJV? I would venture to say, the KJV. And that the Received Text is a compliation of various manuscripts that were used at the time. It is easy to understand why other translations do not follow the KJV or the Received Text...it is because other existing manuscripts, compilations, and translations were used as well. But I must say, regarding the KJV, it truly does follow the Received Text quite closely, and in that they both agree well. So, if these selected Greek texts came from various sources, it is assuring to know that there appears to be a high level of accuracy that was passed down. My point for saying all this, is to say that there are various manuscripts in Greek that exist and Praise the Lord, a lot of efforts have been made as you can see in Greek texts and footnotes, etc. to "weight" the words and preserve the findings of comparisons, etc. It is so effident that God perserves His Word. There are many translations, and I am thankful for many of them, but not all. I do agree, however, that some that are coming out have an agenda of some sort, and that bothers me greatly and it is so sad. For example, the word "name" in the New Testament, some translators are using more and more the word "authority" instead. I do not think this is right (especially when one looks up the Greek meaning for name and finds that that it what it generally means. Authority being a more remote definition--according to Thayer), but it does I believe promote an extreme doctrinal view. I am also greatly perplexed when I read John 1:18 in the various translations. I also feel that some of these translations belittle Who Jesus was when HE came in the Flesh. If HE was in the Bosom of the Father, then it should say that. But many translations that are coming out, say "His Side, or Near". I believe that this is clearly an attempt to promote a different doctrine of Who Jesus was on earth. How does bosom become His side? or near? So, basically, I conclude that if translations exalt Who Jesus was and is, than I am for it. If they belittle or deflate Who Jesus was and is, than I am against it. But I truly am thankful for many of the various translations that have come out, for it increases my knowledge of Him.