Are footnotes good or bad for translations? All translations have done it. Some do it more that others. Is it better to keep a questionable text in and put that it's questionable in the footnotes(NASB), or is it better to just put the questionable text in the foot notes(ESV,NIV)? It was mentioned that this was a bad thing to do and I commented on the fact the even the KJV did this very thing. (though not as often). I felt that continuing that discussion there would be off topic to the OP, I decided to make a different thread. Some KJV only advocates who don't relize that the KJV did this very practice(again, not as often but did it) put down modern versions for doing this. They say it's "confusing" and "stupid." What are your thoughts on this. Should a translation put footnotes letting you know alternate renderings of a passage? Should a translation put footnotes letting you know of textual variants in the passage. Here is my response to the question to me from the other question. I'm glad you don't mind alternate renderings. There are some that go to that extreme. Here is an example of them leaving out a phrase and placing it in the marginal notes. Text Current KJV Luke 10:22 KJV All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. KJV 1611 All things are deliuered to me of my father: and no man knoweth who the sonne is, but the father: and who the father is, but the sonne, and he to whom the sonne will reueale him. "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said" scanned copy http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1295 Not when your put down a practice that the KJV uses as well.