This is a question that I have had for quite some time. Actually it is a two fold question that has to do with Theological bias. Question number one: One of my fears in reading a translation is that there may be a theological bent toward one idea or another. I am not always sure that someone, or even the committee, may decide on key words just to enhance a passage that they feel may enhance their view of what a passage means. I really don't want to question the integrity of anyone, especially those on the committee of the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV. That is not my intent. An example may be that of the ESV. IMHO my observation is that there are a lot of theologians from the reformed position who highly endorse this translation. Is this translation committee one that would translate a passage with that view in mind? Probably not. I would say most likely not. But it is a question I have. Did the KJV or NKJV or NIV do that? Did a non-Calvinist determine a word should or should say this or that based on their idea? Or did a dispensationalist or non dispensationalist committee make certain decisions? Again I don't think so, but that is a question. My second and more serious question is one that really bothers me. I do believe we should examine all translations when we do a serious bible study. To check a literal translation and a dynamic one. And of course to the best of our ability compare that to the original. I think we have some good tools to compare to the original. BUT, I do not know how to read Greek or Hebrew and especially couldn't tell you about grammar. My going to the original is limited. Not to mention the fact that why should my limited knowledge compare to that of extremely good Hebrew - Greek scholars who translated these words for us already in a variety of good translations. But where does our bias end? For example if I am trying to prove a point, I may pick and choose some passages from whatever translation seems to be making my point better. This can't be good. Or is it? Obviously, the translations could differ or read a bit differently if they have a punctuation mark here or there, or if they have the sentence structure different. I am not sure we should use a variety of translations to prove our view. Perhaps it would be more fair to have a standard throughout, then show a different translation when we feel it communicates the point better. I don't know that is why I am asking this question. But I have read many books that are guilty of doing this. And when there is a passage in question and there are a dozen translations that say one thing but just one that says another, do we go with the majority? Well I guess that is three questions, but I hope this can be a profitable discussion.