My husband and I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in the original manuscripts. (This, by the way, is the orthodox and truly “Fundamental” view. For more information, see my post about the Fundamentals.) For this reason, we believe it is important to read an accurate translation. Any good, formal equivalency (“word for word”) translation will retain the same doctrine, etc. as the originals, but the more accurate the translation, the easier it will be to study it without the use of extra “tools.”

The KJV is a decent translation, and I am not opposed to its use.

I am, however, opposed to the dogmatic use of only the KJV, for two major reasons. The first is that those in the KJV-only camp cast doubt on the Word of God in the minds of other Christians, and so cause them to stumble. (Unfortunately, most of their writings — especially those by Gail Riplinger — are based on incorrect information and/or faulty reasoning.)

The second is that many of the words used in the KJV had different meanings then than they do now. This makes it easy to incorrectly interpret some passages, while believing one has understood them properly. (As an example, a prominent KJV-Only page laments the change of “study” and “science” in the KJV to “be diligent” and “knowledge” in the NKJV. Apparently this gentleman is not aware that, by definition, these are exactly the same! “Study” means “be diligent” and “science” means “knowledge.”)

Each translation should be evaluated on its own merit.

Personally, I do not care for the NIV (a dynamic equivalency translation — that is, a “phrase by phrase,” or a sort of cross between a translation and a paraphrase). I do not care for this type of translation. I also take issue with translations like this that use “one and only” for “only begotten” in John 3:16.  This is doctrinally incorrect; we (the saved) are all sons of God.

I also do not care for the NASB. It is said to be a very accurate formal equivalency translation, but my husband and I have come across numerous “little issues” as we’ve read through it.

Many other translations, such as TLB are such dynamic-equivalency translations that I consider them to be paraphrases. Others, like the MSG, are very clearly paraphrases. These may have their place, as a sort of “Bible commentary,” but they are not Bibles. A paraphrase is not the Word of God; it is the words of the man who paraphrased it.

Some translations, such as the RSV and the ESV may be good; I really don’t know, as I’m not familiar with them.

Our household’s preference is the NKJV. In every single instance where I’ve seen the KJV-Only people blast the NKJV for differing from the KJV, the NKJV has been more precise or more correct than the KJV, according to the manuscripts from which the KJV is translated. Unfortunately, the KJV-Onlyists have blinded themselves to this excellent translation by their (usually) unthinking obsession with the “perfection” of the KJV.

When selecting a translation, there are several factors to consider.

The first is translation method: is it formal equivalency or dynamic equivalency? Formal equivalency is, essentially, a word-for-word translation as much as is possible. A dynamic equivalency translation is more of a phrase-by-phrase translation, and the interpretation of the translators will more frequently creep into this type of translation, just because of the nature of the method.

The second is textual basis. This is a rather complex issue, but the nutshell version is that there are basically two sets of manuscripts. There is a set of older manuscripts and there is a set of newer manuscripts. One “camp” says that the older ones are most reliable because they’re older and, thus, likely to be freer of copyists’ errors. The other camp says that the newer ones are more reliable, because they’re from the correct “line” of manuscripts, which was accepted by the early church as the “right” ones, and the older versions of these manuscripts are just gone from being used until they wore out. This group says that the oldest manuscripts we now have are still around because they weren’t used, as the church knew they were no good. Honestly, I really don’t know which is correct. I do know that my NKJV uses the same foundational text as the KJV.

The third factor to consider is the English style. In this category, I truly believe that the NKJV beats out the KJV by a long shot. The NKJV uses, overall, much more modern English, while in a few areas preserving a higher level of accuracy to the original. For example, the KJV’s “lieutenants” is corrected to “satraps.” “Satraps” may be a less common word, but it is far more accurate and, when difficult to understand, very obviously so, prompting one to look it up, rather than just ignorantly misunderstand.

The fourth factor is the overall purpose, etc. of the translation. For example, if it was written to remove all gender references, it’s pretty safe to assume it’s terrible. If it was written to provide an accurate translation in the current vernacular, it may well be good. (But you’ll have to consider all of the other factors, as well.)

I like to consider a few other particulars, too. Are words added for clarity/English flow italicized so it’s readily apparent that they’re added? Are pronouns referring to God capitalized? How do the translators handle God’s name? (Yes, He does have one!) When the original text is vague, do they leave it vague, allowing me to draw my own conclusions, or do they choose a single interpretation and impose it upon me? (For example, the “virgin” in 1 Cor. 7.)

Cloud on New Age Bible Versions
White on New Age Bible Versions
more information about comparing translations