Now to the second question. It is not just important what type of translation you have, but you will also want to look at what manuscripts it is based on.
This one gets more complicated. You see many of the major differences, and charges leveled against new versions come not from their method of translation, but the underlying manuscripts used.
The KJV, and the NKJV use the majority text. That means that they use the manuscripts that occur the most often. It is sometimes called the textus receptus (received text), and was compiled by Erasmus. He made his text by collecting those manuscripts which were most plentiful, and which tended to agree with each other. These eventually formed the basis for the KJV.
At the time that Erasmus compiled the textus receptus he was aware of SOME manuscripts which did not match with these in every respect. Again we see that some texts had what we call VARIANT READINGS. Ie, they say something different. Some of these texts that he did not include were older text fragments, of only parts of the NT. He didn't include them because he knew people would not like them. But since the compilation of the textus receptus, and since the translation of the KJV we have found yet more of these fragments. Some large, some small. And a lot of them read slightly differently. Now understand that these differences are not huge. The NT is the most attested to book in antiquity, with 1000's manuscripts literally all over the place. So the number, of these variations is somewhat minor. And most are minor in nature as well, only changing incidental words that make little difference. But some are more problematic. The manuscript designated D by scholars (codex Beze) is believed to be an example of this. It is believed to be an ANTINOMIAN text. Ie, the translators didn't like the law, so they just changed a passage here and there to lesson the importance of the law. Now, it should be clear from this that you can sometimes tell when a text is changed. But sometimes not. And the question is, which is really the better reading? Newer translations which are not based on the textus receptus make use of more recently discovered manuscripts. They do this on the basis that
a. the texts are older, therefore more reliable. IE, the older it is, the closer to the original, without a lot of changes. The TR(textus receptus) folks believe that the number of the majority texts, and the consistency make it more reliable. But some would say, since they were obviously mass produced, numbers mean little.
b. The newer versions claim that the older, newly discovered manuscripts are also more reliable because you can see a tree of changes. In other words, you can see how various factions might change a reading to suit their view. You can trace these progressive changes over time.
c. This one is related to b. "The more difficult the reading, the more likely to be true" In other words, the tendency among translators is to make things read smoother, eliminate difficulties, fix "mistakes", gloss over problems, etc. So when you encounter something that seems to be controversial, problematic, or just plain wrong, it is hard to justify someone changing it to that, instead of someone smoothing out the later one. The TR people say, sometimes difficult is just difficult, and wrong is just wrong.
So you see that there are honest debates over which is the best reading. Now the advantage to reading Greek is that Greek Bibles LIST the variant readings clearly at the bottom in an "aparatus," or at least the major ones. So you can actually see which ancient texts read what way. If you favor the arguments of the crowd that thinks older is better, you can see what the old texts said. If you favor the MT, you can see what it said. And of course, not all of the older ones always agree either. There are general categories too. There are the uncials...copies written all in capitol letters with no word breaks..these are generally old. Then there are the miniscules...older texts written with word breaks, etc. Then there are the papyri, which tend to be the oldest manuscripts. So D mentioned above is an uncial. P64 is a Papyri etc. Your Greek Bible comes with a key that explains when the text manuscript was found, where it was found, and you can get additional works that give general characteristics about the text.
So for each text you can see what manuscripts incude it, what they say, and make your own conclusions. You can also get another book , which I have, kind of interesting, called "A textual commentary on the Greek NT" which goes over the arguments for the major variant readings that the translators went through.
Now...here is where it gets interesting. When the new versions such as the NIV, or NRSV, etc. think a text in the TR is not the best reading, what do they do? They replace it with the better reading AND put the other in a footnote most times. . But in some cases, that really causes people problems.
Let's look at some examples.
Lord's Prayer, NIV
MT 6:9 "This, then, is how you should pray: " `Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ' For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
KJV
Matt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
The casual observer will soon recognize that the phrase "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. " was not in the NIV. And while it may bother some, that is because it probably was not in Jesus' prayer either. Quite a few of the earliest manuscripts do not have it. And it is easy to see why some would put it...it is a theological statement, almost a creedal statement, that could easily have been read back in.
But to the person who does not realize this, this is a great problem ."they changed the Bible" they might say. Well, it was changed, but likely the ones who changed it were translaters hundreds of years ago by adding the phrase. To me, I want what Jesus actually said, not what someone read back into it.
Let's look at a more clear example. Now please realize, most Variant Readings are not this important. But I am using some radical ones so you can see.
NIV
1JN 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
KJV
1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Notice verse 7. The KJV has a whole set of things that bear witness that the NIV leaves out. Why do they leave it out? Well, because it does not appear in any but 8 Greek manuscripts, and in none before the 10th century where it appeared in a variant reading. None of the church fathers make reference to it. None of the ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic etc.) include it except the Latin, and the early versions of it, including Jerome's Vulgate do not include it. Not only is the textual evidence fairly overwhelming, but the evidence from reason is too. It is clearly a trinitarian formula. Church history records many battles over the Trinity issue. But why would there be church councils, and years of disputes, and people killed over the trinity issue if this clear text were originally there? And why would none of them have quoted it? So the conclusion is rather obvious. Someone added this to the text to reinforce the orthodox view.
So you get the idea. Some of the texts impact our Adventist doctrines too. Now I will say that the NIV is interpretive in one passage in Daniel 9 rendering a passage "on a wing of a temple" which is a reference to their view that it was fufilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. So I almost never use it to explain the 70 weeks prophecy.
But at the same time, the KJV reads in a soul/body seperation bias at times. Let's look at an example.
NIV
1CO 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
KJV
1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Notice the difference at the end of verse 20 in each. One says honor God with your body. The other says in your body and in your spirit which are God's?
Now which is right? Actually from the textual evidence, this one is closer. But in the end I felt that the textual evidence favored the NIV reading. Which is interesting in that it is more closely parallels what we teach about the body and spirit. Why would they add in their spirit? To fit a theology.
For some this whole notion of some texts being different in different manuscripts is a crisis in faith. But it need not be. If anything these new manuscripts are a good thing. They get us close to the original words, potentially, they help us to see that the scriptures were written much earlier than some thought, and most of them do in fact agree. The differences are often minor, and when they are not, it is rarely on huge theological issues. The ones above are fairly notable for being ones that people would care at all about.
So for now I use the NIV myself, and the KJV at times. I prefer the NIV because I like the dynamic nature and easy reading MOST of the time, and I still feel it draws a good compromise between getting the point across and retaining idioms. I sometimes wish it would do slightly better, but oh well. And I use it because I tend to think that the older manuscripts probably are better than the often copied TR. Either way, I can always check my footnotes to see what the NIV left out.
So if you want a literal word for word translation built around the TR, with poetic language (probably not the kind of language that Peter a fisherman would use! ) then the KJV is a good choice. The NKJV is good if you want simpler English, still a literal version, an the majority text.
The New American Standard Bible is a good literal translation, probably the most literal in recreating the culture of the Bible, but is not based on the Textus Receptus.
Another very good, though less common word for word version, that also uses the new textual evidnce is the ESV. It is available for free for the esword program for those who use it.
If you want a really easy reading fairly literal, but not too literal when it isn't warranted version where you lose an idiom here or there, and they use some of the discoveries of manuscripts, then use the NIV.
Another thought for thought translation that is supposed to really capture the greek sense according to scholars is the Good News Translation, formerly the TEV.
And if you want to confuse everyone to death, annoy friends and neighbors, read three times as much total volume, get the statements of EGW mixed in with your Bible, and be labled as one who uses an "Adventist Version" then use the Clear Word. Sorry, couldn't resist that!
