I was acquainted first with the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, and most of the older reference works interact with the KJV. Hence, many of the reference works and commentaries to which I may appeal in my study of the Bible involve the KJV. However, personally and usually in print, I resort to the New King James Version (NKJV). Both of those translations are based on the same Old Testament and compiled Greek manuscript for the New Testament. For the most part, both the KJV and the NKJV are translated accurately, as well as for the most part being translated literally. The NKJV’s vocabulary has been updated and is easier to read and to understand than the KJV.
Most other contemporary New Testament translations are based on a different compilation of chiefly two or three older Greek manuscripts. Consequently, at best, these translations differ in some places – chiefly leaving out some verses – from the KJV and the NKJV. Happily, when translated accurately, no doctrine is compromised irrespective of whether one uses, for instance, the NKJV or the English Standard Version (ESV).
It is important to note that there are primarily two opposing approaches to translating Scripture into one’s language – more or less literally and dynamic equivalence. “Literal” refers to word for word translations (and sometimes transliterations, e.g., “baptism” for “baptisma”) with some words added by translators to help with the sense (italicized words, e.g., KJV, NKJV). “Dynamic Equivalence” presumes to reword and rephrase the original text into words and sentences that the translators believe will provide a modern-day message for people today.
Dynamic Equivalence traverses from translation into the realm of commentary to whatever extent it strays from producing in the receiving language (e.g., English) the words of the original language (e.g., Hebrew, Greek). Hence, the New International Version (NIV), for instance, as well as others, masquerade as translations of the Bible when, in fact, they represent human and denominational doctrines at worst, and at best they dilute the Word of God. Commentaries at least present themselves as the notes of Bible students rather than posing as the words of God, which were provided by the Holy Spirit. Being effortlessly read and easily understood, while admirable qualities of any literature, including the Bible, are not the deciding factors whether a translation of the Bible is reliable.
