The concern of this essay is not to compare the wordingof each verse with that in the other versions. It is, however, to notewhether or not each verse, or part of each verse, as it appears in theKing James Version, is included or excluded in the otherversions. The part in question appears between bold-face brackets [ ] inthe King James Version. The basis for inclusion in this comparison is thefootnotes in God's Word.

(Matthew 17: 21, Mark 9: 29, and Mark 16: 9-20 are not included in thisstudy because they will be discussed more thoroughly in other essays.)

Three possible conclusions can be made from this comparativestudy.

Is the King James Version the best? Many translators speakhighly of it, mainly for its literary style. One even said that it is rightmost of the time. For students of the Bible as literature, this is oneof the best versions. Various aspects of Hebrew literature, parallelismfor example, are kept intact. In an effort to create a version in the Englishof today that can be easily understood, some of this has been lost. Thosewho feel that the language of this version is more solemn and proper foruse in church should remember that this was the everyday language of thetime when this version was translated. The translator of the People's NewCovenant stated that there were only eight manuscripts available to thetranslators of the King James Version, while by 1925, there were nearlyseven hundred in Greek alone. Such highly-rated codices as the Sinaiticusand the Vaticanus were not available to translators until the nineteenthcentury. Translators recognize that the King James Version has many errors.Cambridge University Press states that the 1611 edition had been hastilyprepared and contained an alarming number of errors and misprints. Thefirst two Cambridge editions, in 1629 and 1638, improved the situation.The Revised Version of 1685 was the first official revision of the KingJames Version. After initial success, it lost appeal because of the popularityof the King James Version.

Are the modern versions better than the King James Version?There are at least two ways in which they are better. Most have been writtenin a language which is much more easily understood today. The recent translatorshave had access to more and earlier manuscripts. However, they do not seemto be as popular with many Christians, although that is changing. Thereis some complaint of their degrading of Jesus. In a few cases, there isa denominational bias.

There is a belief among many Christians that God willnot give any Scripture, other than the Bible, to man. They quote Revelation22: 18 to support this belief. Revelation 1: 3 and the history of the translationand the collation of the Biblical writings would tend to create a questionon that interpretation. Revelation 22: 18 applies to man. If this beliefbe correct, those who are strong supporters of the King James Version arefaced with a problem. How can they hold to a belief that condemns the versionof the Bible that they support? There are many additions of man in thatversion. The best explanation that I have seen for Revelation 22: 18 isin a footnote in the New Berkeley Version. It reads: "The warningrefers specifically to this book but it is equally true concerning allrevelation."

Does this make the modern versions better? The supportersof the King James Version can just as easily apply a similar type of beliefto Revelation 22: 19. The criticism of some of these versions is that thereis a taking away from the older versions, whether it be in word or in concept.Thus, in the same sense, these, too, would have to be rejected.

Let us turn to the real problem. It is not a rejectionof any version. A Christian can continue to use his favorite version orseveral versions. He needs to gain understanding of what the Bible is reallysaying, absent of denominational or personal bias. All the translatorshave really tried to present their work in a such a way that their readerscan understand in their own language and culture what the original writers,in a different language and culture, have tried to express as their inspirationsfrom God.

Look at the way in which the various versions have handledthe seventeen passages quoted in this study. Some omit a passage and makeno comment. Some include a passage and make no comment. In both cases,the translators have made a stand. Some omit a passage, but make a statementabout it in a footnote. Some include a passage, but make a statement aboutit in a footnote. In both cases, there is uncertainty, but a leaning towardone way or the other as to its authenticity. The footnotes state eitherthat some manuscripts and translations omit a passage or that they includeit. In some cases, it is pointed out that a passage was probably addedby a scribe. It is also expressed that some manuscripts are better thanothers.

Since no original manuscripts are in existence, translatorsmust rely on copies. These may contain errors. The problem is less withthe translators and their interpretations than with the copyists who haveinterpolated notes into the text. Some of these additions have little effecton the message, but others do. Notice the effect of the additions in Matthew5: 22, Matthew 18: 15, and Luke 4: 4. It makes a difference in some churcheswhether the number in Luke 10: 1 is seventy or seventy-two. Probably theaddition in the New Testament that has the greatest effect on doctrineis 1 John 5: 7 in the King James Version.

This study should point out the danger in being dogmaticabout the use of a particular version over the use of others and beingdogmatic about the meaning of a passage, especially when there is uncertaintyabout its inclusion. It is hoped that Christians will appreciate the problemsof the translators and the need to revise versions. Translators know thata perfect translation of the Bible does not exist. Persons who claim inerrancyof the Bible, whatever version that they mean, need to recognize this,too.

Which, then, is the best version? That depends on thepurpose of one's study of the Bible. Because of differences among the versions,one should be able to find a version that best meets his needs. In makingsuch a choice, he can still obtain the basic message of the Bible. Anyversion is as good as the manuscripts, the texts, and other tools used,and the ability of the translator, or translators. All of these, includingthe original writers, have applied interpretation. This study merely pointsout that the reader needs to read carefully and to seek God's help in interpreting.