Dear church people,

The above book is in the church library.
I don't agree with the author's analysis.

I don't have a problem with the KJV, but I have a problem with attacks on modern translations.

I think some people in our congregation realize they don't understand the KJV, but are unsure about modern translations because of subtle things our teachers and maybe preachers have said over the years.

Consequently, I think they either aren't reading the Bible, or they are reading the KJV and are bored with it.

So here's what I got out of the book:

1... Footnotes, brackets and italics in modern translations make readers doubt. (p. 38)

2... The Alexandrian manuscripts that modern textual critics prefer are bad. (p. 45, etc.)

3... Textual criticism is bad. (p. 53)

4... Modern translations follow "pet" manuscripts instead of following the vast majority of manuscripts. (p. 54)

5... Every version but the KJV is bad. (p. 18, pp. 58-136, PART TWO: What You Should Know about the 15 Best-Known Bible Versions)

6... Wescott and Hort were bad. (p. 60)

7... Verses are missing from modern translations when compared to the KJV. (p. 13, etc.)

8... The verses that are missing in modern translations change the meaning of the Bible. (p. 13, etc.)

Scholarly Consensus:

This rest of this page provides some alternative answers to Daniels' questions and concerns. I think the scholarly consensus fits the facts much better than the KJV-only arguments. What do you think?

My understanding of the scholarly consensus:

1... It's about manuscripts, not translations.

2... Almost all modern translations use different manuscripts than the ones that the KJV is based on.

3... Manuscripts have mostly tiny differences or errors called textual variants.

4... Less than 1% of all the textual variants significantly affect the meaning of the overall Bible.

5... There isn't stuff missing from modern translations...
...Instead there was stuff added or interpolated to the manuscripts that the KJV is based on.

Mark Lehigh


This font... Quotes from the internet and stuff
This font...
Quotes from Look What's Missing!
(or me paraphrasing viewpoints expressed in the book)
This font... My comments
Underlined text... My emphasis added

Book preview here:


Is Wikipedia reliable?

'Cuz I got a lotta Wikipedia links here.

The KJV is the hardest translation to understand.

The KJV may be the best translation in the world...
The modern translations may all be missing stuff...
But I don't understand the KJV.

Modern translations are necessary because of language changes.

If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air (1 Cor. 14:9).

1... Footnotes, brackets and italics in modern translations make readers doubt.

Should we instead pretend we understand the manuscripts and textual variants perfectly?

We have around 5,800 handwritten Greek NT manuscripts, and they each have tiny differences called textual variants.
Textual critics examine those textual variants in the attempt to determine what the original autographs said.
Translations use footnotes and brackets when manuscripts, textual critics or translators don't agree.

God's Word is sure.
We're not.

Satan keeps trying his hardest to destroy faith in the Bible in the hearts of Christian people. And he finally found a strategy that worked. How does he do this? By pushing the lie that "the Bible has to be fixed" and whispering "Yea, hath God said?"68 pretending there's something wrong with the Bible every time they don't understand a Bible verse.

(p. 58)

God's revelation and the original autographs are / were perfect.
When new manuscripts are discovered, our understanding of the Bible may need to be fixed.
This new information may reveal past errors in translation.

More information is good.
Questions need answered, not swept under the rug.

For those who have not been indoctrinated into the AV Alone camp, the middle ground between being anti-KJV and being a KJV Only advocate is easily seen. As long as one does not make that fateful identification--"The King James Bible Alone = The Word of God Alone"--one will recognize that it is quite possible to see errors made by the KJV translators without attacking the Word of God. Surely we can count the very translators of the AV as taking our side on this issue, for they provided alternate renderings in the margins of their work, showing they had no concept of infallible inspiration working in their behalf while translating. Hence they would be first to allow for the need for revision and correction over time. Nonetheless, it is vital to emphasize that demonstrating errors in the KJV in no way demonstrates errors in the Bible. The first involves recognizing the fallibility of human translators, while the second questions the very inspiration of Scripture itself.

...from The King James Only Controversy, 2nd edition, 2009, p. 277

2... The Alexandrian manuscripts that modern textual critics prefer are bad.

As we noted before, it is important to emphasize that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types do not result in two different New Testaments. A person who reads the New Testament as found in Codex Sinaiticus and applies sound exegetical methods to its text will come to the very same conclusions as anyone reading a Byzantine manuscript written a thousand years later.

...from The King James Only Controversy, 2nd edition, 2009, p. 74

Info on the Alexandrian text-type:


What's wrong with the Alexandrian text-type?

Are the manuscripts the KJV textual critics and translators used any better?

For the New Testament alone, translators today have over 5300 manuscripts at their fingertips. Only 25 of these texts were at the disposal of the translators of the KJV.

...from http://www.brfwitness.org/the-new-bible-translations-are-they-necessary/

A few things stand out from this information. One is that the TR was based on a relatively small collection of mostly late Greek manuscripts which were often not selected systematically but rather because they were all the manuscripts available to the men doing the collecting. We must greatly admire the scholarship they produced out of the resources they had, but over 5,000 Greek manuscript discoveries later, there is certainly more work to be done...

...When we look at what the KJV translators accomplished with the limited texts they had available to them, it should invoke in us a great respect and admiration for their work. It should also cause us to be all the more grateful for the wealth of data we have today in our thousands of Greek manuscripts, hundreds of which are from the earliest centuries, and in our copies of numerous ancient translations in a variety of tongues like Syriac, Coptic, and yes, Latin. Let us recognize the blessing we have in such a vast treasure of biblical witnesses and be faithful to wisely use what God has given us, just as the translators before us did with what was given to them.

...from https://carm.org/KJVO/on-which-new-testament-manuscripts-did-the-kjv-translators-rely

Are the manuscripts inspired and inerrant, or just the original autographs?

Is the KJV inspired and inerrant?

73) Of course, that wasn't easy, because unlike the preserved words of God, the Alexandrian texts don't agree with each other in hundreds of places. So they made up their own arbitrary rules to decide which contradictory "reading" they would stick into their "new" Bible.

(p. 61)

The first time a person writes something, that is the "original autograph."

So when a Bible writer first penned what God put in his heart, that writing was the original autograph of that book. Everything else is a copy.

Now if we had those originals stored somewhere, they would be the end of all arguments about what the "autographs" said. But godly people lovingly used those originals so much that they eventually disintegrated from the weather and constant use. Thank God He put it on people's hearts to copy and translate those words.48


All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.49

All scripture is inspired, but what does the Bible call "scripture"? Why, copies of the originals, of course. In the verse above, Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture was given by God's inspiration. But take a look at the verse before that, at what he said about what qualifies as "the holy scriptures:"

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.50

Did Timothy or his synagogue have the originals? No. He had copies of copies of copies. Then, is God saying through Paul that perfect copies are scripture?


Jesus read from a copy of a scroll of Isaiah in His hometown synagogue in Nazareth. When He finished reading, the first words He said were:

This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.51

Jesus is the one who gave these words to Isaiah. So if there was a single word out of place, He would know it. But Jesus didn't correct one syllable of the words He read. And more importantly, look at what the Lord Jesus called it: scripture. 52

So the copy Jesus read from, and the copy that Timothy learned from, were just as much "scripture" as the originals given through the apostles and prophets.

God doesn't want us running on a wild goose chase in the desert, trying to find the "originals." He wants us to look for exact copies and accurate translations of those copies of His inspired words. Those are "the scripture."

(pp. 42-44)

Are there manuscripts without textual variants?

Are there perfect manuscripts that are exact copies of the original autographs?

If textual criticism, footnotes, brackets and italics are bad, should we ignore the textual variants?

The desire for a perfect Bible produced on the Xerox of heaven, or repeatedly spit out through the error-checking celestial supercomputer, is strong indeed. We do not want a text that comes to us through history. It is messy to deal with things like scribes and textual history and God's providence. Then again, this is how He has built His church. In any case, the heart of the KJV position is reflected in the assertion that if there have been variants, and we do not have a supernatural, final variant-deciding mechanism, then we do not have a "real" or "reliable" Bible...

...The divine preservation of the scriptural text does not involve photocopiers but rather the deep, widespread, rapidly expanding New Testament manuscript tradition. Recall our earlier discussion of multifocality, which gives us assurance that the text has not been edited by a central organization so as to change its substance and message. Recall how the New Testament text's rapid dissemination and distribution precluded the very purposeful corruption its critics are always theorizing. And recall "tenacity," how the nature of the New Testament in tenaciously preserving readings gives us confidence that the original reading, even in the context of variation, remains in the manuscript tradition.

My response to Ehrman's postulate is the same as my response to my King James Only friends: God has preserved His text; He simply has chosen to do so in a far more miraculous way than you would allow Him to. It is a surface-level magic trick, similar to the myth about how the LXX translators all translated the writings of Moses in identical words, to come up with a photocopied text. It is a far more real miracle for God to take the work of multiple authors, written in multiple locations, in multiple contexts, writing to multiple audiences, during a time of Imperial persecution, working through the very mechanisms of history (just like He did with His people in the Old Covenant), and in that process create the single most attested text of all antiquity where less than one percent of the text requires us to engage in serious examination of the sources to determine the original reading. God has done so in such a fashion that even Ehrman must admit that as far as "recreating the original text," today's scholars are merely tinkering, as the task is, for all intents and purposes, completed.3 Fifty-seven-hundred-plus manuscripts, fifteen hundred years of transmissional history, multiple authors, and the combined wrath of Rome and the gnostics--yet we have the New Testament we possess today. That is miraculous indeed! Textual variation is merely an artifact of the mechanism of preservation.

...from The King James Only Controversy, 2nd edition, 2009, pp. 303, 307

3... Textual criticism is bad.

What is the secret of "textual criticism"?

One of the earliest modern Bible critics was a guy named Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752). He made his own edition of the Greek New Testament. He also made up his own rule for figuring out what to put in or leave out of the Bible. And every "textual critic" has built his house of cards upon that basic rule:

"Prodivi scriptionipraestat ardua"
(That means, "The harder reading is to be preferred.")

So if the reading doesn't make sense, contradicts other Bible verses, calls into question basic doctrines or lowers the deity of Christ, it is to be preferred. In other words, they are looking for a contradictory and inconsistent Bible. And they found it: right there in Alexandria, Egypt.

Want proof? Here are the two main rules (or "canons") of textual criticism:

• The External Canon: "Manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted." This means if almost all the manuscripts in the world say one thing, and the textual critic's favorite manuscript says another thing, then he would give more "weight" to his favorite (usually from Alexandria) than a stack of consistent Bible texts.

But wait--God promised to preserve His words.

(p. 53)

Two common considerations have the Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization--resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Internal_evidence

Textual criticism was an important aspect of the work of many Renaissance Humanists, such as Desiderius Erasmus, who edited the Greek New Testament, creating the Textus Receptus.

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

The biblical textus receptus constituted the translation-base for the original German Luther Bible, the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, the Spanish Reina-Valera translation, the Czech Bible of Kralice, and most Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The text originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516, a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and monk Desiderius Erasmus.

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Textual Criticism is a science attempting to establish the correct text of a document. It is applied to secular as well as sacred works. The rules for its practice are the same whether the text is sacred or secular.

...Believers and Unbelievers Practice Textual Criticism the Same Way

Textual criticism is practiced by both believers and unbelievers. While they may disagree as to the nature of the Bible, there is no disagreement when it comes to the subject of textual criticism. Both use the same Hebrew Old Testament and the same Greek New Testament. Both examine the same manuscripts and the same variant readings that are found in the manuscripts. When examining the text, the same rules are applied by both believers and unbelievers and the same conclusions are drawn. Therefore, the practice of textual criticism is not a battleground between believers and unbelievers.

...On the one hand, there are those who do not believe that any textual criticism should be applied to Scripture. They argue that God has preserved His Word intact through certain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These manuscripts should be the basis of every translation that is made into another language. No other manuscripts should be consulted except these certain ones that have been "providentially preserved."

On the other hand, there is the position that it is not possible to recover the original text of Scripture. It is argued that the best we can do is to recover the latest edition of the biblical books that was edited by others than those who wrote the original.

The first position is held by people who have a very conservative view of the Bible, while the second is held by those who have a very liberal attitude toward Scripture. However, neither of these positions is the correct one. Textual criticism must be practiced on the biblical books because there is no one manuscript, or group of manuscripts, that perfectly preserve the original reading.

Yet, we do believe that it is possible to discover what the authors originally wrote. There is no need to assume that the text was changed to such a degree that we no longer have the authors' original words. The original text can be recovered through the science of textual criticism.

...from https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/words-bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm

As it turns out, most of the scholars who work in the field of New Testament textual criticism in North America either are or used to be committed evangelical Christians. You might think that the findings of textual criticism would drive evangelicals away from their faith. But just the opposite is the case. I know very few people who have found their faith challenged by their knowledge of the textual problems of the New Testament. Very few indeed. I was a bit of an oddball that way.

...Most New Testament scholars are deeply interested in and committed to views of "higher criticism," the rigorously historical attempt to understand the New Testament. Engaging in this kind of critical work virtually presupposes that one will acknowledge (and be willing to discover) that there are historical problems with the New Testament: discrepancies, contradictions, historical errors, and factual mistakes. The goal of higher criticism is not simply to point out such problems. The goal is to provide a historically rooted understanding of the text.

...How to avoid that problem if you are a fundamentalist or hard-core conservative evangelical? One of the most popular ways to avoid it is to work in an area of New Testament studies where your presuppositions about the inspiration of Scripture have almost NO bearing on your work. And one area where that is true is textual criticism. Anyone, with any personal theological views about the inspiration of Scripture, can study the manuscripts of the New Testament to determine what the authors originally wrote. It's a very difficult field to work in, because it involves massive expertise in a range of complicated areas. But it does not require a person either to presuppose or not to presuppose that the words written by the biblical authors are inspired by God.

And so many evangelicals who want to be serious biblical scholars turn to textual criticism. It is a "safe" discipline.

...from https://ehrmanblog.org/why-textual-criticism-is-safe-for-conservative-christians/

4... Modern translations follow "pet" manuscripts instead of following the vast majority of manuscripts.

Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism#Canons_of_textual_criticism

It is common for KJV Only advocates to assert that modern textual scholars simply believe "the older manuscripts are the better manuscripts." While it is not true in every instance that the older a manuscript is the better it is, it generally is true. Surely it is easy to understand that a manuscript that comes from only a century after the writing of the original, such as 66 or 75, should be given more weight in examining a variant reading than a manuscript from the fourteenth century. Unless that later manuscript was somehow copied from a very ancient manuscript, it probably is the result of a long series of transcriptions. It may well be a fourth- or tenth- or fifteenth-generation copy. Obviously a manuscript from AD 200 is not a tenth-generation copy; there isn't enough time between the date of its production and the writing of the original. All of this demonstrates why we cannot simply count manuscripts but must weigh them, looking at their general character, age, and text-type. Some are simply more important than others in helping us identify the original text.

In light of these things we can understand why there are many times when the modern Greek texts will adopt a reading found in a minority of the Greek texts. When we look at these instances, we find that either those minority texts carry great weight or they are coupled with internal considerations that add to the weight of the manuscripts themselves. We will see examples of this as we look at passages in dispute between the modern texts and the KJV.

...from The King James Only Controversy, 2nd edition, 2009, p. 198

5... Every version but the KJV is bad.

"Everyone else is wrong" probably is extremism.

Are none of the thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1769 worthwhile?
Has any textual criticism since 1769 been worthwhile?
Is the modern scholarly consensus wrong?

The author says the NKJV uses almost the same manuscripts as the KJV, but changes words compared to the KJV. (p. 18)

How does the NKJV change words?

6... Wescott and Hort were bad.

How were Wescott and Hort wrong?

Info on Wescott and Hort:


7... Verses are missing from modern translations when compared to the KJV.

...Missing from what?

As someone who has used only the KJV in my preaching and teaching, I long for those days over 40 years ago when I joined the fundamentalist movement when we argued about which Greek text was superior rather than this johnny-come-lately argument that the KJV is the inspired, inerrant Word of God in English.

...from https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R137CXT1Z7U7E1?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp

The question we will ask over and over again in looking at such textual issues is, "What did the original author write?" That must be our controlling thought. We wish only what was inspired by the Holy Spirit, without deletions, and without additions either. Additions are just as dangerous as deletions. When we encounter a passage like John 5:4, we should not ask, "Why do modern versions delete this passage?" but "Is this passage an addition on the part of some later texts or a deletion on the part of earlier ones?"

...from The King James Only Controversy, 2nd edition, 2009, p. 201


1... It's about manuscripts, not translations.

2... Almost all modern translations use different manuscripts than the ones that the KJV is based on.

3... Manuscripts have mostly tiny differences or errors called textual variants.

4... Less than 1% of all the textual variants significantly affect the meaning of the overall Bible.

5... There isn't stuff missing from modern translations...
...Instead there was stuff added or interpolated to the manuscripts that the KJV is based on.

Missing or added?

In "A Word about the NIrV," it says "Later copies of the Greek New Testament added several verses that the earlier ones don't have. Sometimes it's several verses in a row. When that's the case, we included them in the NIrV. But we set those verses off with a long line. That tells you that the first writers didn't write them. They were added later on." But if they don't believe they belong, why put them in their Bible? Because they still want you to buy their Bible.

(p. 141)

Lectio brevior potior (Latin for "the shorter reading is stronger") is one of the key principles in textual criticism, especially biblical textual criticism. The principle is based on the widely accepted view that scribes showed more tendency to embellish and harmonise by additions and inclusions than by deletions. Hence, when comparing two or more manuscripts of the same text, the shorter readings are considered more likely to be closer to the original.

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_brevior

Addition is not the same as repetition.


Mark 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Every word in the Bible is important. But if it is repeated, pay attention. If it is repeated three or four times, watch out. God is making sure we never forget the lesson.

That is why it is so sinful that Alexandrians and others took away what God repeated--even to the point of deleting whole phrases and verses.


(pp. 194-195)

Is it any surprise that they also removed words about hell and judgment from Mark 6:11 and 9:45 and completely removed Matthew 23:14, Mark 9:44 and 46?95 There's something about hell that makes these people very nervous.

95) Repetition, like you see in Mark 9, is not a "copyist's mistake." It's God's way of emphasizing something important in the Bible. Eliminating repetition is removing God's exclamation point.

(p. 75)

Parallel Verses

The total number of these verses that are included in some translations and excluded in others is actually quite small. What's more, many of them are actually included in all translations, they are just included in some translations in more than one place and in other translations only in one place. For example, all translations include the verse:

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost," (Luke 19:10).

Some translations, like the KJV, NKJV, and MEV, also include this verse in Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 18:11). Others, like the NASB and HCSB, include the verse in both places, but put brackets around it in Matthew 18:11 with a note that it is not present in the earliest manuscripts of that passage. Still others, like the NIV, ESV, and CSB, omit the verse from the main body of Matthew 18, but have a footnote alerting the reader that the verse is present there in some manuscripts. The point is, all of these translations include the verse at Luke 19:10. No one is trying to suppress or shed doubt on the idea that Jesus came to save the lost. They all agree that the Holy Spirit inspired these words, they are just not all convinced that He inspired them twice. Luke definitely wrote this. There is no question about that. Early manuscripts lead some to doubt, however, that Matthew also wrote the same words. They suspect that a later scribe mistakenly added Luke's words to Matthew's gospel. The words are true either way, and every translation affirms them to be found at least in Luke's gospel. And, even though some translations note through brackets or footnotes their doubt that these words were originally found in Matthew 18, every single one of them still points out to the reader that these words are indeed found in some copies of Matthew 18.

Similarly, every translation contains the verse:

"Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched," (Mark 9:48).

There is no dispute at all that these words are authentic. Jesus really said this and Mark really wrote it down. All translations agree here. Where they disagree is just how many times these words were originally found in Mark 9. Translations like the KJV, NKJV, and MEV all include this verse, not once, but three times in the discourse (Mark 9:44. 46. and 48). Again, the NASB and HCSB also include these words all three times but in two of the three places (Mark 9:44, 46) they place them in brackets, noting that in the earliest manuscripts the words are present only once (Mark 9:48). Translations like the NIV, ESV, and CSB again omit the words in 9:44 and 9:46, but include footnotes explaining that some manuscripts have the words in those places. All translations include the words at 9:48. No one is hiding or suppressing Jesus' teaching on eternal punishment here. Manuscripts (and thus translations) just disagree on exactly how many times Jesus said these words. Either way, the words are true and biblical. They are not "missing" from any translation.

Most of the alleged "missing verses" are of this sort, appearing in at least one place in every translation and so never truly missing at all!

...from https://carm.org/KJVO/missing-verses-overview

8... The verses that are missing in modern translations change the meaning of the Bible.

A quantitative study on the stability of the New Testament compared early manuscripts to later manuscripts, up to the Middle Ages, with the Byzantine manuscripts, and concluded that the text had more than 90% stability over this time period.[117] It has been estimated that only 0.1% to 0.2% of the New Testament variants impact the meaning of the texts in any significant fashion.[117]

...from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Texts

Are Bible translations getting worse over time?

Are they getting more liberal?

Liberals denigrate the same text that conservatives revere. The reason liberals attack the Bible is because it's not liberal. Your belief doesn't affect the text.

Changes or corrections in modern versions are not the result of a modern liberal agenda to change the Bible. Modern scholars are not making stuff up. The changes in modern translations simply reflect what appears in the manuscripts. Even the newest manuscripts predate all modern translations.

Professional ethics demand the textual critic and translator translate accurately, regardless of any bias.


Almost all modern translations prohibit homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9. and 1 Timothy 1:10.

NRSV Updated Edition Removes 3 Biblical Condemnations of Homosexuality, Keeps Others

Here's what the most paraphrasey Bible ever--The Voice--says about marriage:

24Now this is the reason a man leaves his father and his mother, and is united with his wife; and the two become one flesh. 25In those days the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

C4 Genesis provides an image of the ideal marriage: One man. One woman. In a one-flesh relationship. For life. These four elements constitute the ideal, as Jesus reminds His followers (Matthew 19:4-5). Anything less, anything more, or anything other misses the ideal. In marriage two individuals, who once lived as "me," come together as "we" in one flesh and one life. No earthly bond can match the intimacy of this divinely sanctioned union.

...from The Voice Bible, eBook, 2012, p. 4

The NIV 2011 is the Bible of conservative evangelicals.
The NLT is the Bible of conservative evangelicals.
The TNIV is the Bible of egalitarian evangelicals.
The ESV is the Bible of complementarian conservative evangelicals.
The NASB is the Bible of conservative evangelical serious Bible students.
The NRSV is the Bible of Protestant mainliners.
The RSV is the Bible of aged Protestant mainliners.
The CEB is the Bible of Protestant mainliners.
The KJV ... fill in the blank yourself.
The Message is the Bible of those who are tired of the politics (and like something fresh).

Scot could also have included the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), a Bible translation done by Southern Baptists for Southern Baptists.

In the present post, I want to go one step beyond what Scot said in his post. Before I proceed, I want to emphasize two things.

First, I agree with Scot that "each of these translations is a very good translation."

...from https://www.seminary.edu/bible-politics-and-theological-bias/

No theologies or denominations claim a particular text

Yes, there are differences between Bible manuscripts, and from a certain perspective, they can look alarmingly serious. For example, those manuscripts (and resultant Bible translations) which "omit" 1 John 5:7 seem to some readers to undermine the doctrine of the Trinity.

But there's a simple way to demonstrate how trivial the differences between ancient manuscripts really are in terms of their effect on the body of truth that the Bible reveals. We have lots of doctrinal differences within Christianity, right? But there are no Calvinist manuscripts/versions, Arminian manuscripts/versions, Pentecostal, Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Congregationalist, Egalitarian, Complementarian, Integrationist, Cessationist, or Continuationist manuscripts/versions.

Take any systematic theology textbook you want, and the set of proof texts offered for particular points is for all practical purposes version-independent--the authors don't care which translation you use, so they just give references. The difference in doctrinal character among the various manuscripts and translations is very close to zero. The "omission" of 1 John 5:7 (in the judgment of almost all textual scholars, those words were actually added very late in the manuscript tradition, not appearing in Erasmus' Greek New Testament until its third edition) has not caused a single Christian denomination to descend into Unitarianism--because the New Testament elsewhere still clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, none of the Greek writings of the early church ever mentions this passage--even in their discussions of the Trinity! If the church fathers recognized and formulated that vital doctrine without referring to this verse, then its presence in the New Testament of their day is highly unlikely, and certainly its absence from a Bible text or translation today constitutes no defect in doctrinal character.

If the differences between Greek texts were doctrinally significant, you would expect theologies and tribal groups to grow out of distinctive readings of those texts--you would expect certain sects to adopt Greek texts as theological banners. But compare the positions of Majority text advocates, Textus Receptus devotees, and eclectic text users on the core doctrines of the historic creeds and you'd be hard pressed to find a doctrinal difference for which they claim support in their favored New Testament text as opposed to others.

Different Christian tribes bring somewhat different lenses to the Bible, but it's the lenses that differ, not the Bible.

...from https://blog.logos.com/2016/12/differences-biblical-manuscripts-scare-christians/

Here are two sites that show textual variants in English:

Do you think the textual variants change the meaning of the Bible?


(NKJV is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV)


Overview of the KJV only movement:


Exhaustive info on King James Onlyism: