Question from a friend of WordTruth Ministries:

WordTruth.Com Response:

You have now reached a point of Bible study where you see the basis for a considerable debate within the Christian community over Bible versions.  Many people get quite fired up about the topic to the point of disfellowshipping those who disagree.  While there are some versions of the Bible that are intentionally not accurate (the New World Translation by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah's Witnesses),  the modern English versions of the Bible are all quite good.  This includes the Authorized KJV, the New KJV, the NAS, the NIV, and the New Living Translation.

The so-called "differences" among the versions is typically the result of two factors:  one, the underlying manuscript family chosen as the defining text, and two, the method of translation.  Obviously the Bible was written by hand originally and copies of it were made using the same method.  After several copies were made, copies were made of the copies.  In manual copying, even with the best efforts, there will be slight errors introduced.  Some will be simple transpositions of letters in a word, or of words such as "Jesus Christ" vs "Christ Jesus".  Other errors may involve the introduction or reduction of words/verses by the copyist.  

Tracing common errors (we call them "typos" today) in manuscripts creates an understanding of different manuscript "families."  There was a huge library in ancient Alexandria, Egypt.  There were copies of Old and New Testament scrolls in this library.  A family of manuscripts known as the "Alexandrian family" derived from this library.  Another set of manuscripts known as the "Textus Receptus" was used by the bishops of King James time.  This was a limited set of manuscripts that were much later in origin than the Alexandrian family.  In King James time, the existence of the Alexandrian manuscripts had not been discovered.  The bishops worked with what they had.

Today, the KJV/NKJV were translated from the Textus Receptus.  The NIV/NAS/NLT were translated from the Alexandrian family primarily, with reference to other manuscript families as well.  A whole group of people, known as the "King James Only" crowd, believe that the KJV is THE inspired English translation of the Bible for all time.  Some of these base this premise on the underlying manuscript used.  Others just believe it is the only valid English version.

This brings up an obvious question -- why so many versions?  The English language has changed considerably since 1611 when the authorized KJV was issued.  Many words have the opposite meaning they had four hundred years ago.  While the KJV is a wonderful translation of the Bible, it does require a higher reading level as well as the caution to consider carefully the words being used to ensure accurate rendering of what the writer intended to say.  This is where the NKJV, NIV, and NAS really shine.  The words have been updated for the modern reader to accurately reflect the meaning of the original Greek/Hebrew text.

Also, the method of translation creates the need for different versions.  Some translators use more of a "word for word" approach.  You find this in the KJV and NAS.  This can be helpful for personal Bible study and word studies.  Others use a "thought for thought" approach such as the NIV and NLT.  The NKJV is somewhere in between.  

Which approach is better?  Well, it depends on the nature of the verse being translated.  Consider translating this statement into a foreign language:

He made his fortune on Wall Street.

You could translate it into a foreign language word for word.  It would most likely convey that a man worked on a street named "Wall," whatever the word for "wall" is in that language.  However, a "thought for thought" translation would attempt to convey that the man worked in a place where financial transactions were common.  That is the hard part about translations.  Either approach has its strengths and limitations.  Ultimately, the translation committee decides which best conveys the underlying meaning of the text.

As for your specific examples, here are some insights:

Romans 8:1

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. (NAS)

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

Read through the following verses to see that the exact thought is expressed about walking in the Spirit versus walking in the flesh.  The Textus Receptus, whoever actually copied that scroll of the book of Romans, added the qualification to this verse.  The qualification is actually taught in the subsequent verses.  Perhaps the copyist wanted to make Romans 8:1 clearer to himself or others.  In any event, it does not contradict the NAS version.  Those who are in Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and will not habitually walk in the flesh without guilt.  They may stumble from time to time, perhaps in great ways, but the Spirit of the LORD continues to work to guide them back to solid ground.

Acts 8:37

[And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NAS)

Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NKJV)

This is an example of a verse not found in the majority of the manuscripts but it is in the Textus Receptus.  It does not contradict anything taught in the rest of the Bible but simply amplifies the account of the Eunuch's conversion.

Isaiah 14:12

"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!" (NAS)

"How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!"  (NKJV)

"Lucifer" is the Latin translation of the Hebrew word for "morning star."  In the NKJV, the translator chose to use a word more familiar to the modern reader.  The NAS chose to be more word-for-word in translating that verse.

Can you trust the NAS?  Absolutely.  What about the KJV?  Certainly.  None of the differences found between these major English versions is substantive.  No theology is changed and no contradictions are really there.  Some people try to use Rev. 22:19 to argue that point.  However, if I were to interpret Rev. 22:19 as you cannot say anything except what is in the Bible text, then there would be no need for preachers or teachers!  What this verse teaches is that no one is to distort the word of God, adding false doctrines to what God has already made plain.  Anyone doing so knowingly brings the curses upon themselves.

Personally, I have used all four major versions.  I have settled pretty much on the NKJV for public preaching and teaching.  It seems to be easy for both KJV and NIV/NAS readers to follow.  It also uses the Textus Receptus as its underlying manuscript.  I think of NKJV as sort of a common bond between the two camps.

I hope this addresses your concerns.  "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Psalm 19:7-8, NKJV).

May God bless you with His wisdom and the courage to follow Jesus!
Rev. Randy Lariscy :-)
Director - WordTruth Ministries