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

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

Three possible conclusions can be made from this comparative study.

Is the King James Version the best? Many translators speak highly of it, mainly for its literary style. One even said that it is right most of the time. For students of the Bible as literature, this is one of the best versions. Various aspects of Hebrew literature, parallelism for example, are kept intact. In an effort to create a version in the English of today that can be easily understood, some of this has been lost. Those who feel that the language of this version is more solemn and proper for use in church should remember that this was the everyday language of the time when this version was translated. The translator of the People's New Covenant stated that there were only eight manuscripts available to the translators of the King James Version, while by 1925, there were nearly seven hundred in Greek alone. Such highly-rated codices as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus were not available to translators until the nineteenth century. Translators recognize that the King James Version has many errors. Cambridge University Press states that the 1611 edition had been hastily prepared and contained an alarming number of errors and misprints. The first two Cambridge editions, in 1629 and 1638, improved the situation. The Revised Version of 1685 was the first official revision of the King James Version. After initial success, it lost appeal because of the popularity of 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 written in a language which is much more easily understood today. The recent translators have had access to more and earlier manuscripts. However, they do not seem to be as popular with many Christians, although that is changing. There is some complaint of their degrading of Jesus. In a few cases, there is a denominational bias.

There is a belief among many Christians that God will not give any Scripture, other than the Bible, to man. They quote Revelation 22: 18 to support this belief. Revelation 1: 3 and the history of the translation and the collation of the Biblical writings would tend to create a question on that interpretation. Revelation 22: 18 applies to man. If this belief be correct, those who are strong supporters of the King James Version are faced with a problem. How can they hold to a belief that condemns the version of the Bible that they support? There are many additions of man in that version. The best explanation that I have seen for Revelation 22: 18 is in a footnote in the New Berkeley Version. It reads: "The warning refers specifically to this book but it is equally true concerning all revelation."

Does this make the modern versions better? The supporters of the King James Version can just as easily apply a similar type of belief to Revelation 22: 19. The criticism of some of these versions is that there is 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 rejection of any version. A Christian can continue to use his favorite version or several versions. He needs to gain understanding of what the Bible is really saying, absent of denominational or personal bias. All the translators have really tried to present their work in a such a way that their readers can understand in their own language and culture what the original writers, in a different language and culture, have tried to express as their inspirations from God.

Look at the way in which the various versions have handled the seventeen passages quoted in this study. Some omit a passage and make no 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 statement about it in a footnote. Some include a passage, but make a statement about it in a footnote. In both cases, there is uncertainty, but a leaning toward one way or the other as to its authenticity. The footnotes state either that some manuscripts and translations omit a passage or that they include it. In some cases, it is pointed out that a passage was probably added by a scribe. It is also expressed that some manuscripts are better than others.

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

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

Which, then, is the best version? That depends on the purpose 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 making such a choice, he can still obtain the basic message of the Bible. Any version is as good as the manuscripts, the texts, and other tools used, and the ability of the translator, or translators. All of these, including the original writers, have applied interpretation. This study merely points out that the reader needs to read carefully and to seek God's help in interpreting.