Good info.
Quick correction - ESV is not dynamic equivalent. It is word for word as much as the NAS, NKJV or KJV.
NIV is dynamic equivalent. NLT is a paraphrase written to help children learn and was never meant to be adopted as a translation. But it sells.
There is an interesting angle to this discussion that many miss as well, having to do with the doctrinal position of translators. The NASB was translated by mostly dispensationalists. The ESV translators, led by Packer, were largely covenantalists. When one realizes this, the nuances can be picked up in certain passages.
The political motivations King James are interesting as well, if one is willing to dig deeply enough. The Geneva Bible wasn't inferior in its accuracy, but there were some interesting "adaptations" embraced by the "authorized" translators.
As you noted, there aren't really any doctrinal issues with these translations. While the Johannine comma is certainly debatable (I think history makes it clear that it was added during the Reformation), the doctrine of the Trinity hardly needs it. As far as I know, that's the only one that might even be on the table as a concern.
Enjoy your studies. They're certainly worthwhile and enriching.

I do have a question, why are we referring to Greek and Latin texts, shouldn't the originals have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, making any other text just a translation and subject to mistakes? I am no student of the bible I am just asking because I have been led to believe the originals were written in Palestine, were the popular languages were not Greek or Latin.

What do you think of James White's critique of the King James and the newer versions? 

Also, considering your propensities for specificity, wouldn't it be best for you to learn the Biblical languages and read the compiled works? Im asking from ignorance, so please take that into account.

You repeatedly assure yourself, and your readers, that none of the differences "affect doctrine".  There are many problems with this contention.  Here are two:

First, the changes are far greater in number than you suggest.  For instance, the 1838 differences between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text is derived only after scholars 'harmonized" the various conflicting manuscripts constituting each.  In other words, the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are both syntheses of numerous other underlying texts which themselves conflict.  The same is true for the 6577 differences between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text.  

So, the differences are far greater in number than you suggest.

And, those differences are in fact substantive.  I went to great lengths in comments to your first post on this subject to point how numerous changes directly impacted doctrine--for instance, changes supporting the doctrine of the trinity, changes designed to contradict docetic interpretations, changes designed to counter adoptionist interpretations, etc.  

You disingenuously ignore all of these changes by contending (without offering any evidence) that these changes are irrelevant to the doctrine in question becasue it is supported in numerous other places throughout the New Testament.  But...this isn't so, at least not in many cases.  

I'll give one important example here:  When did Jesus become God's son?  This is a critical question of doctrine, and one upon which numerous writers in the New Testament disagreed (though those disagreements are often hidden thanks to the "changes" we are discussing and artful interpretations designed to minimize them).  

For example, the oldest surviving source texts of Luke 3:22 quotes God as saying from the clouds at Jesus’ baptism, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”, which is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:7. However, orthodox scribes, who opposed the adoptionist theory, were naturally uncomfortable with a quote from God suggesting that Jesus was not begotten of God until the day of his baptism, especially when such language was different from that offered in Mark’s and Matthew’s accounts of Jesus’ baptism, and directly contradicted John’s account of Jesus’ pre-existent divinity! 

So...which is it?  Was Jesus begotten of God before his birth, as suggested in the opening chapter of John, or only after his baptism, as taught by the authentic (pre-altered) Luke, or only upon his resurrection as taught by Paul? All of these inconsistencies were too much for Literalist orthodox editors to bear. To prevent the faithful from being “misled”, Literalist scribes and translators simply altered Luke 3:22 to read, “You are my beloved Son; in You I am well pleased”, an apparent illusion to Isaiah 42. This alteration had the three-fold benefit of preventing an adoptionist interpretation, harmonizing Luke’s account of God’s words with the accounts of Mark and Matthew, and linking Jesus to Isaiah and his prophecies. **Perhaps it is for these reasons that the altered version survives to this day in virtually every modern translation of the New Testament (though the authentic reading is sometimes footnoted), including the KJV that you prefer**.

To contend that this change regarding when Jesus was begotten "doesn't affect doctrine" is totally disingenuous.  It's totally relevant to doctrine!  And there's nowhere else in the New Testatment that you can point to that answers the question of when Jesus became divine conclusively.  The fact is that even the earliest Christians **disagreed** on this important point of doctrine, one that you consider to now be settled.  But...settled by what?  Nothing but tradition.  It's certainly not settled by the New Testament itself, as I have just shown.

The same is true with the doctrine of the Trinity.  Or docetism.  Or a great many others important doctrinal matters.  And I have shown how many of the differences you note were interjected into our Bibles precisely for the purpose of affecting doctrine.  And...they succeeded!

And lastly, even if you could point to something in the New Testament that conclusively settled the question of when Jesus became divine (before birth, at birth, upon baptism, or upon resurrection), we simply couldn't say with any reasonable certainty that the verses you rely upon weren't themselves changed.   For instance, we know from Papias (quoted by Eusebius) that the earliest versions of Matthew were written in Hebrew, not Greek (see my previous comment to this post for more on this).  And we know that the earliest versions of Mark contained only the "sayings of the Lord" (much like the gospel of Thomas), though **not** an orderly biography.  Here's what Papias tells us on this point:

>This is what the elder used to say, “when Mark was the interpreter of Peter he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds—but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him; but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord's sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: not to leave out anything that he heard or to include any falsehood among them. 

And yet the earliest Greek manuscripts of Matthew that still exist are all written in Greek, not Hebrew.  And the earliest existing manuscripts of Mark most definitely  chronicle Jesus' life and teachings "in order."  The earliest Greek manuscripts of Mark are quite diligent at providing a very specific chronological account of Jesus deeds and sayings. There is nothing disorderly about it. Consider, for instance, 2:1, 2:23, 4:35, 6:2, 6:45, 6:53, 9:2, 9:30, etc. where our version of Mark goes out of its way to note the progress of time, order of happenings, and chronological changes of venue.  

In short, we have no reason to believe that **any** part of the New Testaments that we have today are remotely pure content and teaching. Your entire religious worldview is therefore built upon sand.  There's no there there.  You can believe it if you want (it's a free county), but just don't try to pretend that there's anything particularly rational about your beliefs, or that your religious beliefs are superior to others because your's are somehow more reasoned.  They're not.

That was a lot of work.   Upvoted :)  

I too was a bit perplexed by the 70 or so interpretations of the English Word.  I live in South America and have witnessed similar debates about the 20 or so interpretations that exist in Spanish as well.  

I have chosen to learn the letters in Hebrew and start there.  I have plugged along with Hebrew for quite some time and am well into the second book of the Tenak - uninterpreted.  The depth that has been added to my understanding of scripture is amazing.   Understand that all Greek, Latin, Spanish, etc. bibles are not word for word.  Reading the word for word "translation" carries genders and pronouns for speaker as well as listener in the original language.   One cannot make sense of most scripture if reading a translation - if it's accurate.  

Reading left to right, you will see what I mean below

http://i.imgur.com/NO3ynIpm.png

Another point I found compelling is this:

**The little things the two schools of thought find to argue about says a LOT about what they do NOT argue about.**

This means that the common critic's claim that Scriptures have been corrupted beyond recognition due some variant of the old "telephone game" of successive copies diverging is overwhelmingly denied by the lack of arguments about them.  

**Where are these corruptions?**

http://www.sothebys.com/content/dam/stb/lots/N09/N09048/032N09048_75SR4_crop.jpg

The **King James is the inspired word of God in English.** 

The NIV has inserted words like 'new order' which I believe is pre-programming Christians to accept the **'New World Order'.** 

Let's compare the KJV to the NIV:

#### NIV inserts New World (order)

Hebrews 9:10 **(KJV)** - Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of **reformation.**

Hebrews 9:10 **(NIV)** - They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the **new order.**

#### NIV has swapped Jesus with Lucifer

Only one place in the entire KJV Bible will you find the word **Lucifer.** This is how we know and define Satan. We actually put a name on Satan, calling him **Lucifer.**

Isaiah 14:12 **(KJV)** - **How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer.** 

Isaiah 14:12 **(NIV)** - **How you have fallen from heaven, morning star,** son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

In the NIV the **morning star** fell from heaven and was cast down to earth - but the **morning star is Jesus Christ.** Even the NIV confirms this in Revelation 22:16. 

### Jesus falls from Heaven instead of Lucifer in the NIV

Revelation 22:16 **(KJV)** - I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am, (Jesus speaking), I am the root and the offspring of David, **and the bright and morning star.** 

Revelation 22:16 **(NIV)** **I, Jesus,** have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. **I am** the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright **Morning Star.”**

**What did Jesus call himself? The morning star. That's his title.** 

**Both the King James and the NIV in Revelation 22:16 state that Jesus Christ is the morning star.** 

Who is falling down from heaven in the NIV Isiaih 14:12? How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn? Instead of Lucifer being cast out of heaven in Isaiah 14:12, in the NIV, we have Jesus being cast out of heaven.

These changes are very sublte but very impactful. In a few years the NIV will change the verses even further and over time it will significantly change key doctrine in the minds of the masses and they won't even realise it. 

The KJV has told us that Lucifer was cast out of heaven for wanting to be like the most high, wanting to be like God. The NIV, after attacking Christ's deity, after attacking his preexistence, after attacking the fact that he was born of a virgin, that he had no beginning, that he had no ending, that he was God in the flesh, it's now accusing him of wanting to be like the Most High. He is the Most High. 

The NIV is a satanic interpretation, period. King James Bible only.

NIV = Non Inspired Version. 

Find out all about the differences in this wonderful documentary.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kFtI_mVOXbQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>