No translation is The Word of God. It is a rough approximation which provides most people a better access to basic concepts than no translation at all. That means Latin and Greek are NOT the Word of God, except possibly for the Epistle's of Paul, in which Paul himself acknowledges that some of what he writes is his own thought.

A couple of examples: in the original Hebrew, Jeptha's daughter was "elevated" to the service of God, NOT burned on the altar, but an early translation into Greek substituted a work that specifically meant a burnt offering. The original Hebrew meaning explains why, even in translation, she mourned her virginity, not her imminent death. In the original Hebrew, the original woman was made from Adam's SIDE, not from his rib. In fact, she was one SIDE of the original Adam, while the man was the remaining side. "A virgin shall conceive and give birth" was also a mistranslation into Greek: the original Hebrew word means "a young woman of child bearing age" with no reference to sexual experience.

Translation is a good thing, but it should not be too arrogantly relied upon as giving anyone who reads it authoritative understanding of exactly what God meant or intended.

A understanding that trying to convey the Spirit of the Law into a human language isn't always going to be as perfect as one might hope for.

Disregard the NIV or NASB as the word of GOD. It is a poor translation of the English NKJV. In the book "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger www.avpublications.com/. In her exhaustive documentation it shows that in certain verses words were left out,words were changed,or left out.

I would add that God is big enough to reveal himself to each generation through each translation. If the Bible really is God's method of revealing His thoughts to humans, then we have to trust Him not only to inspire the original writers but also the translators along with those who canonized certain writings in the first place. God is responsible for this Bible and relies on it as a primary mode of communication. He will protect it. Whatever translation we may use, if we we are diligently seeking Him in spirit and in truth, He will tell us the truth through the scripture.

If you compare a modern translation to the KJV or even the NKJV (Which is really only a slightly updated version of the KJV) then of course there are going to be words changed or left out. Hypothetically speaking, if when creating a modern translation they (The group of scholars) wanted it to be as accurate as possible and our best scholarship shows that the best scholarship of the KJV time wasn't completely dead on with meaning of the text. Would it not make sense to change or leave out words? Before you bring out your "But the KJV is the infallible inspired word of God" argument. If the KJV misses on even one point of translation then it is not a perfect translation. Meaning it is not the infallible word of God. Since we know God cannot do something in a fallible way, can it really be the inspired word of God. Remember also that the men whom God inspired to write the scriptures had a certain level of relationship with him. To say that a particular translation is the inspired word of God is also to say that the scholars that translated it have that same kind of relationship and clarity with regards to hearing God speak. If that's the case, wouldn't anything they write be up for grabs as potential scripture? Naturally, there work would have to go through the same evaluation process that all the other 66 books of the Bible went through before ti was canonized.

The point is that no translation is perfect. It is subject to what we know about the the meaning of the text. That said, I do believe the KJV is probably one of the best translations out there. It certainly was the best for a very long time. However, the language people use has changed. We have new words and have stopped using old words. The primary focus of new translations is to make sure that one, we can correct any mistakes made and two update the language used in the translation to mean the same thing it originally meant. A perfect example of this is the word "Charity" in scripture. People reading that word think of charitable works not love, as was originally intended. Both the NIV and the NASB do this quite well just as the KJV did when it was originally written. So, notashamed, I will disregard the NIV and the NASB as the infallible word of God. But I will also consider every translation out there, including the KJV, as not being the infallible word of God. However, just as God speaks to many through the KJV he speaks to many through the NIV and the NASB. Therefore, translations are close and many are really really good. But none are perfect.

Finally, both the NIV and the NASB are translations. When you say they are "...a poor translation of the English NKJV" you are referring to a paraphrase. While there are several paraphrases (Check out the Message Bible) of the KJV, these and many other modern translations are actually translated from the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts. Furthermore, the NASB was released 8 years before the NKJV. It is more likely the NKJV was a response to NIV and the NASB.

I don't mean to start a fruitless argument, only to further the discussion. If any of my facts are inaccurate or there is an error in my logic please reply.

What I love about the KJV is that the archaic language, the attempt to be poetic in presentation, is just fuzzy enough that I can use my own God-given mind and accept whatever inspiration the spirit may infuse into my reading, without worrying about the exact meaning of every word. By comparison, I have heard people praise the NIV because it makes the meaning so clear -- but that is not God's meaning, it is the meaning arrived at by the committee(s) which put it together. Likewise, I recall that the RSV I was given as a child substituted "male and female slaves" for "servants and handmaidens" -- which may have been in some cases accurate, but far too narrow, leaving out many possible meanings. God can work through whatever translation we have, to convey the meaning God intended, if the text is not too stark. Of course, sincere Christians seem to come up with a variety of understandings no matter how many translations there are to work from. We should not be too certain that our own personal understanding is THE Truth, or that God does not have some use for the understandings others arrive at. Remember that the woman "more precious than rubies" described in Proverbs has independent discretion to spend family finances, is expected to be knowledgeable in buying and selling real estate, and far from supporting the family, her husband seems to have nothing to do but sit in the gate chatting with the elders, taking pride in what a good provider his wife is.