https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/100bheh/this_year_you_should_supplement_your_new/
Prompted by a recent post on here, I thought I'd share this little (or, maybe not little) document I've been working on. I've worked pretty hard on it, but I'm not a Bible expert, so I'm happy to take any corrections/additions.
Introduction
I would like to try to convince you to supplement your study of the KJV with a modern translation. I will do so by answering the following questions:
Is there evidence of bad translation (and transcription) in the Bible? And how did it get there?
Why should we care?
Why do we use the KJV?
Is it OK for Latter-day Saints to use modern translations?
Why should we use modern translations? (Spoiler: there’s more reasons than simply because it’s easier to understand).
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” (Articles of Faith 1:8)
How has the Bible been translated incorrectly? Joseph Smith said: “I believe the bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers; ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (History, 1838-1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843-30 April 1844]).
How did we get from the pen of the original writers to now? A very simplified explanation:
The original writers write the scripture.
Copies of these scriptures are made (by hand). Additionally, people start translating these scriptures into other languages, and quoting them in their own letters, etc.
As time passes, the original books are either lost or destroyed by wear and tear, and time. Soon nobody is reading the original manuscript. They are all reading copies, or copies-of-copies, or copies-of-copies-of-copies. If you've ever played the game telephone you know that for every new copy made, there is the risk an error could slip in.
Today, most of our oldest manuscripts are mere fragments.
The three oldest New Testament fragments come from the 2nd Century AD and cover only 31 verses. The oldest complete New Testament manuscript is from the 4th Century AD.
The oldest Old Testament fragment is a quotation written on small scrolls of silver (metal plates?) covering three verses and dated to the 7th Century BC. The oldest complete Old Testament manuscript is from the 10th Century AD.
Additionally, as time passes, for some books, all of the copies were lost. This includes the book of Nathan the Prophet and a letter to the Corinthians, written prior to our current 1 Corinthians. (See also “Lost books” in the Bible Dictionary).
Because we no longer have any of the “original” copies, modern Bible scholars are doing their best to take the various manuscripts and fragments and piece together what was probably the original words. In doing so, they have found numerous discrepancies. There are currently over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts/fragments that are all different from each other in some way. Most of these variants are minor (such as things like using the Greek equivalent of “a” instead of “an”) while a few might be considered fairly significant (but none are so significant you’d have to change your entire belief system). For examples of the most significant variants, see “Textual Criticism and the New Testament” in A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019.
When there are discrepancies, scholars use a variety of principles to try to determine which is most likely to be the original. The primary two are: (1) Older manuscripts are probably closer to the original than newer manuscripts, and (2) Manuscripts in the original language are probably closer to the original than ones that have been translated into another language. (But these two principles, when taken together, can lead to hard questions. For example, which is likely to be more accurate? A manuscript from 1000 AD that is still in the original Hebrew? Or a manuscript from 500 AD but is a Latin translation?)
Is there any evidence for Joseph Smith’s claim that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have made many errors”?
Ignorant translators. The word “ignorant” is not an attack on the translators’s characters. It simply means "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing". There are numerous examples in the King James Version where the translators were doing the best they could with the information available at the time, but that we now know were inaccurate translations. For example, Deut. 33:17 mentions “unicorns” because as far as the KJV translators could decipher, that’s what it said. But more modern scholarship has learned that it is more likely referring to a species of wild ox. (Or possibly a rhinoceros!)
Careless transcribers. One of the most famous examples of a careless transcription is The Sinners’ Bible, a 1631 printing of the KJV where the printer accidentally left out the word “not” in one of the Ten Commandments--leading the text to say: “Thou shalt commit adultery”.
An example that can be found in the KJV today is Mark 9:43-48 where verses 44, 46, & 48 all repeat the line “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Today, most Biblical scholars believe this is an error. Most likely when copying the Greek manuscript which the KJV is based off of, the transcriber accidentally wrote that same line multiple times. Today, manuscripts even older than the one the KJV was based on were discovered, and these older manuscripts only have verse 48.
Designing and corrupt priests. BYU Professor Thomas Wayment has noted an example from the New Testament:
"A rather simple text critical question arises with the potential forgery of a verse that was inserted into the text of the New Testament with a specific interest in promoting a distinct doctrinal position. In 1 John 5:7–8, only a few extremely late Greek manuscripts contain the words, “(7) in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth.” The textual evidence against these words is almost overwhelming, with only a late fourteenth-century Greek manuscript as the primary piece of evidence to support it. Interestingly, these forged words found their way into the King James translation and have thereby become well known despite the fact that they were clearly forged." (“Textual Criticism and the New Testament”, A Background to the Texts of the New Testament, BYU Religious Studies Center, 2019. See also, “Johannine Comma”, Wikipedia.)
For an interesting (but somewhat complicated) possible corruption in the Old Testament, see “Is the Bible Reliable? A Case Study: Were King Joisah’s Reforms a Restoration from Apostasy or a Suppression of Plain and Precious Truths?” in BYU Studies 2021.
Why do we care? John 17:3: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” If we truly want to know God and Jesus Christ through the scriptures, then we ought to try to get as close to the original sources as possible.
One unique avenue Latter-day Saints have for getting to “the pen of the original writers” is through the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. If you don’t know what the JST is, see here and here for basics.
However, it is important to note that when Joseph Smith “translated” the Bible he was not merely restoring the original text. BYU Professor Jared Ludlow has pointed out that the JST is probably not a singular process and, depending on the verse, one of four things is probably occurring:
A restoration of that which was originally written.
A restoration of that which occurred or was said anciently, but never recorded by the original writers.
An inspired commentary. As LDS Scholars Jeffrey Bradshaw and David Larsen said: “Even if certain revelatory passages in the book of Moses were found to be direct translations of ancient documents—as was, apparently, D&C 7—it is impossible to establish whether or not they once existed as an actual part of some sort of ‘original’ manuscript of Genesis. Mormons understand that the primary intent of modern revelation is for divine guidance to latter-day readers, not to provide precise matches to texts from other times.”
A scholarly commentary. As Joseph Smith worked through the Bible, he was also studying Hebrew and some of the best Biblical scholarship available at the time. Some of the edits in the JST appear to be based on these studies.
Furthermore, it should be noted that it is unclear whether Joseph Smith finished working on the translation. The majority of the work occurred in the early 1830s, but he continued to make revisions up until his death in 1844.
For more information on the JST see, “The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” in BYU Studies, 2021.
So what else can we do to get to the “pen of the original writers”? We can supplement our scripture study with modern Bible translations.
The Church handbook states in section 38.8.39.1:
"The Church identifies editions of the Bible that align well with the Lord’s doctrine in the Book of Mormon and modern revelation (see Articles of Faith 1:8). A preferred edition of the Bible is then chosen for many languages spoken by Church members.
In some languages, the Church publishes its own edition of the Bible. Church-published editions are based on standard Bible texts. Examples include:
The King James Version in English.
The Reina-Valera (2009) in Spanish.
The Almeida (2015) in Portuguese.
Church-published editions of the Bible include footnotes, subject indexes, and other study aids.
When possible, members should use a preferred or Church-published edition of the Bible in Church classes and meetings. This helps maintain clarity in the discussion and consistent understanding of doctrine. Other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study."
How does using the KJV help maintain “consistent understanding of doctrine”? Specific phraseologies used in the KJV are used in the same way in the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations. For example the KJV refers to “bishops” but newer translations often use the word “overseer” instead. Neither translation is more correct than the other, but if we studied only newer translations we would have difficulty connecting bishops in the Bible with bishops in the Doctrine and Covenants.
As stated in the Church Handbook, “other editions of the Bible may be useful for personal or academic study.” Furthermore, in a 2017 Facebook post, Elder Renlund said he studies other translations. Elder Maynes quoted the Revised Standard Version in his 2015 General Conference talk, and Elder John K. Carmack has said: “We clearly prefer the King James Version of the New Testament, but we are not adamant about that. Any responsibly prepared version could be used and might be helpful to us.”
Finally, Elder Ballard has stated:
"For you to understand the doctrinal and historical content and context of the scriptures and our history, you will need to study from the “best books” as the Lord has directed. The “best books” include the scriptures, the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, and the best LDS scholarship available… It is always wise to make it a practice to study the words of the living prophets and apostles; keep updated on current Church issues, policies, and statements through mormonnewsroom.org and lds.org; and consult the works of recognized, thoughtful, and faithful LDS scholars to ensure you do not teach things that are untrue, out of date, or odd and quirky."
And on that note, LDS Scholar Ben Spackman says that, “the absolute best and easiest thing you can do to increase the quality and frequency of your Bible study is to replace/supplement your KJV with a different translation.”
There are three primary reasons you should study modern translations of the Bible: (1) they are likely to be closer to the "pen of the original writers", (2) they offer alternative interpretations, and (3) they are easier to understand.
Closer to the pen of the original writers. Modern translations are closer to the pen of the original writers for two primary reasons:
Most modern translations are translated from older manuscripts. For example, the KJV New Testament is translated from several Greek manuscripts--the oldest of them dating from the 1100’s AD. That’s over 1,000 years after the original manuscripts were written! Through modern discoveries of lost manuscripts and fragments we now have documents dating as far back as 125 A.D. As previously noted, the presumption then is that these older manuscripts are likely to be closer to the pen of the original writers.
Example: Mat. 5:22 says, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.” Due to discoveries in older manuscripts, most modern Bible translations now leave out the phrase “without a cause”. This is a pretty significant theological difference. (And, interestingly, in the Book of Mormon, when Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount/Temple in 3 Ne. 12:22, he also leaves out “without a cause”.)Advances in scholarship have clarified some uncertain words. Occasionally when reading the Bible, you may have noticed footnotes that say “Hebrew meaning uncertain” (see footnote on “in judgement” for Jud. 5:10). What this means is that the original meaning of the word/phrase has been lost, so the translators are inserting their best guess. The KJV was translated in 1611. Since that time scholarship has advanced and many words whose meaning were once uncertain are more clear. For example, as previously mentioned, Deut. 33:17 mentions “unicorns” because as far as the KJV translators could decipher, that’s what it said. But more modern scholarship has learned that it is more likely referring to a species of wild ox.
Alternative interpretations. All translation requires some level of interpreting. This could be because the proper translation is still being debated, or because the original text uses a play on words to create multiple meanings in one phrase. (And the Bible writers really liked to use play on words). Therefore, alternative translations let you see how different translators interpret the same text. For example, Proverbs 8:22 is about how Lady Wisdom existed with God in the pre-mortal existence:
KJV: The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
NRSV: The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.
While the words “possess” and “create” have very different meanings in English, the translation note from the New English Translation explains that the root word in Hebrew is the same. (“There are two roots to qanah in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create”.) Therefore, when translating this Hebrew word, translators have to decide which English word to use.
Additionally, even when the meaning of another translation is the same, reading the text with new wording can help the text feel fresh and give you a new perspective on verses you’ve read many times before.
Easier to understand. Newer translations can help you understand the KJV’s archaic language. For example, in the KJV, Colossians 3:5 reads, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.” If you have difficulty understanding what that means, try the NRSV: “Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly.” The two verses mean the same thing, but the modern translation is much more understandable.
Furthermore, the above example is actually the easy problem. Because when you read it you know you don’t understand it. The harder problem is when the meaning of a word changes over time. In those cases because you think you know what it means, you don’t know to look up its true meaning. BYU Professor Gaye Strathearn gives two examples:
"[T]he KJV of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 reads, “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep”. In modern English, the word prevent means to stop something from happening. The King James translators, however, used it to translate the Greek word word phthano, which means to “come before” or “precede.” Modern translations, therefore, translate phthano as “precede” (NRSV, NIV, NAB), or “go up ahead” (CEV). More loosely, the NJB translate it as “have no advantage over.”
Another example in this category is the King James Bible’s use of conversation, which in modern parlance usually refers to speaking. However, in Philippians 1:27 we read, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ,” where conversation is a translation of the Greek word, politeuomai, which means to “conduct one’s life.” Modern translations use “live your life” (NRSV), “live” (CEV), “conduct your life” (NIV), “behave” (NJB), and “manner of life” (ESV)."
Additionally, because the KJV is harder to understand, we often have to slow down our reading. Sometimes (maybe even most of the time) this is good, but it also sometimes makes it difficult to see the forest for the trees. I highly recommend finding a modern translation and picking a day to sit down and read one of the four gospels all in one sitting. I think you will be surprised at how much closer you will feel to Jesus after doing so. (Note: Luke is the longest gospel, and will likely take about 3 hours to read. Mark is the shortest and would take about an hour and a half).
For detailed explanations of why you should supplement your Bible study with a modern translation, read The King James Bible and the Future of Missionary Work by LDS Scholar Grant Hardy, Study Bibles: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints by BYU Professor Joshua M. Sears, and The King James Translation of the New Testament by BYU Professor Lincoln Blumell.
When selecting a Bible translation, the two major things to consider are the (1) type of translation being attempted and (2) the translator’s interpretive choices.
Types of translation. Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows that an exact word-for-word translation is impossible. Translators do not just need to translate words, they also have to translate grammar, idioms, and even culture. For example in the KJV 1 Sam. 24:3 says, “Saul went in to cover his feet.” This is a very literal word-for-word translation of the Hebrew. However, to “cover his feet” is a Hebrew cultural idiom that actually means to urinate. This is why the NRSV translators decided to translate the idiom rather than the words, and says: “Saul went in to relieve himself.”
All translations will fall somewhere on a spectrum from word-for-word translation (AKA formal equivalence) to thought-for-thought translation (AKA dynamic equivalence). When selecting a Bible translation, you will have to decide which you prefer. The advantages to a word-for-word translation is it will be closer to what the original text actually said, and it is less likely to contain the translator’s interpretive biases. The disadvantage is it can be harder to understand what the original writer meant. (The advantages/disadvantages of thought-for-thought are basically the opposite of word-for-word).
Interpretive choices. All translations, even translations leaning toward word-for-word, require a certain amount of interpretation. And as translators make interpretive choices, their own biases will inevitably leak in. For example, as will be explained in more detail in a later section, the New International Version is heavily biased toward an evangelical Protestant interpretation.
The best way to overcome interpretive biases is to use ecumenical translations. An ecumenical translation tries to eliminate sectarian biases by having the group of translators come from a variety of religious backgrounds.
Having said all that, for the most part, all major Bible translations are pretty good, and 99% of the time it won’t matter which translation you use.
In my opinion, the overall best modern translation is the New Revised Standard Version. This translation is about in the middle when it comes to word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought, but leans slightly more toward word-for-word. Furthermore, the translation is highly ecumenical with translators coming from a variety of different religious backgrounds. (Including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, and non-believers. I do not think there were any Latter-day Saints). It is the main translation used by universities and Biblical experts.
For Latter-day Saint translations there is The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-Day Saints Study Bible and the BYU New Testament Commentary.
For word-for-word translations the American Standard Version (ASV), and Jubilee Bible (JUB) are good.
For understanding alternative translations the footnotes to the New English Translation (NET) are helpful. The NET is free online and comes with many, many footnotes explaining alternative translations and why they chose the specific one they did. However, while the footnotes are useful, the translation itself has a protestant bias (see 1 Peter 4:6 where it adds the word “now”). Furthermore, this is one of the few completely new modern Bible translations. Most modern translations are actually just updates of previous translations. (E.g. New Revised Standard Version is an update of the Revised Standard Version, which is an update of the American Standard Version, which is an update of the English Revised Version, which is an update of the King James Version).
For audio translations the Word of Promise Audio Bible (a reading of the New King James Version (NKJV)) is great. It has famous actors voicing different characters, sound effects, and background music. (Note: The NKJV is a revision of the KJV. But it is mostly just a modernizing of the language. It usually retains the stuff that have been removed from other modern translations. (E.g. it keeps the “without a cause” in Mat. 5:22).
For a literary translation try Robert Alter’s The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (Old Testament). Robert Alter is the leading expert on the Bible as literature. There is no way you can read this without coming away convinced that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is one of the greatest works of literature ever written. For the New Testament try David Brentley Hart’s translation.
For reading God’s name there is the Names of God Bible (NOG)/Sacred Names translations. These transliterate the names of God. (I.e. you can see whether the scripture is referencing Elohim or Jehovah/Yahweh or some other name for God. See for example, Genesis 1-2. However, the Bible does not separate Elohim from Jehovah as cleanly as we generally do today, so take this information with a grain of salt.)
For reading peoples’s names there is the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB). Here names are transliterated rather than anglicized. I.e. see how the Apostles most likely pronounced their own names.
Online, biblegateway.com is a great free resource with dozens of translations and lets you quickly compare verses.
One translation I do not recommend is the New International Version. The reason I single it out is because for the last several years it has been America’s best-selling Bible. However, it is heavily biased by the translators, who were all required to affirm that “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”. Since Latter-day Saints are neither evangelical Protestants nor Biblical inerrantists, it is not the best translation for us.
Some examples ( Most of this analysis comes from this website. I haven’t read much of the other articles on the website, so can’t say if I’d endorse anything else found there.)
Genesis 28:5, 29:5
KJV: And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him.
NRSV: Thus Isaac sent Jacob away; and he went to Paddan-aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean… He said to them, “Do you know Laban son of Nahor?” They said, “We do.”
NIV: Then Isaac sent Jacob on his way, and he went to Paddan Aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean… He said to them, “Do you know Laban, Nahor’s grandson?” “Yes, we know him,” they answered.
On numerous occasions, the NIV changes what the original text says in order to hide contradictions with other texts. This is just one example.
Here there is a contradiction between Genesis 28:5 and 29:5 on who Laban is the son of. The NIV attempts to reconcile this contradiction by changing “son” to “grandson”.
1 Samuel 1:9, 3:3
KJV: So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord… And ere the lamp of God went out in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;
NRSV: After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose and presented herself before the Lord. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the LORD… the lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was.
NIV: Once when they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh, Hannah stood up. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the doorpost of the Lord’s house… The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the house of the LORD, where the ark of God was.
The NIV has translated Hebrew hekal, meaning “temple”, as “house”, most likely in order to conceal the fact that Samuel is shown serving at a temple before there was supposed to be one. (The structure has a doorpost and doors, and is clearly not the tent-like tabernacle described in the Pentateuch.)
Psalm 51:5-6
KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
NRSV: Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me. You desire truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
NIV: Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
The NIV seems to be pushing the doctrine of original sin in its translation. Whereas a literal reading would be “In iniquity I was formed, in sin my mother conceived me,” the NIV reads “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” In the next verse, it adds the word “womb”, which does not appear in the Hebrew text: “Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb.” This is almost certainly not what v. 6 means. Other translations read “You desire truth in the inward being” (NRSV) or “you desire integrity in the inner man” (NET).
Psalm 82:1, 6; John 10:34
KJV: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods…
I have said, “Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
NRSV: God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement:...
I say “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;”
Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”
NIV: God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgement among the “gods”:...
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’”
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?”
The NIV adds ironic quotation marks around “gods” to imply that the word should not be understood in the normal sense. The obvious reason is to weaken the polytheistic language of Psalm 82.
Philippians 2:6
KJV: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
NRSV: who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
NIV: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.
The NIV changes the Greek, which is correctly translated by the NRSV as “though he was in the form of God”, to say “being in very nature God”, a speculative interpretation of “form of God” that is unwarranted by the original text.
James 2:14
KJV: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?
NRSV: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
The NRSV correctly reads “What good is it … if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” The NIV harmonizes this verse with Protestant theology by adding the word “such” without textual justification: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?” (Note: most other English translations also alter the passage.)
James 2:17-18, 20, 22, 24-26
The NIV translates ergon, meaning “works”, inconsistently throughout the epistles in order to push the Bible’s theology on faith and works in a Protestant direction. In negative contexts (e.g. Romans 3:27), the NIV translates it as “works” almost without exception. However, it avoids any positive association with the word “works” in verses like James 2:24, which has been translated, “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone”, and James 2:26, “so faith without deeds is dead.” The NRSV is more consistent and theologically neutral, translating it as “works” in all these passages. James 2:25 is a particularly egregious example: while the Greek text literally says Rahab was “justified (dikaioō) by works (ergon)”, the NIV translation says Rahab was “considered righteous for what she did”, even though the NIV is happy to translate dikaioo and ergon as “justified” and “works” in passages like Romans 3:28 (“For we maintain that a person is justified (dikaioō) by faith apart from the works (ergon) of the law.”) Theology aside, the NIV’s translation of ergon as the phrase “what they do” in v. 24 is also a clumsy attempt at avoiding gender-specific pronouns.
1 Peter 1:17
The NRSV correctly reads “If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds…” Because this verse suggests that people are judged by God according to their works, contra Protestant theology, the NIV changes the wording to mean something slightly different: “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially…”
1 Peter 3:21
The NRSV correctly reads “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. Because this conflicts with Protestant theology on baptism, the NIV has changed “appeal to God for a good conscience” to “pledge of a clear conscience toward God”, which has a very different meaning.
1 Peter 4:6
This enigmatic passage correctly reads in the NRSV as “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead”. The possibility of salvation after death obviously conflicts with Evangelical theology, so the NIV has changed it to read “For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.”
If you want to try out other versions of the Bible, I'd recommend checking out the above verses and see how they compare.
