Evaluate the merits and weakness of the King James Version, the International Version, the American Standard V?

and also the revised standard version, explain your position.|||They are all filled with myths and perhaps a little history mixed in to make them seem true.|||King James Version - not exactly the best. They didn't have a full New Testament in Greek, so in order to get what they didn't have, they translated parts of the Latin Vulgate into Greek making parts of it a translation of a translation. In addition, it's written in Early Modern English (as opposed to Modern English) which makes it harder to read. Current printings of the King James Version on based on a 1787 reprint, rather than the original 1611 edition.





New International Version - not close to the Greek. I read Greek, and I have found places where additional material has been added that does not appear in the original Greek. Most of this is explanatory in nature, but that makes it misleading.





The New Revised Standard Version is in true Modern English (though politcal correctness has gotten a bit extreme with it). Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus (the oldest known Bible) were used in the translation placing it much closer to the original books, unlike the KJV which uses much later manuscripts.|||THe great and damming similarity they all share is teh fact that they are a result of a sixteenth century edit of the Torah done by an english king under the auspices of the catholic church in order to reinforce their own power structure|||@mortoo: King James was Scottish. He was the king of Scotland for 36 years before he inherited the English crown (because Elizabeth I died without an heir).