I was asked by email what translation I used and Dr. Scott recommended. This prompted the reply below. I felt like filing these notes. I like to have thoughts on file somewhere. Many folks want answers to those basic questions.
Well, naturally, when one has a website, that's where a lot of stuff ends up. Perhaps these basic thoughts will help you.
Dr. Scott has always used, and I recommend, the King James Version. Over the years I've come across folks who've studied some of the other translations and found disturbing discrepancies.
I've just been reading how the National Council of Churches was heavily infiltrated with communists. It's actually more than just the communists, because they were being used by the Global Elite to promote their own plan for rule of the world. The Elite have bankrolled the Communists from the beginning, when they gave Lenin the means to take over Russia.
And 30 of the 95 people who did the Revised Standard Version were those people, Communist/Socialist/Collectivist/Globalist people. All of them were high in the leadership of the National Council of Churches. Then an example was given. KJV says a "virgin shall conceive". The RSV says "young girl". The adulterations take the form of negating Jesus' divinity. We couldn't have a Divine spiritual leader like Christ. Everyone knows that if it were Christ running the whole show there would be no Elite. So they are trying to "flatten" out (dumb down) religiosity the same way they are trying to "flatten" out the economy, politics, military and finances of the world, this being accomplished by their World Political Arm, the United Nations.
Some have done extensive study in this area, thus evidencing that the KJV is truly, they say, the inspired word of God. In addition, I have heard some pretty good stuff that comes out of the plain text of the KJV that seems to be there by design. I heard one fellow, Al Cuppet, tout the KJV as a God-Inspired translation. I'm not far from that view myself.
BUT, the main reason I use it is because of Strong's Concordance. If you don't have a Strong's, I urge you to get one soon. How else can one satisfy a question without knowing what the original Greek or Hebrew word was? And sometimes it's very enlightening to find out the original word.
As a reference, I have a work called 26 Translations. It's in three volumes, or one BIG one, and contains the entire Bible. The KJV is the first rendering. If there is any significant difference found in any of the other 25 translations, they will be listed under the KJV. I like that a lot. It really gives me a broad look at what's being said.
But as to any other translation besides the KJV, I don't have much interest at this point. None of those other translations is vastly superior to the KJV anyway.
When those other translations can demonstrate God's hand in their production, I'll take a look. But, I have never heard any student present his studies of the gematria of the ASV. I don't remember hearing about the intricate weaving of some particular number into a passage of Scripture in the NIV. And it would take many years of research with English gematria to prove God's hand in a translation. And with sly folks adulterating the text in other translations, why bother?
I love mail.