With hundreds of English Bible versions to pick from today, the question must be asked, “What makes a reliable Bible Version?” It is obvious that they are not all the same; otherwise they would not be different Bible Version. Since they are not the same they are obviously not equal.  Which one is better? More specifically, which one is the best, most reliable transmitting of God’s words?

The question should not be asked as to which one the individual prefers or thinks is easier to read. This is God’s word and we want the most accurate translation of the very words God has revealed to man. The subjective question of which one somebody likes more or finds easier to understand is irrelevant. It is God’s word and we are commanded to study it (2 Timothy 2:15), not simplify it. We desire the faithfully preserved word of God. Christ said, “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words…” (John 14:23)

This question brings us to various ways to assess the current situation of the multitudes of Bible versions available today. We can simplify our study into two categories: 1) the history behind different Bible versions, and 2) the philosophy behind the different Bible version.

In assessing the history behind the various Bible versions we must recognize first that God has promised to preserve His words (Psalm 89:34; 105:8; 119:89, 160; Isaiah 40:8; 59:21, etc.).1)see Heath Henning, “Deistic Inspiration or Preserved Inerrancy?”; http://truthwatchers.com/deistic-inspiration-preserved-inerrancy/ Furthermore, God has promised to preserve the very grammar (Matthew 5:18)2)see Heath Henning, “Evidence the Hebrew Vowel Points were Inspired.” http://truthwatchers.com/evidence-hebrew-vowel-points-inspired/ Paul wrote to Timothy: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:15-17) David Clouds noted about this verse,

The Bible is from God in its smallest detail (2 Tim. 3:15). The word for Scripture here is gramma, referring to a letter. This teaches us that even the smallest details of the Bible are from God. This is called “verbal inspiration.” Jesus taught that even the jots and titles of the Old Testament Hebrew word are authoritative and preserved by God (Mat. 5:18)3)David Cloud, An Unshakable Faith: A Christian Apologetics Course, Way of Life Literature, 2011, p. 23

Timothy was able to know the very letters of which Moses wrote yet Moses’ original handwritten manuscripts had been long lost by the time Paul wrote this to Timothy. This means we must recognize God’s hand behind the providential preservation of His words and that His words are made by a combination of letters which had to be faithfully transmitted over many centuries. “For thousands of years, God had preserved the accuracy of His Holy Scriptures through the careful reproduction of the manuscripts by these extraordinarily dedicated Jewish Masoretic scribes. When the scribe copied the manuscript of Genesis (which contain 76,064 Hebrew letters), he would literally count out the precise number of times each of the twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet occurred in the text. He would also make notations on the margin of the page to assure that no letters were added or taken away. If even one letter was missed or added improperly, the master scribe would destroy the imperfect copy, lest an error creep into the holy text of the Word of God.”4)Grant Jeffrey, The Signature of God; The Hand Writing of God: Two Bestselling Works Complete in One Volume, Inspirational Press, 1999, p. 450

There is abundant evidence for God’s preservation of His words of the New testament as well. “There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the New Testament text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the New Testament is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.”5)Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions  Skeptics ask about the Christian Faith, Living Books, 1980, p. 21 Norman Geisler stated, “But even if we did not have such good manuscript evidence, we could actually reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John.”6)Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, Baker Books, 1996, p. 160

This evidence pertains to the historical assessment of the modern Bible version issue. In the early third century, the original autographs still existed in the churches they were written to and every copy could be confirmed to be accurate by comparing them to the originals. Tertullian wrote in the beginning of the third century, “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.”7)Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics, chap. XXXVI; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., vol. 3, p. 260

The early church fathers warned about the scripture being twisted by heretics that created spurious texts. Caius, warned in the third century of the atmosphere with variant versions made by heretics purposely corrupting God’s word, and yet his description sound very much like our current issue of various Bible versions. He wrote,

But as to those men who abuse the arts of the unbelievers to establish their own heretical doctrine, and by the craft of the impious adulterate the simple faith of the divine Scriptures, what need is there to say that these are not near the faith? For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them. The copies of Asclepiades, at any rate, will be found at variance with those of Theodotus. And many such copies are to be had, because their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them. And again, the copies of Hermophilus do not agree with these; and as for those of Apollonius, they are not consistent even with themselves. For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offense, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs?8)Caius as quoted by Eusebius, Fragments of Caius – Against the Heresy of Artemon, III.; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 5, p. 602

Irenaeus, around 170 A.D. spoke of a corruption in the book of Revelation where the number 666 was copied as 616. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the apostle John who wrote the book of Revelation so Irenaeus has a solid position to oppose this corrupted texts.

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;… I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. …as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall.(brackets in original)9)Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk 5, chap. XXX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 1, p. 558-559

God has providentially preserved His word as promised even against the attacks throughout history which is one of the unique evidences of its divine origin. “Hence we maintain that despite very early, even first century, attacks on the text of Scripture, God has actually, really, truly preserved it. It is further asserted that this preservation can accordingly be verified on the basis of sound method and evidence, bearing in mind, moreover, the character of the witnesses produced. Compared with the texts not only of classical works, such as those of Plato and homer, but of other religious books, such as the Muslim Qur’an or the Hindu Vedas, the position of the Old and New Testament Scriptures may even be said to be historically and factually unique in this respect.”10)Dr. J. Cammenga, The Lord has preserved His Word: The doctrine of Holy Scripture, its providential preservation and its faithful translation, Trinitarian Bible Society, 2014, p. 18

So the line of reasoning of what makes a reliable Bible version today come to what the origin of the manuscripts utilized in the production and translation of modern Bible version. Jesus said, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Matthew 7:17-19). Church historian Phillip Schaff who worked on the revising of the English Bible for America was evidently inconsistent in his thinking of working on the production of that perverted Bible version. He wrote, “The Antioch School was not a regular institution with a continuous succession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis which had its centre in Antioch. The characteristic features are… its exegesis is grammatical and historical, in distinction from the allegorical method of the Alexandrian School…. The grammatical-historical exegesis is undoubtedly the only safe and sound basis for the understanding of the Scriptures as of any other book; and it is a wholesome check upon the wild licentiousness of the allegorizing method which often substitutes imposition for exposition.”11)Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Hendrickson Publishers Market, 1858, fourth printing 2011, vol. 2, p.  816 Hence, we can divided the early church into two separate streams of thought and conclude that the Bible version based on manuscripts from the Antioch, not the Alexandrian school, will be faithful to the grammatical duplication of the Bible.

The reason for understanding these different schools is because the was a different philosophy behind the thinking of the different schools. An example of the philosophy behind the Alexandrian school is presented by Clement of Alexandria who wrote during the turn the of the third century, “Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring the Hellenic mind, as the law, the Hebrews, to Christ. Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.”12)Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, chap. V; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 305 “And philosophy— I do not mean the Stoic, or the Platonic, or the Epicurean, or the Aristotelian, but whatever has been well said by each of those sects, which teach righteousness along with a science pervaded by piety—this eclectic whole I call philosophy.”13)Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book I, chap. VII; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, Vol. 2, p. 308 So the Alexandrian school desired to make synthesis of the pagan philosophers with the Bible. Today the philosophy of merging two contradicting ideas is known as Hegelian Dialectics.14)see Heath Henning, “Hegelian Dialectics,” http://truthwatchers.com/hegelain-dialectics/

Clement’s pupil and successor of the Alexandrian school was Origen who became most influential in the cause of corruption of biblical manuscripts. Paul Wilkenson explained, “Neo-Platonic thought crept into the early post-Apostolic Church, and was based upon the belief that the material world was irrelevant because matter was essentially corrupt. Consequently, it was deemed necessary to seek a higher, spiritual meaning to everything. Within the context of the Christian faith, neo-Platonists in the Church, most notably Origen in Alexandria, Egypt (c. AD185-254), taught the need for Christians to uncover the higher, allegorical meaning to the Scriptures.”15)Paul Wilkinson, “Prophets Who Prophesy Lies In My Name”: Christian Palestinianism and the anti-Israel Crusade, a Document from Hazel Grove Full Gospel Church, 68 London Road, Hazel Grove SK7 4AF. UK., Revised March 2011, p. 36 Grant Jeffrey stated, “Origen, a third-century theologian in Alexandria, Egypt, popularized an allegorical method of teaching borrowed from the Greek pagan writers and the discredited heretical Gnostics.”16)Grant R. Jeffrey, Triumphant Return: The Coming Kingdom of God, Frontier Research Publications, Inc., 2001, p. 45 J.L.E. Dreyer related, “This desire to find allegories in Scriptures was carried to excess by Origen (185-254), who was likewise associated with Alexandrian thought, and he managed thereby to get rid of anything which could not be harmonized with pagan learning…”17)J. L. E. Dreyer, “Medieval Cosmology,” cited in Theories of the Universe, edited by Milton K. Munitz, p. 117 Dean Burgon stated, “Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash Editors of Scripture—among whom Origen may certainly be regarded as a prime offender—must have deliberately introduced into their recensions (’translations’) many an unauthorized and uninspired gloss, and so have given it an extended circulation.”18)Dean John W. Burgon, Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text, Sovereign Grace Publishers Inc., (Lafayette, IN: 1998) p. 47-48 One example of Origen’s corrupting the Biblical text can be seen in his quotations of Matthew 7:22—(Origen) “Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten in Thy name, and drunk in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out devils?”19)Origen De Principiis, Book IV, Chap I:1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, vol 4, p. 350-351 compared to the King James Version which is based on the Received Text: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?”

Three men that followed Origen: Rufinus, Pamphilus, Eusebius; and these men influenced what came to be known as the Alexandrian Text. Why were their texts rejected? Primarily because  Origen’s influence was recognized, his philosophical influence caused them to be unfaithful to copying texts with the desirable grammatical accuracy, and each were rejected for their own heresies. Thus, New Testament manuscripts have been generalized as Alexandrian texts or Received texts. The Received Text is so called because it is in the line of faithful copies that were received throughout history by Christians, “When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries. It was he who mightily influenced Jerome, the editor of the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate. Eusebius worshiped at the altar of Origen’s teachings. He claimed to have collected eight hundred of Origen’s letters, to have used Origen’s six-column Bible, the Hexapla, in his Biblical library. Assisted by Pamphilus, he restored and preserved Origen’s library.”20)Dr. Jack Moorman, Forever Settled, The Dean Burgon Society Press, 1999, p. 130

Rufinus gives us a number of reason to reject his work. “…Rufinus, having returned to the West (398), translated several works of Origen into Latin, and accommodated them to orthodox taste.”21)Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Hendrickson Publishers Market, 1858, fourth printing 2011, vol. 3, p. 701 By “accommodated” it is meant that Rufinus did not produce faithful translations but changed the words as he chose to. Rufinus wrote in a prologue to Origen’s work that he translated, “If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself.”22)Prologue of Rufinus to Origen De Principiis, bk 1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, vol 4, p. 239 So he clearly stated that he willfully changed the words he translated. Again, he stated, “not to translate what appeared contrary to Origen’s other opinions, and to our own beliefs, but to pass by such passages as being interpolated and forged by others.”23)Preface of Rufinus to Origen De Principiis, bk. 3; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, vol 4, p. 301 “There are also in both collections some dissertations concerning the Unbegotten God and the Begotten, and on some other subjects, which, to say nothing more, are beyond our comprehension. These, therefore, as being beyond our powers, I have chosen to reserve for others, rather than to produce in an imperfect state.”24)Rufinus Preface to Recognition of Clement; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, vol 8, p. 75 So, when things were written that he could not comprehend he omitted it. Consider how much of the Bible might have been omitted on this premise.

One manuscript that is considered of the Alexandrian text is the Sinaiticus manuscript. It has a colophon at the end of Esdras and Esther which states “a very ancient manuscript that had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphylus.” Concerning Pamphylius, “He busied himself also with the transcription and dissemination of the Scripture and other writings, such as those of Origen, of whom he was a devoted follower. At Caesareia he established a great public library, consisting mainly of ecclesiastical writers; and among the treasures of that library are mentioned the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origen, from which, with the help of Eusebius, he produced a new revised edition of the Septuagint.”25)The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887, Hendrickson, 1994, vol 6, p. 165

Eusebius is definitely the most influential figure of the modern Bible issue and the debate over which manuscripts should be viewed as authoritative. Eusebius was a semi-Arian thus rejected the full divinity of Christ per orthodox doctrine would set forth, and his views are continuous from Origen’s influence, Rufinus, and Pamphylus. Their corruption of the texts reflected their views. Philip Schaff recorded, “It is certain that, before the council of Nicea, he [Eusebius] sympathized with Arius; that in the council he proposed an orthodox but indefinite compromised-creed; that after the council he was not friendly with Athanasius and other defenders of orthodoxy; and that, in the synod of Tyre, which deposed Athanasius in 335, he took a leading part, and, according to Epiphanius, presided. In keeping with these facts is his silence respecting the Arian controversy (which broke out in 318) in an Ecclesiastical History which comes down to 324…”26)Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Hendrickson Publishers Market, 1858, fourth printing 2011, vol 3, p. 874 Schaff further elaborates, “The Semi-Arians, or, as they are called, the Homoiousiasts, wavered in theory and conduct between the Nicene orthodoxy and the Arian heresy…. Theologically they were best represented first by Eusebius of Caesarea, who adhered more closely to his admired Origen…”27)Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Hendrickson Publishers Market, 1858, fourth printing 2011, vol. 3, p. 649-650 The word “Homoiousiast” not commonly discussed in modern theology is explained by H. P. Liddon. “The difference between Homoiousion and Homoousion convulsed the world for the simple reason, that in that difference lay the whole question of the real truth or falsehood of our Lord’s actual Divinity. If in His Essence He was only like God, He was still a distinct Being from God, and therefore either created, or (per impossibile) a second God.”28)H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of Our Lord and Savious Jesus Christ, Longmans, Green and Co.(London, 1908), p. 444

Phillip Schaff tells us Eusebius effect on modern Bible versions. “Constantine took him often into his counsels… and intrusted to him the supervision of the copies of the Bible for the use of the churches in Constantinople.”29)Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Hendrickson Publishers Market, 1858, fourth printing 2011, vol 3. p. 875-876 Bart Ehrman states,

In his Life of Constantine Eusebius tells us that in the year 331 the emperor made a request of Eusebius personally for fifty manuscripts of the Christian Bible to be produced for churches that he was having built in his imperial city, Constantinople…. Eusebius comments that once he received this order of bibles, he immediately executed it …

As it turns out, we have two magnificent biblical manuscripts that survive from just this period, called the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Some scholars have thought that these were two of the copies that Eusebius had prepared in execution of Constantine’s request.30)Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 90, 92

Henry Morris relates,

These all have been traced, by liberal and conservative scholars alike, to a probable source in Alexandria, Egypt, in the second or third century…. The most influential man among the Christian community of Alexandria was the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in developing the so-called “Alexandrian” text of the New Testament, of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative, in contrast to the “Byzantine” text type, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come.31)Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., LL.D., Litt.D., The New Defender’s Study Bible (KJV), World Publishing, Inc., 2006, p. 2150

This is the history and the philosophy behind the men involved with some of the manuscripts that are being utilized in modern Bible version. We see then that we desire a Bible version that is faithful and has come down to us through the line of those from the Antioch schools, and not the Alexandrian schools. The Manuscript evidence also confirms to us that throughout church history, Christians have found the Received text as the faithful copies as they represent the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. The following graph presents the various manuscripts of the New Testament (A1=Alexandrian text, TR=Textus Receptus or the Received Text)

manuscript evidence

These variations of the manuscripts can be deduce more technically in comparison with the Received Text.

Vaticanus compared to TR in the 4 Gospels:

  • Omits 2,877 words
  • Adds 536 words
  • Substitutes 935 words
  • Transpose 2,098 words
  • Modifies 1,132 words

That is a total 7,578 words changed!

Sinaiticus compared to TR in the 4 Gospels:

  • Omits 3,455 words
  • Adds 839 words
  • Substitutes 1,114 words
  • Transpose 2,299 words
  • Modifies 1,265 words

That is a total 8,972 words changed! Remember that God promised to preserve His words. Do these manuscripts depict a faithful duplication of God’s word or a faithful God Who promised to providentially preserve His word? “Many scholars acknowledge that the variances in reading among extent manuscripts make very little difference in Bible doctrine. Passages do exist, however, in which a particular reading does influence exegetical meaning…. The differences in each of the readings points to a divergent doctrinal view.”32)Donald L. Brake with Shelly Beach,  A Visual History of the King James Bible, Baker Books, 2011, p. 145 “More than 40 of these differences directly involve Christian doctrine and over 480 substantially affect the meaning of scripture. Many have been adopted by translators of contemporary English versions, including the popular New International Version (NIV).”33)Fred R. Coulter, The New Testament In Its Original Order: A Faithful Version With Commentary: From the Stephens Text of 1550, (ed. Dr. Will Tomory), York Publishing Company, 2003, p. 198

In 1881 Westcott and Hort published their revised Greek text which was developed by emphasizing the preeminence of the Alexandrian text and “correcting” the Received text where they deviated from one another. As we see in the graph above, this contributed to thousands of changes in the New Testament and it does effect theological and doctrinal issues. The philosophy behind their revision was based on their “recension Theory.”  “A ‘recension’ of the Greek New Testament Text would mean that this text was fabricated by editors.  The editor would throw out all the other contrary texts, and come up with just one text.  There is not a scrap of history that tells anything about this event. This is a false theory, but they had to account for the fact that the Textus Receptus-type manuscripts have over 99% of the manuscript evidence behind it.  Westcott and Hort had to say that someone made an editorial recension or revision of the New Testament.  They then said that all of the Textus Receptus-type manuscripts were carbon copies of that original recension or revision.”34)http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/dbs2695.htm

Even beyond the ridiculous theory behind their justification of ignoring the manuscripts that have been held by the faithful throughout the history of the church, their goal was to literal change the thinking of Christianity. The heresies of these men is beyond the scope of this article but they were more in line with the views of Origen, Rufinus, Pamphylus and Eusebius.

However, today the very translation method has changed from translating the words to simplifying it to express what is perceived as the “thought” of the passage. This is what is called a dynamic equivalent translation and is predominating method of modern Bible versions. Ernest Pickering expressed, “While we certainly desire translations that will be understood by the common man, we must ever be watchful that the translation conveys the actual meaning of the original text. If we do not do that, the Scriptures become a lump of clay which the translator may mold at his will. The emphasis must always upon the message since it is God’s message and must not be tampered with in any way.”35)Ernest Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise, BJU Press, 1994, p. 44 The dynamic equivalent method is similar to the method of Origen, Rufinus, Pamphylus and Eusebius who were more than willing to tamper with the work they were translating. But we desire God’s word, not the opinions of the men who are translating them from what is perceived as the “thought” of the passage.  John Goetsch questioned, “If God Tested His Word Before He gave it to us, why do we constantly try to tweak it? We can’t improve on perfection!”36)John Goetsch, Contemporary Compromise, Striving Together Publications, 2010, p. 29 Concerning the dynamic equivalent method, Chris Sherburne assessed the NKJV and its considerable deviation from the authorized KJV, stating:

NKJ Dynamic Equivalently erases the numerical pronoun references found in the KJ 17,000 times. This is not true translation, and it turns God’s words into man’s words.

These “thees and thous” are not archaic, they are accurate. God’s precise thoughts are given in precise words-as inspired, preserved and literally translated. Not knowing whether a pronoun is singular or plural makes it impossible or guesswork to know who is being spoken to in some verses. The 10,000 “thees and thous” in the King James are always singular, and the 7,000 “you, ye, your(s)” are always plural from the original Hebrew and Greek. …there are 17,000 poor translations… This is almost one error for every verse of the Bible.”37)Chris Sherburne, Enough!! The New King James Bible: Do We Need It?, self published, 2004, 2013, p. 17

This is why attempting to produce simplified version does not work. We need accurate translations that are true to the original languages so that we all can faithfully study God’s word as it was preserved by  the faithful God through the providence of faithful men.