Kjv

Did you know some pastors demand that if a speaker comes to their KJV church and uses a non-KJV that they would be asked to leave? Even if they are not even asked to only use KJV, the speaker is suppose to know if their church is a KJV church. Crazy stuff eh?

Puffed up!

Let me tell you the solution to these problems: Demand of no one in your church which version should be used. People are just going to have to learn to looking behind the letters to see the Word.

Textus Receptus - KJV
Majority Text - NKJV
Reasoned Eclectic Approach (take into account all texts since 1611) - NASB (literal), NIV (balanced) [NIV is troublesome as I am told, it does not have the word Lucifer in it which is getting too eclectic]
Seminaries use NASB because it is still literal and easy to read.

I prefer the ASV and RSV.

There is geographical considerations (external) and historical consideration (internal), which held most precedence in history. Geographically if the same word is used it may be given more weight, but yet it could also be wrong for in appealing to the masses.

E.g. John 5.4 was added as a note by the Scribe. The only Bible versions that I know that got this right are my 3 favorite versions (and NIV): ASV (puts in in [] form), RSV rightly removes the text as does NLT. The NLT puts in footnotes that this verse does not belong and excludes the text by putting the explanation in the footnotes.
[no text for NLT]
Footnote:
Some manuscripts add waiting for a certain movement of the water, 4for an angel of the Lord came from time to time and stirred up the water. And the first person to step down into it afterward was healed.

There is author context, in his style of writing.

The philosophy may be different but also the textual basis can differ (the words).

The best advice I heard was: buy all main versions. All you have to do is not go out and eat a couple times to be able to afford to buy all the main versions. We are very blessed to get many versions doing their best effort to get the best wording. They are all very close, 99.5% the same. Even philosophically they are not that much different. And textually, they are all using dynamic equivalence to some extent.