There's a rather intense (albeit a relatively small) debate within the Christian community as to which version of the Bible should be regarded as the true, the best representation, of God's will and design. Some believe the King James Version (KJV) is the only version to read, while others say the KJV is a hopelessly inaccurate rendering of the sacred scripts. And that includes the NKJV (New King James Version). The New International Version (NIV) although popular is said to suffer some serious shortcomings of its own including, as the links show, revision and deletion of many key verses. Another related criticism of the NIV is the method chosen to write the NIV- Dynamic Equivalence (DE) also known as idiomatic equivalence. Put simply, DE is a new method of translation that emphasizes translation of the meaning of a word(s) rather than their directly, most closely related equivalent so as to render the document in a form the reader will enjoy and with which the reader will identify, as opposed to a word for word literal translation of the text which can produce some unnatural, unreadable translations. DE translators typically, take (or are forced to take) liberties with the text(s) they are they are working on in order to render the translated text in an form enjoyable and familiar to the reader. As you can imagine, critics of DE claim that too much is lost of the text's original meaning when emphasis is put on making the text work in the language the text is being translated into. Critics of DE usually insist on "Formal equivalence translation" (FE), a more literal method of translation in which readability and flow are subordinated, if not sacrificed, to conveying the actual meaning, including idiomatic meaning, of the text in question. One bible version or translation whose writers went out to do just that is the NASB (New American Standard Bible) which is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). The NASB was translated by a group of conservative scholars who threw the concept of readability to the wind and went for a literal, word for word translation of the Greek manuscripts. The NASB was, for a time, popular in conservative circles but was widely criticized as being too awkward and unnatural. In short, the NASB did more justice to the Greek than it did to the English into which it was translated. It was so strong on the Greek in fact that although it fell largely into disuse as an everyday bible, it was nevertheless retained by many as a useful guide to the original Greek.