Dear Ryan:

Thanks for the compliments.

I guess the first thing to say is to boycott jesus-is-savior. They are utter loony tunes and are in the top two anti-Catholic hate sites on the Internet. There is nothing that they say that has any veracity.

When is comes to words in different translations two things need to be remembered:

1) different words can mean the same thing. Thus, finding one word in one translation and another word is a different translation does not automatically mean that something is wrong with either translation.

2) jesus-is-savior and most fundamentalists come close to worshiping the King James Version. There is an old joke, "If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it is good enough for me."

In fact, there are around 300 mistakes in the King James Version. That is why there have been revisions of the King James, including the Revised Standard Version, which is one of the most accurate translations available. The RSV is used by the Catholic Church as well with minor edits, in the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition.

Besides this, the original King James Version could not be read by modern readers. The form of English used at that time is almost unreadable. The King James Version that everyone knows is thus not the original, but a revision that is more understandable to those of succeeding centuries.

The King James was also translated under bias. King James directed that the translators conform the text to the ecclesiology and episcopal structure and beliefs of the Church of England -- hardly a unbiased source as the Church of England rebelled against the true Church because the Church refused King Henry a divorce. The Church of England then lost its apostolic succession and thus ceased to be a "Church" in the proper sense.

Language does evolve. Because language evolves new translations are needed ever to often so that the modern reader can understand what is being said. English has evolved since the 19th century and even from the early 20th century to the late 20th century.

It is because of the natural evolution of language that the Church uses Latin as its official language. Latin is not in ordinary use anymore so it does not evolve. This allows for a more precise translation into other languages.

To give a few examples of differing words in different translations, let us look at John 3:16 in five different translations:

(Douay Rheims)  For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

(King James)  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(New International Version)  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition)  For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(Revised Standard Version-Catholic 2nd Edition) For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 
The fully approved with imprimatur Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition and the equally approved with imprimatur Revised Standard Version, Catholic 2nd Edition include both ways of saying this point about the Son of God.

To say "only-begotten" or to say "one and only" or "only son" all say the same thing.

The word in Greek is "monogenēs", which means " only born, that is, sole: - only". The adjective "begotten" is not needed. Begotten means "to father". We know that God is the Father of the Son without use of the word "begotten (which is not in the Greek).

In the Latin Vulgate the word is "unigenitum", which does mean "only begotten". Even though the Greek does not exactly use this phrase, the Latin does, which is why the Douay Rheims and the Revised Standard Version, Catholic 2nd Edition uses that phrase.

But, either translation is accurate and says the same thing.

Words such as "lasciviousness" is translated as " lewdness" in the NIV. It is the same thing.

I am reminded of the nonsense of the Ultra-Traditionalist. Many of them will say that the Vatican II Mass is invalid because in the Eucharistic prayer the word "cup" is used instead of "chalice". Earth to Mr. Ultra-traditionalist -- a chalice is a cup. The Mass is hardly invalid because of this word, and the "only son" translation in John 3:16 is not blasphemous, for pete sake. These people need to see a psychiatrist for treatment of scrupulosity (the religous form of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality disorder).

Now, I am not recommending the NIV. There are problems with that translation, but if we are going to critique it we need to do so with reason, not with scupulous idiocy and certainly not in comparison with the flawed King James Version.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary