The Simple Guide to Bible Translations(By Christopher Long, BodEquip Ministries)
There are lots of English Bible translations out there and a lot of different opinions on which translation is "best" etc. This article will hopefully really help simplify some of the core things regarding both why there are so many different English translations and where many of the popular Bible translations are in relation to each other.
The Bible's manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Those languages are very different from English both in structure and style. The challenge for English Bible translators is how to best communicate what the original languages are saying into a very different type of language, English, and there are varied approaches to doing so. Some Bibles aim to be very literally accurate, but that can make the English sound unnatural. Therefore some aim to make the English extremely easy-to-read, but that requires more translator involvement in a way that can make it more likely to lose accuracy compared to the original manuscripts. Because of other issues such as the original languages not having punctuation, translators have to look to context to figure things out. These fundamental issues, combined with changes over time in the English language itself, as well as more modern discoveries of manuscripts, is a predominant reason why there are so many types of English Bibles around. It's important to note up front though, that while there are differences and sometimes notable differences between Bible versions, all Christian Bibles are going to give you the same basic core information of humanity's story beginning with the creation of the world and ending with the end of the world as we know it, with Jesus being at the center of this story and the importance of receiving salvation through Him.
Given the amount of Bible choices out there, you are fairly likely to find one that you are reasonably comfortable with. However, not all Bibles are "translations" and there's a lot of confusion in this realm, so let's first clear that up.
Translations are those where scholars who understand the original languages actually look at the original manuscripts and decide based on their scholarly knowledge how to best put that into English. The majority of English Bibles fall in this category. Examples are the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, ASV, NRSV, NET. Some of these (or others) are based on one of these as their starting point. For example, the NASB and NRSV are rooted in the ASV. Likewise, the World English Bible (WEB) is a revision on the ASV with the primary goal to update it to a bit more modern English. Translations are based in the idea of trying to be accurate to the intention of the original languages. Although not strictly required to be a translation, most respected translations are usually created by committees of scholars as opposed to one individual, and thus have less chance of any one person's personal ideology or biases creeping in. Because humans are still humans though, all translations DO have at least some degree of bias and translator idealogy embedded in them (even the KJV...), but compared to paraphrases they generally offer less of that.
Paraphrases are sometimes mistakenly referred to as "translations" when they are not. Examples are The Message Bible (MSG) and The Living Bible (LB). Paraphrases are where someone (or multiple people - but usually it's primarily one main person) have tried to take the essence of what is being said and reworded it into language they feel better helps communicate. It's basically someone's interpretation on what is being said. It usually does not involve seriously looking at the original manuscripts at all, but just trying to re-word from another English translation. Because it's one person's opinion on what the Scripture is saying and because it takes many more liberties with wording, paraphrases are usually very prone to having bias and having words/ideas added that are not scholarly supported by original manuscripts (conversely they might also miss some points/ideas). For any mature believers out there, if you've ever read a Bible verse one way in a notable Bible translation and then years later read the same exact verse in the same translation and gotten a deeper revelation out of it, you'll immediately understand the problem with paraphrases. Paraphrases rely less on scholarly research into trying to communicate the meaning of the original manuscripts and much more on interpretation (and usually one person's interpretation) on what they think the Scripture is saying. The most famous paraphrase these days is The Message Bible (MSG) by Eugene Peterson. In the 1970's a popular Bible paraphrase was The Living Bible (LB) by Kenneth Taylor. Paraphrases can potentially be useful in certain situations (particularly with children or unbelievers or for use by brand new believers), but in general you should probably have your guard up - you need to know that there's a higher probability for you to internalize error. Paraphases in my opinion should mostly never be the basis for any serious Bible study. I usually cringe profusely when I see pastors use them as a primary teaching version for believers.
Amplified Bible (AMP). - This is kind of both a translation and a paraphrase in one. It is a substantial revision on the ASV (American Standard Version) text but what it does is take key words/phrases and offer multiple different meanings for those words or seek to expand/explain on what is meant by putting additional text in brackets. The goal is to "amplify" what the Scripture is saying. While that could of course be helpful in allowing you perhaps to see a verse in a "new light" that may make it extra understandable or relatable for you, it also means it could amplify a non-ideal meaning for you too. It tends to provide a bunch of "options" for what a word/phrase means and allow you as the reader to pick the one you want to "take" or "relate to" if the one provided by the main translated text didn't suit your fancy. Because the Amplified also adds text to try to better explain what is meant by certain words/phrases, it can also lead readers even deeper down a specific interpretive path and thus make it harder for readers to see a verse any other way than how the AMP spelled it out for them, even if there might be other legitimate options. There can potentially be value in something like the Amplified to help in making sense of things or looking at things in a "fuller" way according to how it is presented for you, but it also can lead to reading things into verses that may not have really been intended or might not be appropriate. I am not at all opposed to the Amplified Bible - I just think it needs to be read carefully in the right way where you read everything within the brackets as "possible help for understanding, but not the Scripture itself." By the way, don't be surprised if it takes you twice as long to read a verse in the Amplified compared to most other Bible translations - this thing is WORDY. Don't want to ruffle any feathers in this Politcally Correct age, but there's a reason why I've observed that women tend to favor the Amplified over men. ;) LOL [It also happens to be the version utilized/promoted by popular Bible teacher Joyce Meyer].
New Living Translation (NLT). This one has become pretty popular these days. It was originally largely intended as an update to The Living Bible (LB) paraphrase and correct some of the glaring problems with the LB. While it was promoted as a new translation in the 1990's and did have a team of translators that looked at the original languages, it still retained a whole bunch of the Living Bible's paraphrase wording. Since 2004, when the second edition of the NLT was released, it has become more of a translation in its own right. Basically the NLT makes the Bible very easy-to-read and relatable, but still at least maintains somewhat a reasonable degree of accuracy to the intent of the original manuscripts. I generally am much more comfortable with the NLT than I am with paraphrases like The Message or The Living Bible, and definitely understand why some might want to use it, though I personally am more uncomfortable using it by itself for any serious Bible study. I will say though that I have a friend who started reading the Old Testament in the NLT and he said it really made the Old Testament come alive for him in a way that other translations didn't bring out.
The Passion Translation (TPT). Despite the bold pronouncement in its name that it is a translation, while technically that may be true in that it was apparently created from looking at original manuscripts, I think many (myself included) would take great issue with this designation. It reads MUCH MORE like a paraphrase, and I have trouble even considering it that - it's more like a paraphrase on steroids. The goal of the TPT is to bring out the emotional "passion" of the Bible. It is mostly the work of a guy named Brian Simmons and despite what they claim on their website, seems quite biased towards a particular theological framework. This "translation" is gaining a lot of popularity in charismatic circles because it tends to line up with theology common in this spectrum of the Body of Christ. Let me be clear: I consider myself in/around these circles and I still have some pretty BIG concerns with the TPT. Whether a fully justified criticism or not, it reads more like a re-written/re-worded Bible to more heavily promote certain themes/ideas than it does in trying to accurately portray what the Bible says. It seems to make a bunch of assumptions according to personal theological views, which even if the theological view is correct (and I believe it often is), the assumptions made for given verses cannot always be scholarly backed up given the manuscripts for those verses. There are whole sentences and even paragraphs in this thing that have no corresponding Greek/Hebrew text in the original manuscripts. This "translation" is not remotely about word-for-word accuracy but by their own admission is about trying to convey a "heart essence" of what they think was intended by the original manuscripts. While there has long been a translation methodology that seeks to communicate more of the meaning of what was intended as opposed to going for literal accuracy (these methodologies are described further below), The Passion Translation takes this to a whole other level. Being within/around parts of the Body where I'm more likely to find those that promote the TPT, I do sympathize in one respect: I do think in many of the traditional Bible versions that there are some translation decisions that have been repeated for hundreds of years made famous with the KJV that are questionable but translators keep deferring to those same questionable decisions rather than wanting to rock the boat since so many hold the KJV in such high regards. The TPT definitely isn't afraid to rock the boat (although it strangely doesn't in some cases where I would expect and even would like it to such as its handling of John 9:3-4). I might even agree with some of its wording and think it better communicates what is meant in certain situations. But this thing takes things to a level that as a whole I am not very comfortable with. If you go to their website (at least as of this writing), you will find them going to great lengths to try to explain why TPT is a legitimate "translation" and should be used for serious study etc. The fact that they have to go to such lengths to try to prove their legitimacy should alone tell you what you need to know about TPT. All translations contain bias of some form because when you translate from the original manuscripts to another language by means of humans, there's an inescapable layer of humanity. However, when it's primarily only one person doing the translating (as opposed to multiple scholars representing multiple denominations/streams that can help keep each other in check) and when that person is willing to take such incredible liberties as showcased by TPT making all sorts of assumptions about what God was trying to get across in His Word, it strikes me that the potential for error really skyrockets. I would never say God couldn't use this or that there's not value in it, but my caution flags in general in regards to this are pretty high. Like Paraphrases, I personally would not want to use this (at least not solely) for any serious Bible study and I tend to really cringe when I see this used as a primary version from the pulpit. If you care about Biblical accuracy more than you care about reading one guy's interpretations, no matter how great it hits your emotions, then The Passion Translation is probably not for you. With all that said, just to show even with something like this I can still see potential value: I've actually just personally started reading a devotional which uses the TPT in stepping through the Song of Solomon. If there's one book in the Bible where the TPT might really shine and where I would have less concern, it's the Song of Solomon.
There's lots of other unusual cases too. There's the NWT (New World Translation) put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses, which while originally based on the more respectable ASV, has a bunch of custom tweaks they've made so it better fits their theology, which most mainline Christians (including this one) take serious issue with. There's other things like the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), which like The Passion Translation (TPT) mentioned above comes mostly from one guy (in the YLT's case, Robert Young). However rather than the TPT which is far away from trying to literally translate the text, the YLT seeks to really get as much as possible to the literal of the Hebrew/Greek, to the point that many people believe it does so to a fault and thus take issue with its rigidness and readability (although it can be useful and is often considered an interesting and respectable translation for what it is).
Translations usually are geared more towards one of two different philosophies when approaching how to translate from the original languages.
1) Literal / Word-For-Word (or what's known as "Formal Equivalence"). This means the translators attempt as much as possible to make the translation match the literal meaning of the Hebrew and Greek in the same word order. The benefit to this type is accuracy to the underlying text, but readability often suffers in the process.
2) Thought-For-Thought (or what's known as "Dynamic or Functional Equivalence"). This means the translators care more about trying to convey the meaning of the text for the new language without worrying about word order and conveying the exact literal meaning of all the original text. The benefit to this is increased readability, but it can do so at the sacrifice of accuracy as it may mean more chance for translator bias or error. In general, one criticism often levied against the Thought-For-Thought/Dynamic approach is that because it takes more liberties, it can also be more subject to being influenced by current societal values/norms than the more literal approach.
Think of these two forms as a spectrum with differing degrees. Some translations are much more literal, some much more thought-for-thought, some try to strike more of a balance.
Examples of more literal (formal) translations (in order from most literal to least): YLT, ASV, NASB, WEB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, CSB, HCSB, AMP
Examples of more thought-for-thought (dynamic) translations/paraphrases (in order from most dynamic to least): TPT, LB, MSG, GNT, NLT, NET, NIV, NRSV
See the below graphic to see more clearly where they generally fall on the spectrum:
All of these of course are just my opinions (although I believe they are informed opinions) and others might rate these differently. Some that are "within the basic ballpark of each other" I grouped together for clarity's sake even though technically in reality one might be a bit more one way or another. Even though AMP is based on the ASV, because it also includes additional text in brackets as a primary feature (see explanation on the AMP above), when rating I took this into account - though it is hard to rate. Also, I've included paraphrases in this even though per the above, paraphrases aren't translations. This is because by definition, paraphrases can be considered on the extreme end of the Thought-For-Thought spectrum and just for clarity I believe useful to see them in relation to the translations.
There are lots of other things that make up how translations are handled, including such things as how they treat gender pronouns, how they render God's name in the Old Testament, and whether they capitalize names of God. All of these might be things you want to consider your comfort level on. It's also a good idea for you to have an idea on what group (if any) sponsored doing the translating and what the basic theological makeup of translators was.
One of the other big things to know about various translations besides whether it is more literal or thought-for-thought based is what they are using as their source manuscripts they are translating from. This is where things can get pretty convoluted. When it comes to the Old Testament, things are relatively simple. All English versions to my knowledge are primarily based on what is called the Masoretic Text. There's different versions of the Masoretic Text that have been issued through the years, but for the most part they are all pretty consistent, with only a relatively small amount of exceptions. Some newer modern English Bible versions in addition to the Masoretic Text also take into account things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Aramaic Targum, and the Latin Vulgate, where the translators believed the Masoretic Text might not be sufficient or be in doubt for certain passages. But for the most part, the Masoretic Text is what is used for the Old Testament - it's what was used in the KJV and it is what is primarily used today in modern translations.
With the New Testament is where things get quirky. There are basically 3 main "streams" of New Testament Greek manuscript texts that translations can draw from and each translation usually is based on one of these "streams".
1) Received Text / Textus Receptus (TR) - This essentially was a small compilation of specific manuscripts accepted in the 1500's to be trustworthy and reliable. The term "Byzantine" is also used to describe this type as well as the Majority Text described below. The manuscripts used are all later manuscripts and do not take into account newer discoveries. Notable translations using this: KJV, NKJV, YLT. Note however that the KJV also used other sources such as the Latin Vulgate and the NKJV inherits this and thus both are not solely dependent on the Received Text. For all intents and purposes, practically the KJV and NKJV are kind of their own thing in comparison to most other English Bibles regarding source manuscripts used.
2) Critical Text / Alexandrian (CT) - This involves a scholarly review of the existing manuscripts and it places heavy weight on the oldest known greek manuscripts. There are a few manuscripts (such as Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus) that are much older than the many later manuscripts (later manuscripts were used for the Received Text). Most modern English translations in some way are based on the Critical Text because the assumption is that though there are less of the older manuscripts, they are substantially older and thus more reliable. Notable translations using this: NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NLT, NET, NRSV, etc.
3) Majority Text / Byzantine (M-Text) - This means that all existing greek manuscripts are looked at and the majority that agree with one another are what is used. Since the majority of manuscripts are later manuscripts in line with the later manuscripts used for the Received Text, though there are differences between Majority Text and Received Text, they are more alike than when compared to Critical Text. Notable translations using this: WEB (World English Bible). Because the WEB also grew out of the ASV, which itself was a revision of the late 1800's British ERV which relied on the Critical Text of the day over the Received Text, the WEB uses a mixture of Majority Text and mid-late 1800's Critical Text.
In mentioning the three different "streams" above, note that while there are variations, the majority of the New Testament significantly agrees between all of the three "streams" and particularly as it relates to most key texts. However there are clearly observable differences such as Mark 16:9-20 and the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 7:53-8:11 not appearing in the Critical Text.
Many of the modern English translations using the Critical Text such as the ESV provide footnotes for notable disagreements with the Received Text/Majority Text or even insert the text a la the Adulteress Woman story in bracketed form within the main text with a note simply stating that the passage does not appear in the oldest manuscripts. Likewise the NKJV provides notes for disagreements with the Critical Text (what it calls "NU-Text") and even with the Majority Text ("M-Text").
Some people get really up-in-arms about which of the three above "streams" is the "best". None of us REALLY knows for certain which is most accurate, even if we think we do, because we weren't around when the original text was first written down. I personally tend towards preferring the Critical Text approach (although I still think Mark 16:9-20 is legit), however as long as the Bible version provides clear notes or handles notable disagreements in a clear way by providing the alternate renderings, I don't see why it really matters too much. Most modern English translations do handle this all relatively well including as mentioned the ESV and NKJV. However older ones like the KJV generally do not and just "do what they do" without noting differences. So if you want to have a more complete picture of alternate renderings or explanations for missing/changed verses etc., you probably want a modern English translation.
I know there's a group of people who swear the KJV is the only "real translation" and their argument is largely based on these issues, but notwithstanding the above, the KJV has its own well-known translation quirks (such as Revelation 22:19 which uses a phrase not found in ANY known greek manuscripts). The Bible can be trusted but it is the original manuscripts that are inerrant. Scribes through the centuries that produced copies did sometimes make errors. Once you understand that God is perfect, but all translations (including the KJV) are going through the hands of imperfect humans, you realize there is no "perfect translation."
However, it is important to keep in mind that the differences are generally pretty minor things and there is a huge amount of manuscript support for the Bible, much more than for any other book in existence. There is nothing to remotely suggest that the Bible as a whole cannot be trusted. Even where there are some copyist/scribe manuscript "issues", the core message of the Bible or the need for salvation in Jesus is NOT affected. :)
When you take all the above together, you can see why there are so many different types of English Bible versions. For the most part it's largely about preference. My personal opinion is that most translations and even paraphrases can have value in certain situations - it depends on you and what your goals are.
- For general reading and basic study purposes for most adults, I lean towards the ESV, NKJV, or CSB. These offer reasonable readability for most adults while still maintaining a more literal translation stance (although the CSB is just barely in that camp). If you particularly care about having a Bible that is gender-inclusive (i.e. saying "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers") but that at least handles it in a generally reasonable way, out of these three the CSB is the one you want. Otherwise stick with the ESV or NKJV which both come across more "traditional" and do not as a whole use gender-inclusive language.
- For more serious Bible study, you might want to consider the NASB, NET, or even dig into the YLT sometimes. Particularly if you are reading digitally, the NET Bible can be quite useful for study because you can get it with the over 60,000 translator notes that explore some of the deeper translation issues. The NET Bible may not be quite as well-known, but while being a Dynamic (Thought-For-Thought) translation that definitely takes some liberties, it is generally a respected translation that was very open in its initial development and is unique for its many notes that give you insight into why they translated certain words/phrases as they did (even if after you read them you believe they "went too far" in some of their assumptions and liberties they took). I wouldn't use the NET by itself for any serious study, but if you really want to dive deeper, the NET Bible in concert with the more literal NASB can be a particularly powerful combination.
- For older kids and teens, or adults that just want a very readable/understandable translation and are willing to sacrifice some accuracy, the NIV or NLT might be good considerations. Between the two, the NLT is generally the easiest to take in, especially for kids/teens. There's a reason why the NIV and NLT are really popular translations. Be aware that the NIV underwent a major revision in 2011 and is different from the previous NIV edition from 1984. I personally prefer the older NIV between them and resent the confusion the publisher created by making a translation with the same name that has fundamental changes in comparison to the one that existed for over 25 years prior, but they did what they did - they purposely generally don't sell the old edition anymore, so when people say "NIV" these days, they usually mean the 2011 update now. Once upon a time the NIV was my primary Bible, but when they came out with the 2011 update, I became uncomfortable as it seemed to me at the time that several of their new translation decisions overall as well as on specific verses I checked seemed to be indicative that they were letting culture and partisan theological opinions dictate translation decisions in a way that made me uneasy with the then-new update as a whole. Whether completely fair or justified on my part at the time, I jumped off the NIV ship because of that and have not really looked back. But that doesn't mean it does not have value overall because it is still a very smooth-flowing translation (which to be honest I still sometimes miss). While I personally have more overall "confidence" in the more literal translations I tend towards now, none of those are quite as "smooth" in language as the NIV. Just a sidenote, but both the NIV (as of 2011 update) and the NLT are gender-inclusive (i.e. using things like "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers") so if you want an easy-to-read translation with that baked in, this might be another reason to go the NIV or NLT route.
- For unbelievers, younger kids, or adults that have a particularly harder time with comprehension, The Message paraphrase might prove beneficial in getting the core ideas of the Bible across in an understandable way. I know some will probably think it blasphemous for me to say that, but while I am not a huge fan of paraphrases and do have notable concerns, I also concede that there can be people for whom it might be an "entry point" into basic understanding.
As for the original King James (KJV), I know it is still beloved by many, but its very archaic language makes it hard for me to recommend. Despite what some in the "KJV Only" crowd seem to think, God did NOT speak the Bible in KJV Elizabethan English! ;) You might think the King James is the only Bible that should be read, but if your neighbor can't understand what in the world it is talking about because of all the Ye Olde English, then it's NOT the best translation for them! There are other translations like the NKJV and ESV that are close enough in my view to the KJV in basic approach but with much more readable modern English. If your issue is that you believe the KJV is the most "accurate", I probably am not going to be able to convince you otherwise, but I would say at the very least check out the NKJV, which per the info further above is in the same manuscript category as the KJV. I believe either the NKJV or ESV are good "in the same ballpark" translations in relation to the KJV.
No matter what Bible you choose, the most important thing is to READ IT! :) And please don't spend your energies telling everyone why your translation is the only one God approves of...Every single translation has both strengths and weaknesses.
Also, although I love and often prefer reading in physical Bibles, these days with people reading Bible versions on their tablets and phones, with modern Bible software you can do some really cool things where you don't have to feel as much like you have to 100% give yourself to only one translation. You can do things like split screens where your preferred translation and another translation both are shown at the same time and move with each other as you are reading, making it ultra-easy to compare etc. Often reading the same verse in multiple translations can help give you a "fuller" understanding of it. Something I actually like to do at church is purposely use a different translation than what the pastor/teacher is using, specifically for this reason. I hear them speak it in one version while I am reading it in a different version and comparing it as I go. This can prove helpful and particularly if the pastor/teacher is using a less-literal translation like the NLT to make their point, by checking it in a more-literal translation like the ESV or NASB, this helps me ensure the verse is being used correctly in context while also offering me better understanding.
This might seem silly to mention, but I feel it's necessary. Most modern translations are copyrighted and although we all would like to think that God's Word should be 100% free, the reality is that Bibles are big business. I am not comfortable condemning any organizations or questioning motives, I'm just stating a fact.
While copyright law overall might be a good thing, when it comes to the Bible, it can be a real hindrance. Because of the way copyright law works, when a new translation is undertaken, in order for the new translation to not infringe on the copyright of existing translations (of which we've established there are many) and be able to be seen as its "own thing" legally, the way things are worded in the new translation by definition has to be fairly different from the others. Thus a practical thing that nobody ever really talks about much, but is a truth, is that the way things are worded in modern English translations doesn't always have to do with what is actually BEST, but what they need to do legally to be different. Thus while they usually ensure key well-known verses read similarly to other popular translations, for other less well-known verses they might re-word not as much because they want to because they feel it makes it "better" or more "accurate", but more because they "have to". It's a sad reality, but it's the truth. When you consider that modern English is already a less-precise language than say the Greek language that the New Testament was written in, you can see how this whole copyright issue in-and-of-itself can be a stumbling block. Again, this is kind of the elephant in the room that nobody ever talks about. Certainly the Bible publishers are aware of it, but they aren't going to tell you these things in their promotional material - they are just going to tell you how great their translation is and make it seem like all their phrasings of verses are because that's what they truly thought was best.
This is why I very much applaud the approach of the World English Bible (WEB), which is rooted in the Public Domain ASV and sought to modernize some of the old ASV language, and was always intended to be placed in the public domain as well. The WEB has strengths and weaknesses like all others, but on this point in particular, it is very noteworthy.
There's also the question of your usage of Bibles in other things such as quoting a Bible in a book you are writing or video you are producing. While most translations have provisions for free use in some capacity, some are more restrictive than others. In general, the really old translations like the KJV, ASV, YLT, as well as the modern WEB Bible are in the public domain (there's more to the KJV story although it is generally treated as public domain in most of the world outside the U.K.) and thus generally completely free for use across-the-board. The modern NET Bible translation, while sadly overall seems to have lost some of its original "ministry first" ideals from what it originally was when the first edition was released in 2005, still at least has managed to retain great permissions for non-commercial usage by allowing you to quote as much as you want from it according to some basic rules whereas most other modern copyrighted translations limit the amount you can quote even non-commercially (commercial usage of the NET Bible does limit you). For more traditionally handled copyrighted modern translations, I always found the ESV to be relatively "friendly" as far as their terms and stance, and ones such as the NIV and NKJV to be more restrictive in practice (I note however that the ESV's terms seem to have been "tightened" from what they used to be). Anyway, it's a matter of checking the permissions for the version you are interested in quoting.
This article is Copyright by Christopher Long 2022. All rights reserved. You may quote/reprint this article for any non-commercial purpose without obtaining permission as long as you use the entire text and that all text, including this and all following notices, is not modified or removed in any fashion. For any other usage, you must obtain written permission from the author.
This is version 1.3 of this document (August 2022).
Previous versions: 1.2 (January 2021), 1.1 (October 2020), 1.0 (September 2020)
This document is provided as a ministry outreach of BodEquip Ministries. http://www.bodequip.org