So yes, all three would be good versions. An excellent demonstration to show a good reason to read more than one version.

Rick that's an interesting translation. I have to verify this text more closely and see if the D translation is more correct. Via googling this translation, D is the Douay-Rheims Bible which is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. So I imagine the Catholic must rely on that translation.

I have a SDA friend that is a serious scripture student. He checks the Greek and Hebrew sources of words in his studies and has compared many translations. He told me that over the years doing this he found that the Catholic Bibles translation are more reliable(to the Hebrew and Greek word definition without distorting the meaning of the original text) than any of the protestant translations. I was quite surprise to hear that. So I verified his claim by checking a few of some mis-translations that I was aware of. In those verses checked, the translation in the Catholic Bible was better.

I don't have a Catholic Bible which I will procure in the futur, but I do have the Tenakh that I like to check their translation of difficult text from time to time. Gen 3:18 is one text that is in my to study list. So that's why your post pull my attention. Here is how the Tenakh translated Gen 3:18

The Tenakh Gen 3:18 [b]"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel."

In the Scripture-for-all software, the literal translation read as follow :

Scripture-for-all Software of Gen 3:18: "and-enmity I-am-setting between-you and-between the-woman and-between your-seed and-between her-seed he he-shall-hurt-you head and-you you-shall-hurt-him heel"

This is very true because so often it is impossible to translate the original text fully. This is where it takes several translations to get the full meaning of the text.

I think people have to wake up and see if their version is corrupted by these writers who have changed Gods words with a purpose to confuse and deceive in the NIV, ASV, ESV, and others based on the Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland Alexandrian text.

John W Burgon gave good warning when he said:
"The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…"

That is the line of thought is what gets us into trouble, the true text does not vary, so the less translations the better. Thats why the Jews would not change even one word or the meaning could be shifted or taken out according to the purpose of the writer.

What do you see here......

Rick, the KJV also is corrupted.

That's why any serious student need to verify the word from the Greek and Hebrew source and check its usage in multiple contexts in the Bible to derive its true meaning.

The Strong Concordance is important and the free software available at http://www.scripture4all.org/ makes studying a breeze showing the source manusctipt word written in Hebrew or Greek, strong ref code & definition, grammatical syntax, etc...

We see in this discussion the same problem as is facing the question of ordination. It is based on how we view the inspiration of the Bible.

On the one hand you have the view as expressed by Ellen White, most explicitly in the Introduction to the Great Controversy.

On the other hand you have the fundamentalist understanding of a number of the other protestant churches.

The third problem, as I see it, could be based on the book Questions On Doctrines This book was written while I attended the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and we followed the developments almost on a daily basis through 1) our teachers, 2) visiting chapel speakers, some of them working on the manuscript of the book, 3) articles in the MINISTRY, and then 4) the letters of M L Andreasen.

This is a strange problem because

1) The purpose of this book was to present the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church to leaders and theologians of other Christian denominations in a language they would understand, and not in the jargon we Adventists were using among ourselves.

2) Now, more than 50 years later, some of our people who are opposed to QOD, use the fundamentalist language of some of the churches to whom this book was written to explain their view of Scripture in opposition to the EGW option, and at the same time they make the claims of being the conservative believers.

This is an unbelievable dilemma for our church today.

Just like today, if many pastors and teachers knew where the text from NIV and some of these others came from, they could avoid many of the issues on the GodHead, and nature of Christ that keep reoccuring. They just dont dig below the surface and see the truth of the matter.........