With about eighty new versions of the Bible in English published in the twentieth century alone, we may be wondering, are some of those versions more accurate than others? Dave Brunn, who embraces the Bible's "verbal, plenary, wholly infallible and inerrant inspiration", and who spent twenty years with a translation team in Papua-New Guinea, looks in considerable detail at the work of Bible translation. The book is strewn with tables and charts, some of them several pages long. I can see why he should want to include these, but confess I found them distracting. He focuses primarily on literalness in translation (i.e. generally "word for word", rather than "thought for thought" versions), drawing most of his examples from "literal" versions, such as the ASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV. (I felt the book would have greater immediacy for English readers if the NIV and NRSV accounted for more than just the occasional footnote). Dave is "shocked" to find that literal versions often depart from their own rules by not always translating the original text literally, e.g. when translating idiomatic sayings. "Literalness does not necessarily result in increased accuracy", he concludes. This is a controversial area and Dave asserts that he does not wish to "add fuel" to the debate among Christians, emphasising the importance of unity rather than division, and stressing the "interdependence" between versions, each one of which has "the potential of strengthening and enhancing the other". He has never found a version he agrees with 100% nor one that he disagrees with 100%. Despite the reservations I mention above, I saw much in this book to reward the serious Bible student, and I welcome Dave's commitment to unity.