A video about Bible versions --

Considering the reviewer is Jewish, it was well done.
He evidently did not know the NKJV includes in the NT both critical text and majority text foot notes. And may not be aware of disagreement on how textual crit7icism should be done. There are at least three views. Maybe more.

He was mistaken on Tyndale, [that part of the chart is wrong down.]
William Tyndale's 1525 Bible translation

 

The guy said that the NIV and NLT are based on the same translation principles. That is wrong. The NLT is more dynamic and the NIV is a blend of DE and formal equivalence. He didn't refer to the introduction of both versions, so he erred.

 

A case can be made that NIV's use of it's DE can also be it's major flaw.

1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now for the matters you wrote about: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.'"

1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

 

"...it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." CSB, ESV, NET.

"It is good for a man not to have sexual contact with a woman." Mounce

The word 'touch' in the older versions is a euphemism for sex.

 

Not any where as such in the written word of God.

That Greek term is used in 33 verses in the New Testament. And over 100 verses in the LXX.

 

From Genesis 20:6 it says :
"...therefore I did not let you touch her."

Abimelech wanted to have sexual intercourse with Sarah, but the Lord prevented him from doing so.

 

It is a simple fact touching is involved. Tne prevention of touch prevents the latter. Does not prove your argument.

 

Footnotes :

CSB : Or "It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex."
LEB : "i.e., in a sexual sense."