From my understanding, translation. Some are better translated than others I believe.

Bingo

how about anytime a theist quotes anything other than the bible its out of context... lol

Got an NASB, an NIV, an RSV, and a NKJV sitting here in front of me, and damned if they all don't note Mark 16:9-20 'aren't in the earliest mss' (manuscripts).; same thing with John 8 (the story of the 'let he without sin cast the first stone and stuff') And goodness, they even all uniformly note alternate translations of various words and phrases.

So I'm thinking that whatever the 'intent' was of the various translations, it probably, maybe, possibly wasn't to 'edit' out inconvenient texts?

The short answer is, there's really no 'short answer' why there are bunches of different 'translations' of the Bible. I'll try to address 'at a high level' the underlying reasonings for some of them however:

1. Which books were to be considered canonical? A Catholic bible has several more OT books than a Protestant bible. Why? Lots of reasons, but basically - much like the Civil War was ultimately about slavery (the 'State's Rights' referenced always lead ultimately back to slavery ), the Protestants considered only the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament canonical. The Catholic Church, lead largely by the example of Hellenistic converts like Augustine, used the Greek translation of the OT, also called the Septuagint (sp?)

2. Updates to reflect changes in the language. Modern 'mericans don't speak Shakespearian English. In fact, most of the time we have no clue what that Bard (must be an AD&D 1e Bard; I never could figure out their level titles, neither) is going on about, but it sure sounds purty. And the original KJV is written in that style of English. It generally doesn't help that several Egnlish words have changed in meaning since then.

On a related note, about 40% of the time when somebody tries to point out an 'inconsistency' in the Bible, they're referencing a KJV. The easy solution is to point them to a 'more modern translation'.

3. A conscious decision on the part of the translators to either be as 'literal' a translation as possible, or as 'readable' a translation as possible. The Living Bible (I believe) is an example of a translation that has taken the 'intent' of the source material and tried to write it in as close as possible to modern English. The New American Standard Bible (NASB), is the other extreme. Sometimes it's a bit hard to read, but I've only met one person who doesn't think it's the most verbatim translation available.

Sounds rosy, but ya gotta consider Modern English folks don't think, or write, the same way as 2000 year old Hellenistic Jews, or even 2000 year old Hellenistic Jews write or think similarly to another Jew Post Exile, or even Pre.

4. Small differences in interpretation in words. Like the NIV is basically the RSV, what says "Virgin" instead of "young unmarried woman". Seriously, talk about splitting hairs.

I mean, young unmarried women at the time Isaiah was written were tantamount to being frickin' virgins. If they weren't, somebody was either getting a 'shotgun wedding' or stoned...

Most versions of the bible will tell you in the front pages Why they were written, What their source material was, and The Guidelines for Translation (which OT translations were used, what version of the Greek and Hebrew Translation standards were used, etc.)

Finish the context: all of Isaiah 45: 1-7 has to do with God's commission to Cyrus (a nonbeliever) to in a sense, sack Babylon? in order to return the Jews to Jersusalem.

The verse in question reasserts Sovereignty of a Omnisicent God. Much like Job, which points even the Accuser is subject to Him.