WHAT TODAY ’’S CHRISTIAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THEE NEW KINNGG JAMES VERSION here are Christians and faithful revision of the Authorised Ver - churches today who are desiring sion but instead is just another attempt to change the translation of the to usurp the place of authority which the BTTible which they use. Some are chang - AV has enjoyed for well over three cen - ing from translations such as the Re- turies as the premier translation in Eng - vised Standard Version to the modern lish from the Hebrew Masoretic Old and popular ‘easy-to read ’ versions such Testament and the Greek Textus Recep - as the Good News Bible or the New tus New Testament. International Version. Others are desir - ing to make a change from one of these It is generally acknowledged that the popular versions to what they consider problems which are associated with the to be a more accurate and conservative NKJV are not as numerous or as serious translation. In this latter category, some as those found in other versions such as are changing to the New King James the New International Version, the Re - Version. They believe that if they switch vised English Bible or the Good News to the New King James Version, they will Bible. The NKJV does not omit hun - have the accuracy and fidelity of the Au - dreds of verses, phrases and words as thorised Version with the benefit of the is done in these other versions. It is not updated language: it bears the name a loose translation or a paraphrase. ‘King James Version ’; therefore, it must However, the problems of the NKJV are be a revision of the Authorised (King significant in the light of the claim by its James) Version. They believe that in the publishers and others that it is an accu - NKJV they will have the best of both rate improvement of the AV and thus worlds in one new Bible. They do not should replace the AV. In this article realise that the New King James Version information is given on the background is not an updated Authorised (King and problems of the New King James James) Version. Instead, the NKJV is a Version, particularly why it should not be highly-edited new translation which is viewed as a new edition of the Autho - theologically and philosophically incon - rised Version and thus a replacement for sistent with the AV. The purpose of this it. article is to show that the NKJV is not a 1 Editions of the NKJV 1990 American edition of the Bi ble and There have been several editions of the 1982 American edition text as used the NKJV issued by the Thomas Nelson in The Word In Life Study Bible (copy - Publishers. The New Testament was right 1993) in Acts 22.1 have ‘Brethren copyrighted in 1979, with the entire Bible and fa thers ’. copyrighted in 1982 and 1990. The United Kingdom edition (at first named Normally when changes are made to the Revised Authorised Version) was is - the text of a translation, these changes sued in 1982 and is now published by are made when a new copyrighted edi - the British and Foreign Bible Society tion is issued. An example of this is the (also known as the Bible Society), which New American Standard Bible. There is a member of the United Bible Soci - were nine copyrighted editions issued eties. There have been literally thou - between 1960 and 1977. This does not sands of changes in the text of the NKJV appear to be the case in the NKJV. during the intervening years. ‘The text There are nu merous differences be - has been continually revised since 1982 tween editions with the same copyright. and thousands of changes have been These many changes in the NKJV in made. ‘1 These changes were made what seem to be the same copy righted even though there was not a new copy - editions have made research for this ar - right issued during the years from 1982 – ticle very difficult. Thus it must be under - 1990. stood that individual examples given in this article may or may not be found in a Some of these changes are: copy of the NKJV New Testament or Bible which the reader of this article may The 1979 American edition of the possess. These many changes may New Testament in Philippians 2.7 has cause confusion when the NKJV is used ‘but emptied Himself ’, whilst the 1982 in public reading as well as in preaching American edition of the Bible in Philippi - and teaching. One of the benefits of the ans 2.7 has ‘but made Himself of no AV is that only one edition, the 1769 Ox - reputa tion ’. ford Standard, is customarily used; thus, no matter where an AV user goes, he The 1982 American edition of the can expect to have es sentially the same Bible in Romans 1.1 has ‘Paul, a servant Bible as others who use the AV . One of Jesus Christ ’, whilst the 1982 copy - would have hoped that a version which right edition of The Word In Life New was designed eventually to replace the Testament and 1990 American editions AV would have the same consistency of of the Bible in Romans 1.1 have ‘Paul, a readings. bondservant of Jesus Christ ’. 2 The Translators The 1979 American edition of the Interestingly enough, there were nine New Testament, the 1982 American edi - scholars who worked on both the NKJV tion of the Bible and the 1982 United and the New Inter national Version. Kingdom edition of the Bible in Acts 22.1 Since these translations had two differ - have ‘Men, brethren, and fathers ’; the ing methods of translation principles and 2 used different texts, this sure ly provided This last statement seems to imply an interesting dilemma for these men. that this is not a revision, but a new, They apparently did not have problems fresh translation. This was an advertise - working in a formal as opposed to a dy - ment on the back cover of an inexpen - namic equivalence 3 setting, nor must sive paperback edition. Meanwhile, it is they have had difficulty using the Tex tus still ad vertised as the fifth revision (as Receptus versus the Critical Text, nor one recent author has said, ‘the New using the Hebrew text versus the He - King James Version is the fifth revision brew plus the exten sive use of any num - of a historic docu ment translated from ber of ancient and modem translations. specific Greek texts …‘ 8) even though it In other words, the translators who is also advertised as being ‘translated worked on both projects apparently had from the original Hebrew and Greek ’. 9 It no problem with supporting opposing appears that they have adver tised it as principles in translation work to day. Most both the fifth revision and as a new scholars who are committed to the use translation from the original languages. and support of the Textus Receptus are so com mitted because of strong convic - Nor are Christians accepting the tions regarding the true text of Scripture. NKJV as the new AV . ‘ The NKJV has yet Most men who sup port the Textus Re - to prove itself a vi able alternative to the ceptus are persecuted, abused in print AV . After seven years [in 1992], sales or rid iculed by scholars who support the sta tistics from Publisher ’s Weekly Critical Text. Thus, it is difficult to under - (1990) rank the NIV and AV one and two stand how these men could work on in sales with the NKJV (despite its im - both translations. pressive sales record) never more than third. ’10 However, the NKJV is, in the Advertising Policy words of the advertising compa ny, a The NKJV was originally ad vertised modern translation that communicates as the fifth revision of the AV . ‘ The first ‘the eternal truths of Scripture in today ’s King James Ver sion of the Holy Bible words ’: ‘ The Modern Bible You ’ll Enjoy 11 was published in 1611 after seven years For Its Accuracy, Beauty, And Clarity ’. of careful and reverent la bor. Now, al - most 371 years later, that Authorised The Second Personal Version has been carefully updated so Pronoun that it will once again speak God ’s eter - Perhaps the most significant problem 4 nal truths with clarity. ’ In advertis ing, the concerns the second per sonal pronoun. 5 translators are referred to as ‘revisers ’. ‘The real character of the Authorised It is stated in the 1990 American edition Ver sion does not reside in its archaic that ‘… the New King James Version is pronouns or verbs or other gram matical 6 the fifth revision of a historic docu ment ’. forms of the seventeenth century, but However, the 1990 American edition rather in the care tak en by its scholars also states that it ‘was carefully to impart the letter and spirit of the orig - crafted …to pro duce a new translation inal text in a majestic and reverent 7 for today ’s readers ’. style. ’12 Thus the NKJV does not differ - entiate between ‘you ’ singular and ‘you ’ 3 plural. This distinction, which is made in ‘human as well as divine persons ’. It is the Biblical languages and in many evident that they did not know why the modern languages, was recognised by AV used these pronouns and their ac - the AV translators. They used ‘thee ’, companying verb forms. Since there are ‘thou ’ and ‘thine ’ to designate ‘you ’ sin - at least 14,665 occurrenc es of the sin - gular and ‘ye ’, ‘ you ’ and ‘your ’ for ‘you ’ gular pronoun in 10,479 verses in the plural.