sign in sign up
<<
Home , King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Version, Study Bible, Textus Receptus, The Word (novel)

WHAT TODAY ’’S CHRISTIAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THEE NEW KINNGG JAMES VERSION here are Christians and faithful revision of Authorised Ver - churches today who are desiring sion but instead is just another attempt to change the of the to usurp the place of authority which the TBTible which they use. Some are chang - AV has enjoyed for well over three cen - ing from 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 or the New tus . 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 , 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 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 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 (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 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 - 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 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 .1 has ‘Paul, a servant Bible as others who use the AV . One of 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 . 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 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 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 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. AV, the pos sibility exists of numerous opportunities for misinterpretation and This tradition was continued in the misapplication. and its American edi - tion, the American Standard Version. It If the differences between these pro - had been believed that it was necessary nouns are not noted, problems with in - to maintain fidelity to the Biblical lan - terpretation can occur. Note the guages to indicate this differ ence in pro - following example (bold type added for nouns. The Reformed commentator emphasis): William Hendriksen differentiated be - tween the singu lar and plural by using  Luke 22.31 –32, NKJV : 31 ‘ And the ‘you ’ for the singular and ‘y o u’ for the said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, plural pronoun in his commentar ies. Satan has asked for you , that he may Even the New International Version sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for translators occasionally indicated (by you , that your faith should not fail; and the use of a foot note) the plural ‘you ’ in when you have returned to Me, passages which could be misunder - strengthen your brethren ”.’ From the stood if this distinction were not made. pro nouns used in the NKJV one would be led to believe that both verses are re - The NKJV translators were mistaken ferring only to Simon Peter. Satan de - as to why the AV trans lators used ‘thee ’ sires Simon and wants to sift him as and ‘thou ’ in their work. The NKJV pub - wheat. lishers state that ‘Readers of the Au tho - rised Version will immediately be struck Note carefully the shift of pro nouns as by the absence of sever al pronouns: shown accurately in the AV in this pas - thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the sage: 31 ‘And the Lord said, Simon, simple you, while your and yours are Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to substituted for thy and thine as applica - have you, that he may sift you as wheat: ble. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith forms of address to express a spe cial fail not: and when thou art converted, relationship to human as well as divine strengthen thy breth ren. ‘ In verse 31, persons. These pronouns are no longer Jesus is telling Simon that Satan desires part of our lan guage. ’13 However, they to have ‘you ’ (the disciples) to sift as were not used extensively in everyday wheat. Jesus then tells Simon that he lan guage during the 16th and 17th cen - has prayed for him individually. Thus the turies either, as can be seen from the AV is more accurate and preserves the works of Shakespeare. Also, one won - particularity of the intercession of the ders what distinction the NKJV transla - Lord Jesus. tors had in mind with reference to 4 It is not uncommon for mod ern read - Replacement of Pronouns ers of Scripture to assume that ‘you ’ is with Nouns singular whenever used. By failing to In a number of instances, the NKJV distinguish between ‘thee ’ and ‘you ’, the replaces the Hebrew pro nouns with NKJV translators contribute to this mis - nouns. Three such occurrences are interpretation of the Scrip tures. This Genesis 29.30 and Genesis 30.29, in problem is seen in the way in which which ‘he ’ is replaced with the name ’ many interpret Isai ah 7.14. ’; and 2 Kings 6.18, in which ‘they ’ is replaced with ‘the Syrians ’. Although .14 in the NKJV reads ‘There - this reduces the ambi guity of the pas - fore the Lord Himself will give you a sages, it is not consistent with the He - sign: Behold, the vir gin shall conceive brew. If words need to be added to and bear a Son, and shall call His name en hance clarity, they must be printed in Im manuel ’. In both the NKJV and the AV to indicate that they are not in the pronoun used is ’you ’; it is assumed the original texts. In some editions of the by some that the word ‘you ’ is singular, NKJV the name is placed in ital ic type to thus refer ring to King Ahaz alone. Since indicate that it is added, and in others a the NKJV translators make no dis tinc - marginal note in dicates the Hebrew tion between the singular and plural reading. However, this is not always forms of ‘you ’, this might be a safe as - done, and thus the NKJV reading is not sumption for the read er of the NKJV. consistent with the Hebrew. However, if it had been singular in the Hebrew, the AV translators would have used ‘thee ’. Since the AV has ‘you ’ in Replacement of Nouns with this verse, it is apparent that the sign is Pronouns given to more than one person, to the In addition, the NKJV has nu merous house of Dav id, as mentioned in verse places in which nouns are replaced with 13. However, since the NKJV does not pronouns. These include Leviticus 8.23, make this distinction, it is dif ficult for the in which ‘ ’ is replaced with ‘he ’. reader of this verse in the NKJV to avoid The replacement of a pronoun with a misinterpreting the pronoun and thinking noun can be understandable in an effort that this ‘you ’ is King Ahaz alone. to increase clarity. It is difficult to under - stand, however, what purpose other Further examples of interpre tation than style would ac count for this aban - problems created by the NKJV ’s lack of donment of the original language texts. distinction between pronouns can be found in .5 –6; .39, Capitalisation 6.4–7, 11.23– 24, 18.9– 11; Mark 14.37 – There is also difficulty in the NKJV ’s 38; .41, 17.21; .9 –11; 1 use of the capitalisation of pronouns re - Cor inthians 3.16 –17, 6.19– 20; Philippi - ferring to Deity in the American editions. ans 2.5; etc. ‘Often this makes of Scrip - ture clearer by indicating whether the person to which the pronoun refers is God or man. ’14 Whilst this is true, it is

5 also true that neither the Hebrew nor the used more frequently in the New Testa - Greek texts use capitalisation to indicate ment than in the Old Testa ment. The use to whom a pronoun refers. Doing so in of these headings dividing the text of Eng lish can be very subjective and in - Scripture is a fairly recent and widely ac - terpretative. Psalm 37.23 in the AV cepted practice. However, the lack of reads, ‘The steps of a good man are or - objectivity in the use of subject headings dered by the LORD: and he delighteth in quite often introduces problems to the his way ’. Does the Lord delight in the text of Scripture. Some headings are man ’s way, or the man in the Lord ’s? simply words taken from the text. An ex - The NKJV answers this by its use of ample is .1 ‘By Grace capitalisation : ‘ And He delights in his Through Faith ’. In other places the way ’. However, the ques tion must be headings are interpretative and sugges - asked, is this interpretation correct? tive, using words which are not found in the passage which follows. An example Another such difficulty is found in 2 is in 2 Cor inthians 3.7, ‘Glory of the New Thessalonians 2.7, which in the NKJV is ’. Although the ‘He who now restrains will do so until He is mentioned in the pre vious paragraph, is taken out of the way ’. Some believe it is not found in verses 7 –18. This is not that both instances of the word ‘he ’ in to say that the subject could not be in this verse refer to the Holy Spirit, which view in these verses, but that the head - would be in keeping with the NKJV ’s ing is interpretative and suggestive. The capital isation of the pronoun. Other following are examples of some of the equally sound Christians, howev er, be - problems found in the headings of the lieve these refer to a man, which would NKJV : be in keeping with the NKJV ’s marginal reading, ‘Or he ’. Still others would be -  .1 ‘The Great Day of God ’. lieve that the first instance refers to the The text of the passage calls this day Holy Spirit and the second to a man, in ‘the great and dreadful day of the which case the NKJV would be neither LORD ’. correct nor in correct. Capitalisation of this sort, particularly combined with mar -  .1 ‘Freed from the Law ’ ap - ginal notes deleting the capitalisation, pears to suggest that the believer has can be confusing at best and misinter - no relationship to the Law of God . ‘ The pretative at worst. The use of capitalisa - believer ’s re lationship to the Law ’ would tion also displays and is caused by the be a more objective way of stating the theological bias of the translators. This subject. The reader may then see what matter is discussed under ‘Theological the relationship of the believer to the Bias ’ later in this article. Law is from the text of Scripture.

Headings  .1 ‘Free from Ind welling Most editions of the NKJV use topical Sin ’ suggests that the believer has no headings in the text to identify the sub - problem with sin any longer . ject matter which is found in the verses or para graphs which follow. They are  .5 ‘Watering, Working, Warning ’ may be good alliteration, but it 6 is ineffective and does not state enough odus 9.7), ‘heavy ’ (1 Samuel 4.18), ‘ho - infor mation for the reader to know what nour ’ (Exodus 20.12), ‘much ’ (Exodus the passage says. 12.38), ‘rich ’ (Genesis 13.2) and ‘thick ’ (Exo dus 19.16). A derivative of the word  .1 ‘ Ex - even means ‘liver ’ (Exodus 29.13) , the amples ’. Since the headings have not in - idea being that the liv er is a heavy or dicated the subject matter, this heading thick organ. Likewise, the word which in is obscure and unclear. most places is translated ’bless ’ (Psalm 16.7), is in Job 1.11 ‘curse ’. Thus, a sin -  2 Corinthians 13.7 ‘Paul Pre fers Gen - gle word may be translated in many dif - tleness ’ is a problem because gentle - ferent ways depending upon its context. ness is not mentioned and is not the Most transla tors will attempt to be con - topic of the passage. sistent in rendering words, enabling readers of the Bible to see more easily  2 Timothy 4.19 –21 ‘ Come Be fore the flow of Scripture; the AV translators Winter ’ may be relevant for verse 21, but were quite good at this in most in - it bears no relation to verses 19 and 20. stances.

The Original The NKJV translators, howev er, seem unnecessarily to have given Language Texts The translators of the NKJV used the words differing transla tions. In Genesis Hebrew as the basis for 3.16 –17, for example, the Hebrew word their Old Testament translation and the trans lated in the AV ‘sorrow ’ is used Greek Textus Receptus as the basis for three times: ‘I will greatly multi ply thy their translation of the New Testament. sorrow ’; ‘ in sorrow thou shalt bring forth ’; In keeping with their desire to pro duce a ‘in sorrow shalt thou eat of it ’. The word ‘new ’ King James Version, they selected can also mean ‘hurt ’, ‘ pain ’ and ‘toil ’; the the same basic origi nal language texts translators of the NKJV chose to use as were used by the AV translators. this full range of meaning rather than However, the numerous unnecessary continue the consistency so fa miliar to differenc es between the NKJV and the the readers of the AV. Thus, the NKJV AV display the difficulties which the has ‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow ’; NKJV translators had in staying not only ‘In pain you shall bring forth ’; ‘ In toil you with the idea of revising the AV but also shall eat of it ’. with the original language texts of the AV . Another example of the NKJV ’s use of the full range of meaning of words is found in its translation of ‘seed ’. This Unnecessary Changes from word is literally rendered in Genesis in the AV Old Testament the AV as ‘seed ’; context enables the For almost every word in He brew reader to differentiate wheth er this is the there are several valid translations in seed that is the fruit of the ground (Gen - English. One Hebrew word can be esis 1.11) or the fruit of the woman translated ’glo rify ’ (.23), ‘griev - (Genesis 3.15). This consistency of ous ’ (Genesis 18.20), ‘hardened ’ (Ex - translation enables the reader to tie the 7 Seed throughout the Old Testament with ‘turned about to their way ’; the NKJV that spoken of by Paul in the New Testa - has ‘turned on their heels ’. ment (Galatians 3.16). However, the NKJV renders the word ‘seed ’ as  In 1 Samuel 28.8 the Hebrew has ‘Di - ‘species ’ (Genesis 7.3), ‘descendants ’ vine to me ’; this the NKJV renders ‘con - (9.9), ‘ off spring ’ (15.3), ‘ lineage ’ (19.32) duct a séance for me ’. and ‘heir ’ (38.8– 9). In other plac es in the Old Testament of the NKJV it is ‘semen ’  In Proverbs 4.18, the Hebrew ’s ‘a light (Leviticus 15.16 –17). These are all pos - of brightness ’ is rendered in the NKJV sible translations of the word, but not as ‘sun ’. preferable. In the same way, the NKJV ’s ‘generations ’ (rendered as such in Gen - In making these changes, not only is esis 25.13) becomes ‘history ’ in Genesis the NKJV failing to be lit eral in transla - 2.4 and ‘ge nealogy ’ in Genesis 5.1 and tion, it is also inconsistent. 25.12 (and note the change from the plural, as found in the Hebrew, to a sin - Incorrect Translation in the gular). NKJV Old Testament The NKJV also contains read ings There are a number of occa sions in which are, simply, incorrect. Examples which the NKJV changes the English of these are: wording of the AV for no apparent rea - son. Exam ples of this are:  .9, in which the He brew  reading is ‘And he made his grave with ‘Sodomite ’ in Deuteronomy 23.17 and the wicked ’ and the NKJV reading is elsewhere becomes ‘perverted one ’, not ‘And they made His grave with the only down playing the intent of the word wicked ’, with a marginal note that ‘they ’ but removing it from its historical context is ‘Lit. he or He ’. of .   Jeremiah 34.14, in which the Hebrew Whilst the Hebrew in Genesis 4.25 is ‘which hath been sold unto thee ’ whilst says that Eve bore a son ‘and called his the NKJV has ‘who has been sold to name Seth ’, the NKJV says only that him ’. she ‘named him Seth ’. The phrase ‘called his name ’ (or in other places,  Hosea 10.5, in which the He brew ’s ‘called their name ’) is frequently ren - plural ‘calves ’ is made singular in the dered ‘named ’ in the NKJV. However, in NKJV . Genesis 5.29, ‘called his name Noah ’ in the NKJV .  Micah 7.19, in which the He brew ’s ‘thou wilt cast all their sins …‘ is replaced  In Genesis 31.21, the Hebrew text in the NKJV with ‘You will cast all our has ‘set his face toward ’; this the NKJV sins …’ , with a marginal note stat ing that gives as ‘headed to ‘ ‘our ’ is ‘Lit. their ’. war .  .17, in which the He -  In 1 Samuel 25.12 the Hebrew has 8 brew ’s ‘For how great is his goodness ’ 18.38. These are but a few exam ples of is rendered ‘For how great is their good - this change in the NKJV . ness ’ in the NKJV , with a marginal note stat ing that ‘their ’ is ‘Lit. his ’. This particular translation de vice was used in the English Revised Version and Whilst it is acknowledged that in the Ameri can Standard Version of 1901. many instances the reading in the NKJV Its importance was also recognised by is consistent with con text, it must be re - the translators of the New American membered that the Hebrew, from which Standard Bible which used the English we trans late, has a different word. The past tense to make the reading conform Hebrew word, under the tenets of formal to mod ern usage, but also marked each equivalence translation, must be ren - instance with an asterisk. Thus there is dered literally unless there is a valid rea - a tradition in the transla tion of the Eng - son for doing otherwise. lish Bible to make a distinction of this verb tense. Since this is one of the The Historical Present strengths of the AV, one would expect a Tense in the NKJV revision to continue this princi ple of ac - Tense in the NKJV curate translation. It is apparent that the New Testament NKJV does not follow the same transla - The NKJV makes a significant tion phi losophy as the AV translators, as change to one of the important aspects is seen clearly by the way they translate of the AV. The AV cor rectly translates the the historical present tense. historical present tense. When in an histor ical narrative a Greek de - sired to give his reader a vivid descrip - Omissions from the Textus tion of a certain event, he would use a Receptus present tense verb to express this. It Although the NKJV transla tors used would give the reader a feeling of being the Textus Receptus Greek New Testa - there as an observer. This verbal form is ment, for unknown reasons they omitted used frequently in the (es pe - numerous words. The following is a list cially in Mark and John) and is normally of exam ples which can be found in a translated as an English present tense. comparison of the AV readings with the Note the AV read ing of .29: ‘The omissions in the NKJV : next day John seeth Jesus coming unto  him, and saith , Behold the Lamb of Matthew 5.37: the AV has ‘communi - God, which taketh away the sin of the cation ’; the NKJV omits world ’. The NKJV trans lates the above boldface verbs, not in the modern pres -  .21: the AV has ‘that filled it up ’; ent tense as ‘sees ’ and ‘says ’, but in the the NKJV omits past tense as ‘saw ’ and ‘said ’ with no in - dication of the change. Exam ples may  .35: the AV has ‘of thee ’; the be found in .5,6,8,10 and 11 NKJV omits (the temptation of Christ); .18 and 20; .30, 11.27, 14.17,  .13: the AV has ‘a man lay 15.21 and 22; Luke 8.49; and .5, down his life ’; the NKJV omits ‘a man ’ 9 and has ‘to lay down one ’s life ’ (Ameri -  2 Corinthians 8.10: the AV has ‘for ’; can edition), ‘to lay down his life ’ (United the NKJV omits King dom edition)  1 Thessalonians 1.1: the AV has ‘and ’  .16: the AV has ‘there fore ’; (‘ Paul and Silvanus ’); the NKJV omits the NKJV omits  .6: the AV has ‘and ’ (‘ and  John 20.27: the AV has ‘and ’ (‘ and be Let all the angels of God worship Him ’); not faithless, but believ ing ’); the NKJV the NKJV omits omits  1 Peter 1.8: the AV has ‘in whom ’; the  Acts 2.42: the AV has ‘and ’ (‘ and in NKJV omits breaking of bread ’; the omission of ’and ’ here is a textual variant as found in the  2 : the AV has ‘and ’ (‘ And this critical Greek texts); the NKJV omits is love …‘ ); the NKJV omits

 Acts 5.24: the AV has ‘of them ’; the  .12: the AV has ‘shall NKJV omits be ’; the NKJV omits

 .2: the AV has ‘Men, brethren, It must be noted that all trans lations and fathers ’; the NKJV (American edi - occasionally omit words which are found tion) has ‘Brethren and fathers ’ whilst in the Hebrew and Greek texts. How - the United Kingdom edition has the cor - ever, one would think that a revision of rect reading the AV would not omit words which are found in the Hebrew and Greek and are  Acts 11.11: the AV has ‘ And, behold ’; included in the AV . the NKJV omits There is one word which is omitted  Acts 13.38: the AV has ‘men and from the NKJV New Tes tament fairly brethren ’; the NKJV has only ‘brethren ’ consistently. That word is ’and ’. This is a small word, and according to some  .24: the AV has ‘who ’; the translators is unimportant in most in - NKJV omits stances. However, the loss of this word tends to disrupt the flow of thought in  Acts 16.37: the AV has ‘but ’; the many passages. More importantly, how - NKJV omits (second instance) ever, the word is found in the Greek; there fore, there is no reason why it  Acts 16.37: the AV has ‘being ’ (‘ being should be omitted from the Eng lish. Romans ’); the NKJV omits The consistency of the omis sion of  Acts 22.1: the AV has ‘Men, brethren, ‘and ’ can easily be seen in the and fathers ’; the NKJV (American edi - of Mark. Mark used the word ‘and ’ ex - tion) has ‘Brethren and fathers ’ whilst tensively to in troduce sentences in his the United Kingdom edition is correct gospel. The purpose was to show the im mediacy of the . 10 Along with the words ‘immediate ly ’ and relative pronoun ‘who ’ or ‘which ’. In ‘straightway ’ he used ‘and ’ to show the places the NKJV omits the translation of vigorous work of the Lord. The NKJV the article altogether. Note the follow ing omits the introductory use of ‘and ’ in thir - examples: ty-one instances. Where it does trans - late the Greek word, the translators  Matthew 5.16,45,48 seem to struggle with its usage. The AV : ‘ your Father which is in heaven ’ translators seem to go out of their way to NKJV : ‘ your Father in heaven ’ vary the English used to translate this word. ‘Now ’, ‘ then ’ and ‘so ’ are used ex -  .9, Luke 11.2 tensively. It may be dif ficult to see the AV : ‘ Our Father which art in heaven ’ importance of this word when English NKJV : ‘ Our Father in heaven ’ tell students not to begin sentences with the word ‘and ’, but (The verb forms ‘is ’ and ‘art ’ are supplied when the translators go out of their way in the AV though not present in the to point out that ‘Com plete Equivalence ’ Greek. Italics were not used in the AV in includes such words as are commonly these instances.) There are, however, left out of modern versions (such as ‘be - other verses in which the NKJV does hold ’, ‘ indeed ’ and ‘surely ’), 15 and such render the definite article as a pro noun translation principles are linked to the in - (see Luke 10.15). One wonders why the errancy and inspi ration of the Scriptures, NKJV would need to be changed in this it is indeed an important subject. man ner, particularly when the AV follows the Greek text and is per fectly clear and Verses in the NKJV Gospel of Mark in understandable. which the introductory ‘and ’ is omitted: 1.9 5.42 8.32 13.25 Other examples of changes from the 2.2 6.8 9.3 14.17 Greek include: 3.17 6.25 9.8 14.35 3.18 6.45 9.15 14.39  .6: ‘it is ’ is changed to 3.24 6.56 10.2 15.1 ‘they are ’. 4.16 7.35 11.14 15.35 4.35 8.5 12.4 16.2  .29: ‘headlong ’ is changed to 5.29 8.29 12.39 ‘over the cliff ’.

 .13: ‘leave ’ is changed Unnecessary Changes in to ‘divorce ’. the New Testament As with most revisions, the NKJV at - Another unnecessary change deals tempts to ‘repair ’ things which are not with Hebrews 2.16. The NKJV reads ‘broken ’. For some reason, there are oc - ‘For indeed He does not give aid to an - casions when the NKJV fails to translate gels, but He does give aid to the seed of a point of grammar which is very basic. Abraham ’. The AV renders this verse, For example, sometimes the defi nite ar - ‘For verily he took not on him the na ture ticle in Greek is translated as the English of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham ’. The AV reading is perfectly 11 understandable in this verse and is con - notes would encourage further inquiry sistent with the context as given in the by the reader. They also recognised that following verse, which speaks of Christ it was easier for the average read er to being made like his breth ren. The delete something he or she felt was not change is unnecessary and greatly properly a part of the text, than to insert weakens the Chris tological emphasis of a word or phrase which had been left out the passage. It must be asked why the by the revisers. ’16 One of the uses of NKJV translators decided that this these notes was to indicate tex tual vari - change was necessary . ants which differ between various printed editions of the Greek New Tes - Additions Without Italics tament. They in dicated differences be - As mentioned earlier, occa sionally a tween the Nestle-Aland/United Bible word or words will need to be added to Soci eties editions of the Greek New Tes - a translation of the Scriptures in order to tament and the first edition of The Greek provide the reader with the clarity nec - New Testament Ac cording to the Major - essary to make the passage ity Text edited by Zane C. Hodges and understanda ble. This is common in all Arthur L. Farstad. Many people, being translations. The translators of the AV, untrained in the intricacies of textual crit - however, also saw the need for showing icism, do not under stand the signifi - the reader where such words were cance of these variants. Some people added. Thus, they sought to place have found these notes confusing. Oth - added words in italic type. The NKJV ers have found them offensive, believing translators followed this tradition in the they call the truth of the Scrip tures into main, but on numerous occasions failed question and open debate. to do so without explanation. In addition to those instances in which pronouns It is unclear why the translators used 17 were changed to nouns mentioned The Majority Text in these footnotes. above are the following examples: This text at that time had never been the basis of any translation. Perhaps they  ‘at the mouth ’ is added in .18. were at tempting to add an air of legiti - macy to The Majority Text, or perhaps  ‘aroused ’ is added in Romans 7.5. they were trying to sell the idea that this text is superior to the Textus Receptus,  ‘commandments ’ is added in Romans or perhaps they were using the NKJV to 13.9. ad vertise and sell copies of this Greek text, which is also published by Thomas  ‘with indignation ’ is added in 2 Nelson. At any rate, these notes weaken Corinthians 11.29. the position of the Textus Receptus. Since these read ings were, for the most New Testament Footnotes part, not a part of the AV textual or New Testament Footnotes transla tional tradition, they have no Throughout the NKJV New Testa - place in the margin of a revision of the ment, the translators made use of foot - AV . Perhaps it could be argued that the notes to aid the reader . ‘It was the legitimate use of textual footnotes would editors ’ conviction that the use of foot - have been to re peat the textual notes 12 from the margin of the AV (see Acts the honesty and effort of those transla - 13.18,34), or even to show the places tors. Each person brings his back - where the various editions of the Textus ground, education, presuppositions and Receptus have minor vari ations. experience to the work of transla tion. The NKJV has a different philosophical Most of the textual footnotes in the and theological ba sis from the AV. One New Testament concern the Nestle- critic of English translations states, ‘De - Aland/United Bible Societies text which spite their lip service to the 1611 revis - is also known as the Critical Text. This ers, the NKJV preparers hold different text is founded upon principles of textual presuppositions which come to light in criticism which exalt a handful of manu - their work ’. 19 The NKJV is the product scripts from Alexandria, Egypt, from the primarily of a late twentieth -century 4th century A.D. Many words, verses American Fundamentalist-Baptist- and portions of the New Testament are Evangelical (in its broadest terms) per - omit ted or changed in this text. Numer - spective. This is not a criticism of the ous doctrinal problems are revealed by Unit ed States or the perspective of the these changes, many of which affect the translators; instead, it points out that the person and work of the Lord Jesus theological biases of the NKJV will be Christ. 18 These footnotes call into ques - different from those of the AV . ‘ Some of tion the correct readings which are the passag es [in the AV] formerly ac - found in the texts of both the AV and the cused of having been unduly influenced NKJV . by have been modi fied. ’20 These modifications display the differ - The value of these New Testa ment ences between the theological stances footnotes is also questionable because of the NKJV translators and those of the their inclu sion was very selective. It was AV translators. not stated what principles were used to determine why and which vari ant read - The AV was a product of the seven - ings were included. The authenticity and teenth century. The foun dation of the trustworthiness of many verses and New Testament was laid in the century words are called into question by the before by the phenomenal work of use of these footnotes, with only a hand - . The translation was a ful having explanations as to why they Church of production. The were chosen (see .53 note). Protestant men who translat ed the AV Thus, many people are led to believe were mainly Reformed in theology. 21 that there are far fewer problems in - Each of the edi tions of the AV —the volved with these ex planatory readings 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762 and than actually exist. Thus, they call into the 1769 (the Standard edition ques tion the words of Scripture. which is the one in circulation today) — was published with the Apocry pha al - Theological Bias in though even then it was acknowledged that the Apocry pha was not a part of the NKJV Every translation has the theo logical Scripture. Today the AV commonly is bias of the translators, notwithstanding pub lished without the . Thus this great version was a product of its 13 times and theolo gy. This theological and translation. This is not to say that the cultural perspective has been the source version will be better or worse than the of influence throughout the Eng lish- original version, only that it will be differ - speaking world for hundreds of years. ent. Thus it is seen that the NKJV trans - lators did not follow the same principles An example of the theological bias of as those used by the translators of the the NKJV translators is found in their AV. use of capitalisation in 2 Thessalonians 2.7. Here the NKJV has ‘He who now re- Conclusion strains ’. This capitalisation of ‘he ’ indi - Several points need to be made in cates that it is the Holy Spirit who order to put the NKJV in per spective. restrains and who will be ‘taken out of Firstly, the stated policy of the Trinitarian the way ’. This ‘lends encouragement to Bible Society is that the Society sup - the dis pensational interpretation of this ports and cir culates in the English lan - passage and will for them confirm the guage only the Authorised Version of the dispensationalist ’s supposition that the Bible. ‘This Society shall circu late the 22 Holy Spirit is being men tioned. ‘ HOLY SCRIPTURES, as comprised in the Canonical books of the Old and New Another example of theological bias Testaments, WITHOUT NOTE OR in the NKJV is found in its subject/chap - COMMENT, to the exclusion of the ter headings. The AV translators desired Apocrypha; the copies in the English to draw atten tion to Christ in the Old Tes - language shall be those of the Autho - tament as is seen in the subject/chapter rised Version. ’23 The reasons for this po - headings used in the AV. The NKJV sition are stated in the Trinitar ian Bible translators have removed the title Society ’s policy document: ‘While per - ‘Christ ’ from their ver sion ’s Old Testa - fection is not claimed for the Authorised ment headings. This is especially evi - Version (known in some countries as the dent in Isai ah and the Song of . King James Version), or for any other The AV 1611 and most subsequent edi - version, it is known that the translators tions of the AV contain numer ous refer - of the Authorised Version acknowledged ences to Christ in their Old Testament the Divine inspiration, authority and headings. inerran cy of the Holy Scriptures; the fruitful use of their translation for nearly These points are made in order to 400 years is evidence of the Lord ’s note that, for a translation to be a com - blessing upon their work. It is the most plete and accurate revision and new edi - accurate and trust worthy translation into tion of the original work, the translators English available and is the only English must have three principles which they version published by the Socie ty ’. 24 Al - follow. They must use the same Greek though the NKJV claims to be a faithful and Hebrew texts, follow the same revision of the AV, it has been demon - translational principles and have the strated that it cannot validly claim the same philosophical, cultural and theo - same strengths and virtues as those logical basis as the origi nal translators. If found in the AV . these three principles are not followed, what is produced is a new and different 14 Secondly, the AV continues to be ployed consistently. The translators functional in all areas of Bible usage used the same basic translational princi - today. It is profitable for public reading, ples, but these men were of a different private devotions, family Bible readings, presuppositional and theological memori sation, studying, preaching, persua sion. Thus, it would not be correct teaching and evangelism. This cannot to refer to the NKJV as the fifth revision be claimed for other trans lations. The of the AV. It is a transla tion which should NKJV does not and cannot have the be evaluated upon its own strengths and same influence as held by the AV . weaknesses but not as a new edition of the AV . Thirdly, the AV, particularly in its fourth edition, has been distrib uted on a mas - However, it must be acknowl edged sive scale throughout the world for that the NKJV is of a very different qual - centu ries. Not only has it been loved by ity and type from the other modern ver - Christians, it has been upheld by all as a sions of the Bi ble. From a textual and masterpiece of English . It is translational standpoint it is in an entirely acceptable in vir tually all Christian different category from, say, the New In - churches, groups and organisations. It ternational Version or the Good News is the standard by which all other trans - Bible. lations are judged. The NKJV is often too ’loose ’ a translation to be used in The NKJV would not be a good many churches, and too ‘narrow ’ to find choice for use as a primary trans lation acceptance in others. Its place, there - to be used daily. Since it does not enjoy fore, as the standard, fifth edition of the widespread accept ance it would not be AV cannot be accepted. particularly useful for memorisation. Its lack of accuracy regarding the person al The NKJV publishers claim to have pronouns and other linguistic features sought to revise the AV. It has been such as its many omis sions of words shown in this article that for a translation substantially weakens and would under - to be a complete and adequate revision mine its public use. In private use, of a previ ous translation three principles numer ous users of the AV who have at - would need to be used. Firstly, it would tempted to change to the NKJV found need to be translated from the same He - that the NKJV lacked the trustworthi - brew, and Greek texts as the ness which they had come to expect original trans lation. Secondly, it would from the AV . need to use the same translational prin - ciples. Thirdly, the translators would The NKJV was not found to be a Bible have to be of the same pre suppositional, in which they could put their trust. theological and philosophical beliefs as the orig inal translators. In considering The Trinitarian Bible Society believes the place of the NKJV as the fifth revi - that the NKJV has sig nificant grammat - sion of the AV, it must be understood ical and translational problems and is that it does not meet the required crite - not a complete and adequate improve - ria. Although the same basic texts were ment upon the excellence and authority used in the NKJV, they were not em - of the AV. The NKJV removes too much 15 that was excel lent in the older version (Nash ville, TN, USA : Thomas Nelson, Inc, and therefore does not achieve the 1991), p. xxii. same standard of accuracy as is to be found in the Authorised Ver sion of the 13. Holy Bible : NKJV , p. v. Bible. Therefore, the Trinitarian Bible 14. Why the NKJV ?, p. 22. Society is not in a position to publish, cir - culate or recommend this version as a 15. Holy Bible : NKJV , p. iv . part of our continuing ministry to pub lish ‘the Word of God among all Nations ’. 16. ’Why the NKJV ?, p. 10.

17. In this article, ‘the Majority Text ’ refers to ENDNOTES the text produced by Hodges and Farstad, 1. The Online Bible, ‘Introduction to the and is not to be confused with the Byzantine NKJV’. version 61, September 1992. text which is the majority of manuscripts which are in existence and from which the 2. ‘ This is from The Word In Life New Testa- Textus Receptus was derived . There is at ment edition which has a 1993 copyright by least one other edition of a majority text Thomas Nelson. The copyright of the NKJV which is in print today, The New Testament in text in this study Bible edition is dated 1982 the Origi nal Greek According to the Byzan - and has a different read ing from the other tine/Majority Textform by Maurice A . Robin - 1982 edition. son and William G . Pierpont . 3. For additional information on formal and 18. For additional information see the Trini - dy namic equivalence please see the Soci - tarian Bible Society ’s article No 100, A Tex - ety ’s article no 114, The New International tual Key to the New Testament, and The Version : What to day ’s Christian needs to Great Omission, in The Quarterly Record No kn ow about the NIV . 524 . 4. Why the NKJV ? (n.c.: Thomas Nelson 19. Lewis, p . 343. Publish ers,n.d. ), p. 1. 20. Ibid, p . 339. 5. Ibid . 21. See the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion 6. Holy Bible: NKJV (Nashville, TN, USA : of the for the doctrinal Tho mas Nelson Inc, 1990), p vii . basis of most of the translators . 7. Ibid, back cover . 22. Lewis, p . 347. 8. Ibid, p . vii . 23. The Trinitarian Bible Societ :y The Constitu tion of the Society (, Eng - 9. Ibid, back cover . land : Trinitarian Bible Society, 1992), p . 5. 10. Jack P Lewis, The English Bible from 24. The Trinitarian Bible Society: The Word KJV to NIV, 2nd ed . (Grand Rapids, MI, of God among all nations: An Introduction to USA : Baker House, 1991), p . 347. the Society ’s Principles (London, England: Trinitari an Bible Society, 1992), p . 6. 11. Ibid, back cover .

12. KJV -NKJV Parallel Reference Bible This article is currently under review. 16