Examination of the NKJV

8/2/2019 Examination of the NKJV

1/36

NEW KING JAMESVERSION

11

Issue Number: 582 January to March 2008

IN this instalment of our article, weexamine the translational problems ofthe New King James Version of the

Bible, following which in an appendix weoffer a brief critique of the modern so-

called Byzantine Majority Text with itserrors.

It should be noted at the outset thateditions of the New King James Versiondiffer from year to year and country tocountry without any indication that theydiffer. We have used herein primarily the1982 American edition, referring also to a

copy from 1987 and an online edition from2006, as well as to a 1982 British edition(known as the Revised Authorised Version).All of these editions exhibit essentially thesame problems except the British edition,which does not capitalise pronounsreferring to Deity. (The Revised AuthorisedVersion is no longer available.) However, theedition which one particular person is

using might not contain all of the problemswhich we will examine herein.

Translational Problems inthe New King James Version

Introductory Remarks

In our previous instalment, we discussedthe corruption of the Nestle-Aland/UBSCritical Text of the New Testament. Inparticular, we examined the corruption ofthe Alexandrian or Egyptian texts uponwhich it is based. We did so, because theNew King James includes readings from theNestle-Aland/UBS text in its marginal notes.

We also alluded to the manifold problems inthe modern Byzantine Majority Text and tothe errors in the von Soden Critical GreekText upon which it is based, again becausethe NKJV includes readings from this text inits marginal notes.

In contrast to these corrupted Greektexts, which the NKJV translators have

wrongly, we believe, deemed worthy to usein footnotes in their marginal notes, we

An Examination of the

PART 2

by A. Hembd, MACSReformation International Theological Seminary

A consultant to the Society


2/36


3/36

13


errors in the NKJV which do not have sucha major doctrinal impact, but which dorender the original sense of the passageincorrectly, these being but a few examples

of many similar problems which are to befound throughout this translation.

Translational errors of amajor doctrinal impact

Eternal punishment or annihilation?

A very grave, but also intentional,translational problem in the New King JamesVersion is its rendering of the New TestamentGreek words which the Authorised Versioncorrectly renders with the English word hell.In ten verses of the Scripture the New KingJames Version has retranslated the passage touse the word hades instead of hell. Thoseverses are Matthew 11.23, Matthew 16.18,

Luke 10.15, Luke 16.23, Acts 2.27,Acts 2.31, Revelation 1.18, Revelation 6.8,Revelation 20.13, and Revelation 20.14. TheNew King James, rather than translating,has instead used a direct transliteration ofthe Greek word adhj (hades), which isused in the Textus Receptus. However, theother two Greek words used for hell in theNew Testamentgeenna (gehenna) and

tartarow (tartaroo)it continuestranslating as hell.

One must ask: why have the NKJVtranslators opted to transliterate only theGreek word hades and not the other wordsfor hell?

We deem it noteworthy that the Greek

word hades, as employed in classicalmythology, does not at all mean a place of

eternal punishment and estrangement fromGod. To the contrary, it primarily means theabode of the dead, and therefore,figuratively, the grave.3 In this sense, if one

were to fail to take into account the NewTestaments use of the word as a whole,the word could be mistaken to meana condition in which a person is taken outof existence, hence, annihilationism.

Moreover, the word hades is frequentlyemployed in the Septuagint (the ancient Greektranslation of the Hebrew Old Testament)

when translating the Hebrew word sheol; andsheoldoes often mean grave. Thus, the NewKing James Versions employment ofhades inthe New Testament could lead Englishreaders to think that perhaps the word graveis the one actually meant. On the other hand,if one were to argue that by capitalising thenoun Hades as the NKJV translators havedone they are indeed referring to a specific

place, what would that place be? The classicalabode of the dead, as used by the Greeks?Eternal punishment for the wicked asopposed to everlasting bliss for therighteous? Perhaps a judgment seat at whichthe wicked are not punished for ever but arerather annihilated? The capitalisation doesnot help, but only makes the whole matterdarker and more ambiguous.

One could be given the impressionthat the text is not speaking of the lakeof fire and brimstone spoken of inRevelation 20.10 the everlasting home ofthe devil, the beast and the false prophet andtheir worshippers, from which (14.11) thesmoke of their torment ascendeth up for everand ever. One could wonder whether the use

of the word hades were employed so as togive annihilationiststhose who deny the


4/36

14

Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record

eternal damnation of the wicked in hell foreveropportunity for foisting their views onunsuspecting readers. Annihilationists saythat the wicked will simply be destroyed out

of existence at the Judgment Seat of Christ.Of course, this is a serious error.

In four verses in the New Testament,hades may possibly mean the grave:Acts 2.27,31, Revelation 20.13,14. In the firsttwo verses, Luke, himself a Greek, directlyquotes Psalm 16.10 as it was translated fromthe Hebrew into Greek, using the word hades

for sheol. These verses speak of Christs beingin sheolfor three days and three nights.Some affirm this literally to have been hell(as did Martin Luther); others, such as theWestminster divines, believed it refers to thegrave (as often the Hebrew word means).4 InRevelation 20.13-14 hades clearly speaks ofthe grave, because this hades will itself becast into the lake of fire.

However, outside these four verses,hades unquestionably always refers toeternal punishment, as is evidenced byLuke 16.2324. This passage tells us of theeternal sad fate of the rich man who had nocompassion for Lazarus, the poor beggarwho had died at his gates. The AuthorisedVersion correctly renders these verses as:

And in hell he lift up his eyes, beingin torments, and seeth Abraham afaroff, and Lazarus in his bosom. And hecried and said, Father Abraham, havemercy on me, and send Lazarus, thathe may dip the tip of his finger inwater, and cool my tongue; for I amtormented in this flame.

The Greek word for hell in the first sentence

is hades; and the NKJV correspondinglytranslates the first part of verse 23 as:

And being in torments in Hades, he

lifted up his eyes and saw Abrahamafar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

In this passage hades is clearly a place ofeternal torment. It is clearly the abode ofhellfire, as even the NKJV itself shows us inverse 24, translating that verse as does theAuthorised Version: send Lazarus that hemay dip the tip of his finger in water and

cool my tongue; for I am tormented inthis flame [bold type here and throughoutadded for emphasis unless noted]. Hadeshere clearly is the place where the wickedsuffer in flames for ever. It is the place wheretheir worm dieth not, and the fire is notquenched as the Saviour Himself tells us inMark 9.46. If indeed the place referred to inthe Greek New Testament as hades is

identical to hell, why then change theword? Why confuse English readers with anewterm, when the old adequately renderswhat is meant by the passage?

The translators of the New King Jamesaffirmed that it was their intention toprovide a mere language update of theAuthorised Version, so as supposedly to

make the Scriptures easier for the modernEnglish reader to understand. Why thenchange a word which is already easy forthe English speaker to understand? Whodoes not know what hell is? Whyintroduce a new term with which manymay not be familiar?

Moreover, why does the New King

James not change the word for hell inMatthew 5.22,29,30; 10.28; 18.9; 23.15 and


5/36

15


23.33, and other places where the Greekwordgehenna, a place of burning in thevalley of the son of Hinnom,5 is used? Whydoes it not transliterate also the word

tartaroo in 2 Peter 2.4, where the Scripturetells us that God spared not the angels thatsinned, but cast them down to hell? Could itbe that this has been done because theseinstances do not admit of the interpretationthe abode of the dead?

When we consider that the practiceof replacing the word hell in English

versions with the word hades beganwith the translation of the RevisedVersion of 1881, we can only be alarmed.The heterodoxy of several members of thattranslation committee, notably WilliamRobertson Smith, a Scottish higher critic,and George Vance Smith, a Unitarian, is alltoo well known.6 The Unitarians sinceVance Smiths time have joined with the

Universalists, who obviously deny theeternal punishment of the wicked in hell,believing as they do that all men in the endwill be saved. Hence, we would not beunwarranted in believing that some of thecommittee members on the translatingcommittee for the Revised Version in 1881also leaned toward either universalredemption or annihilationism, and that

this influenced their changing the wordhell to hades.

Although we have no proof that any ofthe translators of the New King JamesVersion at present lean toward theheterodoxy of the translators of the RevisedVersion, yet are we not warranted in at leastfearing that they have proven too

accommodating to those of such views, evenif only unconsciously?

The Web site Religious Tolerance tells usthe following (quite approvingly from theirpoint of view):

Annihilationism is a growing beliefamong Evangelicals. It is promoted bymany Evangelical leaders includingF.F. Bruce, Edward W. Fudge,Michael Green, Philip E. Hughes,Dale Moody, Clark H. Pinnock,W. Graham Scroggie, John R.W. Stottand John W. Wenham.7

These are some famous names indeed!Given the slippery slope that many evenfamous evangelicals are now following withrespect to the Biblical doctrine of eternalpunishment, we cannot stress enough theimportance of holding to a Bible versionthat clearly teaches and holds forth thisessential doctrine. Seeing then that theNKJV has abandoned this standard, we

cannot recommend this translation. Indeed,the New King James is foundationallydeficient in blurring this essentiallyimportant truth.

We must here note that this novel way oftranslating hades agrees with the identicalpractice of the New American StandardBible, which also blurs the doctrine of

eternal punishment by translating hades inthe same way in the same verses.8

Many poor sinners have been awakenedto the reality of their need to fly to Christthrough the fear of hell and eternaltorment, as is abundantly manifest by themany conversions that were wrought byJonathan Edwardss famous sermon

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.9

Although a mere fear of hell with a coerced


6/36

16


confession of Christ is surely not sufficientfor eternitythere must be the revealing ofChrist to the soul (cf. Galatians 1.16) andthe shining of the knowledge of Gods glory

in the face of Jesus Christ into the heart(cf. 2 Corinthians 4.6) transforming theheart and making a man into a willingperson in the day of Gods power, a manwho cannot but love Christ (cf. Psalm 110.3)if it is to be well with that man foreternityyet many are first broughtseriously to begin seeking God through asense of their very real danger. The

minimising of Gods very real wrath againstsin and His purpose to punish it mostseverely for all eternity cannot but workvery great mischief and harm to the eternalsouls of men. We cannot but condemn theNew King James Version for thus dilutingthe doctrine of eternal punishment with itssetting aside the word hell in so manyimportant verses of Holy Writ.

Romans 5.15: Experimental religion,or mere orthodoxy in the head?

A very important doctrine in the Scriptureis that of experimental religion. Byexperimental, we do not mean the exaltingof personal experience over the truth of theWord of God. We rather mean the putting of

ones profession of faith to the touchstone ofScripture, to see whether that profession isconfirmed with the marks and evidences ofthose graces which true believers possess.These would include the fruit of the Spiritlisted in Galatians 5.2223, especially as itcomes forth in seasons of trials andtemptations. But also by the wordexperimental we must refer to the Spirits

work in manifesting such evidences ofgrace to the faith and consciences of true

believers, to confirm to them that they areindeed in covenant with God and that Godloves them, and that Christ will indeed bewith them in all their manifold temptations

and trials.

The Saviour tells His disciples and, inthem, all His true church, that He that hathmy commandments, and keepeth them, he itis that loveth me: and he that loveth me shallbe loved of my Father, and I will love him,and will manifest myself to him (John 14.21).Those who through a living faith in Christ

endeavour to walk in Him in humble relianceupon Him at every step of the way, leaningupon [their] beloved (Song of Solomon 8.5),will experience manifold trials andoppositions in this life. Their own flesh willoppose them. The old man will rise upagainst them. But also, the world and Satanwill oppose them. At times, even the LordHimself to try them may, as He did with Job,

withdraw His sensible presence from themso that they must then live out of bare faithupon His Word (Job 23.89).

Such people may be in great straits;indeed, Paul tells us that all that will livegodly in Christ Jesus shall sufferpersecution (2 Timothy 3.12). In the worldye shall have tribulation, the Saviour tells

His people in John 16.33. For this reason,the Lords people are an afflicted and poorpeople, and they shall trust in the name ofthe LORD (Zephaniah 3.12). They are apeople who need the confirming assurancesof Christs love to their souls, and it is tosuch that Christ manifests Himself to thestrengthening of their souls. By Hiswitnessing to them of the marks of their

faith that manifest themselves in the midstof their trials, along with fresh revelations of


7/36

17


the glory of Christ in all His Person andWork, the Holy Ghost often sheds abroad intheir hearts the felt sense of the love of God,helping them most wonderfully.

It is this that we believe that the Apostlespeaks of in Romans 5.15. Accordingly, wewill next consider the NKJVs rendering ofRomans 5.15, which tends to underminethe doctrine of experimental religion shownin those verses. The Authorised Versioncorrectly renders this passage thus:

Therefore being justified by faith, wehave peace with God through ourLord Jesus Christ: by whom also wehave access by faith into this gracewherein we stand, and rejoice in hopeof the glory of God. And not only so,but we glory in tribulations also:knowing that tribulation workethpatience; and patience, experience;

and experience, hope: and hopemaketh not ashamed; because thelove of God is shed abroad in ourhearts by the Holy Ghost which isgiven unto us.

The word placed in bold in these verses,experience, speaks of this experimentalreligion. However, the New King James

makes a very major change in this one wordand in doing so, the doctrine. It changesexperience to character. Thus, the NKJV inverses 3 and 4 reads, knowing thattribulation produces perseverance; andperseverance, character; and character,hope. This change is not at all warranted bythe Greek word dokimh (dokime) fromwhich it is translated. (It is interesting to

note, however, that the NKJV translatorsagree here in essence with the New

American Standard of 1995, whichtranslates dokime as proven character.)

Dokime properly means proof arising

from having survived a test or trial. Theverb from which it comes properly means toput to the proof or to put to the experiment,as a chemist would submit a rock to a seriesof tests to determine what its chemicalmakeup was. The proof spoken of here inthe text is twofold: it refers both to Godsproving the sincerity of the true believerbefore men and angels, but it also refers to

Gods proving His own faithfulness to thehearts and consciences of His children byHis sustaining them with the felt sense ofHis love shed abroad in their hearts by theHoly Ghost freely given them, as verse 5goes on to say.

Thus, the proper meaning of the text isthat the Christian glories in tribulations

because he knows from the proof of hisown faith demonstrated to his own mindand conscience that his God loves him, andthat therefore his God is perfecting himthrough these tests. His having had hisfaith put to the proof or put to theexperiment is good for his soul. Itdemonstrates the reality of his faith toGod, to the devil, to the world, and to his

own conscience and soul. As these trialsdemonstrate the reality of his own faith tohis own soul and the reality of Christsstanding with him in his trials, theseexperiences in turn show him, in time, thelove of God to his soul. They become as anEbenezer (1 Samuel 7.12), a rock ofmemorial to Gods help and sustenance tohim in time of need. They are experiences

to which he often looks. Accordingly, theAuthorised Versions translation of the


8/36

18


word dokime as experience is mostappropriate. These witnessings of the HolyGhost as to the reality of his faith areprecious experiences that the child of God

never forgets. By these experiences, Godmanifests His faithfulness and help to thepoor believer when he cries out to Him,and the poor child of God finds God to befaithful to His Word, a very present help introuble (Psalm 46.1).10

The New King James Version intranslating the passage as and

perseverance, character; and character,hope, states a truth, but it does not at alladequately nor faithfully set forth thedoctrine as espoused in the originallanguage text. This mistranslation alsorobs the believer of a beautiful text withmuch comfort. The believer does not findtribulation joyous at first but he finds thepeaceable fruits of righteousness issuing

therefrom. He finds the very sensible helpof God in time, at every step. Daniel findsangels with him in the lions den (Daniel 6).Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego find afourth one like the Son of God with themin the furnace (Daniel 3.25). Paul finds theLord standing by him in the night whilehis enemies plot his murder with theSanhedrin (Acts 23.11). Stephen, as he is

about to be cruelly stoned, sees theheavens opened and the Son of Manstanding on Gods right hand (Acts 7.56).Job, after a long season of lackingaltogether the sensible presence of his Godso that he had to say Behold, I go forward,but he is not there; and backward, but Icannot perceive him (Job 23.8), yet foundafter a time the Lord speaking to him out

of the whirlwind and that mightily for hisdeliverance (38.1; 40.6).

Given these things, how can we not saythat patience worketh experience, and thatthese experiences, by the Holy Ghost,witness Gods incomprehensible love to the

soul of the poor child of God, many a timeso that he is almost overwhelmed, sick oflove (Song of Solomon 2.5; 5.8), and yetmost marvellously strengthened thereby fortime to come?

So then, the Greek word dokime refers tothe experiment to which the believers faithis put and to the proof that issues

therefrom. But it also means experience aswe properly understand itthe proof ofGods faithfulness to the soul and heart ofthe child of God.

Again we must ask, what is so hard tounderstand about the word experience?Why have the New King James translators,without a real warrant from the word in the

original language, decided to change it? Wecannot but think that the translators of theNKJV simply did not themselves understandthe full significance of the passage.

We cannot but feel that the failure tonote the experimental component of thisverse by the NKJV translators reflects thegeneral dearth of experimental religion in

our day. This is indeed a day in which merehistorical, non-saving faith in the head(but not in the heart) is often taken bymany to be actual, vital godliness in thesoul; and even the godly of our day, wefear, have been lulled by the generallukewarmness of our time to a deadness inspiritual matters. Accordingly, we cannotbut regard the New King James Version as a

fruit of this spiritually barren age. There isa deficiency, it seems to us, in the NKJVs


9/36

19


setting forth fundamental experimentaltruths of the Word of God. Does thisdeficiency perhaps stem from a relativeunfamiliarity of the translators themselves,

and indeed with Christians in general, withexperimental matters when compared withChristians of the past?

The age in which the Authorised Versionwas translated was an age that abounded inexperimental writings on the life of grace inthe soul, an age, we believe, unparalleled inthat regard. It was an age that began in the

late 1500s with the sifting, searching, andexamining preaching of William Perkins atCambridge University,11 and which shortlybrought forth such experimental preachersas Richard Sibbes,12 William Ames,13

Thomas Goodwin,14 William Guthrie,15

John Owen16 and many others.

Thus, we cannot but prefer the

Authorised Version, especially with respectto its setting forth the Scriptures teachingconcerning the experimental life of grace inthe soul. We believe the Authorised Versionhas done this because of the veryexperimental and spiritual nature of the agein which that noble translation wasproduced.

Matthew 7.14: The way of salvation:narrow or difficult?

The Authorised Version correctly translatesthis verse as: Because strait is the gate, andnarrowis the way, which leadeth unto life,and few there be that find it. The New KingJames Version translates it as: Becausenarrow is the gate and difficult is the waywhich leads to life, and there are few whofind it.

The Greek word translated as narrow inthe Authorised Version and difficult in theNew King James is the participial form ofthe Greek verb qlibw (thlibo), which

properly means to narrow or constrict. Inthe Greek it is a perfect participle, literallymeaning narrowed. While this can meannarrowed, or difficult in a figurative sense,yet in the Biblical sense here, it can onlymean narrow in that salvation exclusivelycomes through faith in Christ only andthrough repentance toward God. Wecannot properly say that salvation is

difficult because the Saviour Himself, Whocannot lie, tells us that His yoke is easy, and[his] burden is light (Matthew 11.30).Salvation is impossible with man, but notbecause it is difficult. In Christ theintolerable yoke of the covenant of works17

which makes absolutely no provision for theforgiveness of sins is taken away, Christhaving fulfilled that covenant for His people

who believe on Him.

They are but called to look to Him andto repent only through faith in Him, Heenabling them by justifying them with arighteousness outside themselves and bygiving them a new nature and progressivesanctification within their souls throughthe Holy Ghost indwelling them. The

only thing which makes salvationimpossible for unregenerate men is theirunwillingness to come to Him, and Christtakes away this enmity in the day of Hispower (Psalm 110.3).

By mistranslating the Greek word asdifficult, the New King James would give thereader the impression that the poor sinner

must workhis way to God, that salvation issomehow a work of his own willpower with


10/36

20


a little of Gods assistance helping him toovercome the heart of evil within. But no,salvation is all of grace; it is not of works,but of faith, and that faith is all Gods work

(see Ephesians 2.8). Salvation is narrowbecause it is alone by Christ by gracethrough faith. Man must throw away hisown righteousness and his own works tocome to Christ; he must renounceconfidence in his own abilities. He mustforsake everyother false ground ofconfidence and come by Christ alone. It is anarrowway because it is an exclusive way.

Thus, in mistranslating this verse theNew King James has cast doubts on thedoctrine of salvation by grace through faithin Christ alone! We cannot but chide withthe New King James translators on thiscritical point and point out their seriousdeficiency in rendering fundamentaldoctrines of the Gospel.

Accordingly, we would exhort our readersto hold fast to the Authorised Version, whichis indeed a faithful doctrinal rendering ofthe original languages.

Zechariah 9.17:Mans goodness or Gods goodness?

We now look at a text which the New KingJames translators deliberatelychose toalter, purposely revising what is said inthe original language. That verse isZechariah 9.17. We now look at both verses16 and 17 so as to get the full context of thepassage. In the Authorised Version, thiscorrectly reads as follows:

And the LORD their God shall savethem in that day as the flock of his

people: for they shall be as the stonesof a crown, lifted up as an ensignupon his land. For how great is hisgoodness, and how great is his beauty!

corn shall make the young mencheerful, and new wine the maids.

Repeatedly in the chapters preceding thisverse, the prophet Zechariah chides with thechildren of Judah, expostulating with themfor their sins. Such is the case in chapter 7verse 12 where he says, Yea, they made theirhearts as an adamant stone, lest they should

hear the law, and the words which the LORDof hosts hath sent in his spirit by the formerprophets: therefore came a great wrath fromthe LORD of hosts.

It was not a worthy people that the Lordwould save. It was a desperately wickedpeople who had oppressed the widow, thefatherless, the stranger and the poor, as

Zechariah had witnessed against them inchapter 7.1012. But the Lord would savethem in His free and sovereign gracebecause He so willed, just as in His freegrace He had loved their fathers(Deuteronomy 7.78). Accordingly, we canonly say how great is his goodness(Zechariah 9.17). We have no goodness ofour own; there is none righteous, no, not

one: there is none that understandeth, thereis none that seeketh after Godthere isnone that doeth good, no, not one, Scripturetells us in Romans 3.1012. This is so withboth Jew and Gentile, as Paul tells us: wehave before proved both Jews and Gentiles,that they are all under sin (Romans 3.9).Both the Gentile believers and the Jewishbelievers sought not God. Instead Christ

sought them. Ye have not chosen me, but Ihave chosen you, says Christ in John 15.16.


11/36

21


Accordingly, the Lord saved and deliveredan unworthypeople in the verses inZechariah 9.1617. They deserved nothingbut eternal condemnation in hell, but God in

His grace and goodness saved them.

But look now at how the New King Jamestranslates Zechariah 9.17!

In its 1987 edition it has rendered thisverse: For how great is their goodness, andhow great their beauty. They translate itthus, even though they acknowledge in a

footnote to the verse that their is Literallyhis in the original language text: iftranslated literally the verse would be Forhow great is his goodness, and how greathis beauty. The NKJV translators opteddeliberatelyto change the pronoun (usedas an adjective in the text) so as to giveglory to man instead of to God! Such arendering of the text is not only wrong, it

borders on heresy. It would say that the Lordsaves worthysinners, He saves those whoare good! (By the way, the 1987 NKJV againagrees with the original NASB in renderingtheir for the Hebrew word for his; the 1995edition of the NASB also still translates itin this way.)

In its original 1982 edition, the NKJV

read, For how great is its goodness, and greatits beauty, with a footnote againacknowledging that it could be rendered withhis: and great his beauty. It appears that, inits 1982 edition, the NKJV translators mayhave mistakenly interpreted thepronoun/adjective (which they have renderedas its) to refer to Zion, instead of to the LordHimself (who, as Christ tells us, is the only

One Who is good); and thus, they haverevised the verse in 1987 to read as does the

New American Standard. But we cannot butview this mistranslation as an obscuring ofthe doctrines of free grace and of the doctrinewhich is itself set forth by the passage. All the

deliverances of the Old Testament people ofGod set forth in types show the way ofsalvation as it would fully be revealed in theNew Testament. God saved an unworthypeople in both the Old Dispensation and theNew. We cannot but believe that truebelievers, even under the shadowydispensation of the Old Covenant, wereindeed saved with New Testament grace alone

through a saving view of Christ portrayed intheir ceremonies and temporal deliverances.

In all, we cannot but feel that the NKJVtranslators are shaky in their doctrinalmoorings in important fundamentals ofLaw and Gospel. Their obscuring of thedoctrine of free grace, that free grace whichis clearly set forth in the original language

in this passage in Zechariah 9.17,abundantly manifests the weakness of theirdoctrinal foundations.

Matthew 20.20:Is kneeling before Christ the same asworshipping Him?

We now examine in the NKJV the rendering

of a passage that tends to weaken thedoctrine of Christs divinity: Matthew 20.20.

The Authorised Version correctlytranslates the verse as: Then came to himthe mother of Zebedees children with hersons, worshipping him, and desiring acertain thing of him.

Worshipping him: the fact that Christ isworshipped displays His divinity, for only


12/36

22


God may lawfully be worshipped, as theSecond Commandment plainly teaches us.The second of the Ten Commandmentsteaches us that we may not bow down

before idols because bowing down isworshipping.

When Cornelius fell down to worshipPeter, Peter rebuked him, telling him Standup; I myself also am a man (Acts 10.26).Men may not be worshipped, nor may idolsor even angels. So also said the angel to Johnin Revelation 19.10 and 22.89 when John

would have fallen down to worship him; theangel tells him to do it not but to WorshipGod. Thus, neither men nor angels noridols are to be worshipped. God alone maybe worshipped.

But in Matthew 20.20 we find that boththe mother of James and John, and the menthemselves, are worshipping Christ and

Christ forbids them not. Why? Because He isindeed God.

How does the NKJV translate this verse?Then the mother of Zebedees sons came toHim with her sons, kneeling down andasking something from Him. Notice thatworship has been diluted to kneeling down.

In the Authorised Version, everyoccurrence of the Greek word proskunew(proskuneo) is translated the same, namely,as worship. Even in the New King James,most of the time it is translated thus.Indeed, the NKJV rendersproskuneo asworship in Acts 10.25, where Cornelius fallsdown to worship Peter. Yet here it has failedto translate the word properly when dealing

with a far more important Person thanPeter, One Who is indeed worthy of worship.

We cannot say, on the mere ground ofthis one verse alone, that the editors of theNew King James did not believe that Christ,as God, is worthy of worship; but we must

say that there is a certain carelessness andindifference toward the significance andimportance of this doctrine as it is clearlyset forth in this verse. We cannot but thinkthe NKJV translators failure to render

proskuneo in its true meaning of worship inthis verse reveals a lack of reverence. Theall-importance of this doctrinenamely,Christs accepting worship, and this as a

proof of His Godheadmerits much morereverence and diligence in preserving thisdoctrine in every text of the Bible where itis manifested, as it should have been inthis verse.

The marginal notes on 1 John 5.7:Are the Three Persons of one essence,equal in power and glory?

Here we cannot but reiterate our displeasurewith the marginal notes in the New KingJames Version. The strongest witness in theBible for the unity of the Trinity and theconsubstantiality of the Three Personsthat is, their sharing the same divineessenceis clearly found in 1 John 5.7. Thistext, we are persuaded, was likely excluded

first by Origen, and even perhaps by hispredecessors, because of theirsubordinationist views (that Christ and theHoly Spirit are inferior to the Father), andtheir views concerning the ModalistMonarchist heresy (that the Father is theSon, and the Son is the Father, and so on),which heresy was a major problem in thethird century. In addition, Origens devotee,

Eusebius of Caesarea, was EmperorConstantines favourite bishop and held


13/36

23


extreme subordinationist viewsindeed hewas an Arian for a time, and then a Semi-Arian, even after the Council of Nicaea.Eusebius18 was very much involved in the

textual criticism of the text, as had been hispredecessor Origen. Constantine orderedfifty copies of the Scriptures from Eusebiusfor the churches in Constantinople, whichcopies certainly would have set the standardfor a time for the text. Eusebius hadinvented a system of cross referencing thefour Gospels, a system now called theEusebian Canons, which were in most of the

Greek manuscripts for many centuries, andeven found their way into the early copies ofthe Latin Vulgate. Thus we see the universalsway that Eusebius held for a time over theNew Testament text, particularly in thechurch of the east.

Eusebius was opposed to the doctrineof Christs being of the same essence as

the Father, and therefore would have beenopposed to 1 John 5.7. He would have hadthe ecclesiastical power for a time tohave excluded that text from theauthorised copies.

However, theJohannine Comma, as it iscalled, persisted in the Old Italic Version ofthe churches of Africa where Eusebiuss

influence was the weakest and where theEusebian Canons were not utilised, at leastin their older copies. The verse was likelypreserved then in the church of the west,where the influence of Arianism and Semi-Arianism had been the least.

We therefore uphold the authenticity ofthat passage. It is the strongest witness to

the doctrine of the Trinity and to theconsubstantiality and equality of the Three

Persons of the Trinity that can be foundanywhere in the Bible. If we delete thestrongest witness for the Trinity and for theomoousioj (homoousios), as the early

Greek Fathers called the sharing of thedivine essence by the Three Persons, thenwe necessarily weaken those doctrines.Those doctrines no longer appear in theScriptures with their native and originalstrength and force.

But what do we find in the New KingJames Version concerning the Comma? We

find the following footnote for 1 John 5.7:NU-Text and M-Text omit the words fromin heaven (verse 7) through to on earth(verse 8). Only four or five very late Greekmanuscripts contain these words. Thismeans that the Nestle-Aland/UBS CriticalGreek Text and the so-called ByzantineMajority Text both exclude 1 John 5.7.

With the words only four or fivemanuscriptsbut not taking into accountat all the history of the text or the nearlyuniversal attestation to the authenticity ofthe Comma in the Western ChurchtheNKJV translators make it appear that thetext was almost surely not in the originalautograph.

Yet, because of overwhelming historicalevidence, the masters of the easternByzantine text, namely, the GreekOrthodox Church, not only included theComma in their official version; theyincluded it also as one of their officiallectionary readings! Though we must viewthe Greek Orthodox Church as being inserious error because of its idolatries, we

must also acknowledge that they know thehistory of their own text better than any


14/36

24


modern text critic, and they know how theArian controversy ravaged their text for atime. On the grounds of overwhelminghistorical evidence, likely presented to

them at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,they opted to re-include that verse intheir copies.19

Thus we must argue that in itsembracing modernist views of text criticslike Bruce Metzger and Kurt Alandconcerning 1 John 5.7, the New King JamesVersion has also weakened the doctrine of

Christs Godhead with its marginal notes.

Hebrews 2.16:Did Christ take upon Himself the natureof the seed of Abraham, or did he merelyhelp the seed of Abraham?

We now return to our consideration of thetext of the NKJV. The NKJV alters with its

translation a very important passage inHebrews 2.16 concerning Christs incarnationand His taking our human nature.

The Authorised Version correctly rendersthis verse as: For verily he took not on him thenature ofangels; but he took on him the seedof Abraham. This means that Christ did nottake to Himself an angelic nature; He took to

Himself the nature of mankind, specifically,being born of the seed of Abraham.

Note the italics for the words the natureofand him. The Authorised Version itselfgives us the literal reading of the passage inthe marginal note it appends to this verse:Gr. taketh not hold of angels, but of the seedof Abraham he taketh hold. The Greek wordfor taketh hold is epilambanomai(epilambanomai), which literally means to

take upon, but which can also mean to layhold of or to seize. Only in a figurative sensecould it mean give aid, but this is how theNew King James Version renders it, without

there being any clear reason for translatingit in a figurative sense here.

The context of this passage shows usclearly that Christ took to Himself flesh andblood, and not the nature of angels.Forasmuch then as the children arepartakers of flesh and blood, he also himselflikewise took part of the same, verse 14 of

this same chapter tells us. Accordingly, thewhole context of the passage tells us that Hetook to Himself our human nature, bodyand soul. Christ, as God, is superior to allthe angels, chapter 1 of this book tells us.But Christ for our sakes was made a littlelower than the angels (2.7,9), taking toHimself our human nature, that He mightbe made conformable to us in all things,

sin excepted.

But how does the New King JamesVersion translate this verse? For indeed Hedoes not give aid to angels, but He does giveaid to the seed of Abraham. In thisfigurative rendering ofepilambanomai, theNew King James follows the New AmericanStandard which reads For assuredly He

does not give help to angels, but He giveshelp to the descendant of Abraham.

Thus, the New King James here, contraryto its original purpose, does not simplyupdate the language of the AuthorisedVersion; it retranslates this verse, evenchanging the doctrine of it! The verse in theNKJV merely speaks of Christs giving help to

the seed of Abraham; the doctrine of theincarnation is altogether overlooked.


15/36

25


Moreover, the translators had to employ afigurative sense of the Greek verb in order todo so. Once again, the NKJV translatorsbetray their strong sympathies for the

methodologies and philosophy behind theNASB translation, over against those of theAuthorised Version. However, this is a veryimportant text for showing the incarnation ofChrist. It is a very strong verse in proof of it.However, although other verses even in thischapter and context state the incarnation ofChrist, yet the NKJVs rendering of this versein this way weakens its testimony to this all-

important, fundamental doctrine, thusweakening Scriptures testimony to theincarnation of the Saviour.

Given that many Reformed confessionsrightly cite Hebrews 2.16 in proof of theIncarnation and the Hypostatic Union, wecannot but condemn this rendering.20

1 Thessalonians 5.22:Abstain from even the appearance ofevil, or merely from every form of evil?

We now proceed to examine the New KingJames Versions re-rendering of1 Thessalonians 5.22. The AuthorisedVersion, we believe correctly, renders thisverse as Abstain from all appearance of

evil. The New King James retranslates it as:Abstain from every form of evil.

This retranslation certainly weakens theverse. As it is understood in the AuthorisedVersion, the saint is not only to abstain fromevil; he also is to abstain from all that wouldeven have the appearance of evil. The NewKing James on the other hand would simply

have us to abstain from every form of evil,i.e., every kind of evil.

The Greek word for appearance bearsout the Authorised Versions rendering ofit. It is the Greek word eidoj (eidos)which means, according to Thayer, the

external appearance, form, figure, shape.21Yes, the word can be understood as formor shape (e.g., see shape in Luke 3.22,John 5.37; however, most instances of theword form in the AV are from the wordmorfh [morphe], as in Philippians 2.67),but simply rendering the word in this waydoes not adequately convey its fullsignificance. It means also the external

appearance, and so the verse is indeedcommanding the saints to abstain evenfrom that which has the mere appearanceof evil, even in regards to something whichmay not actually be evil. Accordingly, weuphold the translation given by ourAuthorised Version.

Another look at the marginActs 8.37:Do we baptise infidels?

We would now examine the marginal notewhich the NKJV appends to Acts 8.37. Thatverse, which answers the Ethiopian eunuchsrequest to be baptised, reads properly in theAuthorised Version:

And Philip said, If thou believest with

all thine heart, thou mayest. And heanswered and said, I believe thatJesus Christ is the Son of God.

The New King James also includes thisverse in the text, but here our attention isdrawn to the marginal note about the verse.

NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse.

It is found in Western texts, includingthe Latin tradition.


16/36

26


The fact that Dr Arthur Farstad, theeditor of the New King James Version, wasalso a principal editor for the Hodges-Farstad Majority Textthe Farstad in

Hodges-Farstad refers to himwould leadone to think that Dr Farstad himself stronglyleans toward the omission of this verse.However, we cannot but think it quite badthat modern men lack the discernment tosee why this verse must needs be included.

Although we must view the GreekOrthodox Church as in serious error because

of its idolatries, we would nonethelessbelieve that they are the masters of theeastern Byzantine text, it being their text;and it is most noteworthy that they haveopted to re-include this verse in theirofficial version of the Greek text. It is evenone of their lectionary readings, whichshows the high degree of confidence theyhave in this text and how strongly they

apparently think that the omission of thatverse in their early texts was a deficiency. Westrongly believe the omission to be anexcision by Origen which was later enforcedby Eusebius of Caesarea.

But this text is very important doctrinally.It is the only text which specifically requires aprofession of faith from an adult applying for

baptism. Were this text not in the Bible, aMuslim still cleaving to Islam could apply forbaptism in the church and there would belittle Scriptural warrant for refusing him. Onecould appeal to other texts, but the appealwould be weakened.

This text clearly shows that an orthodoxand credible profession of faith is required

from any adult who would apply for baptismin the church. Those who believe in baptism

for adults only strongly appeal to this verse.But paedobaptiststhose who believe inbaptising the children of believersalsoappeal to it in requiring a credible profession

of faith from the parents who would bringtheir children for baptism. Were this not thecase in churches that baptise children, achurch could go about baptising the childrenof infidels. So then, this verse is highlyprized both by those who baptise adults onlyand by paedobaptists.

In all, Acts 8.37 is a very important

doctrinal text and its inclusion withoutquestion in the Textus Receptus and in theAuthorised Version much marks theintegrity and purity of both NewTestaments. It is therefore regrettable thatthe NKJV places question marks about thispassage in its marginal note.

Psalm 45.13:Is the bride spiritually glorious, or merelyoutwardly glorious? Or, is the Psalm onlyspeaking of Solomon, and not of Christ?

A passage in the NKJV which this authorfinds very problematic, and which has gravedoctrinal consequences, is its rendering ofPsalm 45.13. The Authorised Versioncorrectly renders this verse as: The kings

daughter is all glorious within: her clothingis of wrought gold.

The entire Psalm is obviously Messianic.Its title, part of the original Hebrew, tells usit is A Song of loves, very much patternedafter and speaking of the same subjectmatter as the Song of Solomon. Both thePsalm and the Song of Songs speak of the

mystical union of Christ, the HeavenlyBridegroom, with His bride, the church of


17/36

27


all ages, composed of believers from boththe Old and New Testament eras. Verse 6 ofthe Psalm is clearly applied to Christ inHebrews 1.8: Thy throne, O God, is for ever

and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is thesceptre of thy kingdom. Paul in this verse inHebrews, under the perfect inspiration andinfallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, usesthis very verse in Psalm 45 to prove theGodhead and divinity of Christ.

Yet Christ is also called true man in thisPsalm, as verse 7 refers to His being anointed

with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,where we must understand His fellows orcompanions to be of the sons of men. Thoughit is not explicitly stated that Christ hascompanions among the sons of men becauseHe Himself became man, yet the doctrine isclearly implied, especially when we take theverse in context with the rest of Scripture.

Verse 13 of the Psalm refers to the kingsdaughter, but the term daughter isfigurative, since this daughter is clearly thekings spouse who is being given to him inmarriage, as verse 14 tells us: She shall bebrought unto the king in raiment ofneedlework: the virgins her companionsthat follow her shall be brought unto thee.The image is that of the bride being

presented to the bridegroom, with herbridesmaids in attendance.

Verse 13 gives us a spiritual view ofthe spiritual beauty of this bride: sheis all glorious within. Similarly, herclothing is of the wrought gold of therighteousness of Christ, to Whom she isespoused: she is clothed with His

righteousness, having received thatrighteousness by faith alone.

All who are truly justified are also bornagain and therefore sanctified, both initiallyand progressively. They are made holywithin; they are new creatures, old things

are passed away; behold, all things arebecome new (2 Corinthians 5.17). They arenew men within, and hence, all gloriouswithin. They have a beauty that is not of theouter man or of that outward adorningofplaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, orof putting on of apparel; but [that beautywhich is of] the hidden man of the heart(1 Peter 3.34). They have that which is

beautiful in the Saviours eyes: the newheart, that heart which is holy, which is theornament of a meek and quiet spirit, andwhich has holy desires for Him.

Thus, the Authorised Version veryfaithfully renders Psalm 45.13 directly fromthe Hebrew as the kings daughter is allglorious within.

But how does the New King Jamesrender this verse? The royal daughter is allglorious within the palace. By adding thewords the palace, which are not in theoriginal Hebrew (nor are they evenindicated), the New King James destroys thespiritual meaning of the passage.

Translation problems of alesser doctrinal impact, butwhich incorrectly renderthe sense of the passage

We would now examine passages where wejudge the NKJVs errors to be of lesser

doctrinal significance, but where it doesindeed incorrectly render the sense of the


18/36

28


passage. Surely this is important! Thetrue child of God desires to understandal of Scripture that he can. If like Jobhe esteems the Word of God more than

his necessary food (Job 23.12), howmuch then should he desire atranslation of the Scriptures that is asaccurate as possible!

Isaiah 11.3

The Authorised Version well renders thisverse as: And shall make him of quick

understanding in the fear of the LORD: andhe shall not judge after the sight of hiseyes, neither reprove after the hearing ofhis ears. Here the New King James has Hisdelight is in the fear of the LORD, And Heshall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nordecide by the hearing of His ears. Thechief difference lies in how the AuthorisedVersion and the NKJV render the first

phrase of the verse: And shall make him ofquick understanding or His delight is inthe fear of the LORD.

The verb in the Hebrew language whichthe New King James has instead renderedas the noun delight is from xyr (riyach,from xwr, breathe or blow22), which herein the hiphil form can mean smell. The

Authorised Version notes this in itsmargin. This verb is indeed the oneemployed in Genesis 8.21, where it is saidthat the LORD smelled a sweet savour,when He smelled the sacrifice of cleananimals which Noah sacrificed to Himafter the Flood, when they had come forthfrom the ark.

The New King James, then, hasfigurativelyrendered the word as delight,

as though the Saviour smells with delightthe fear of the Lord.

However, we defer, with the Authorised

Version translators, to the judiciousremarks of Calvin on this verse, which, webelieve, better suit the entire context ofthe verse:

3.And will make him sagacious. Theverb xyr (riyach) which is here putin the Hiphil conjugation, signifiesliterally to smell, but may also be

explained in an active sense, asmeaning to give a keen smell; whichagrees better, I think, with thispassage, so that this sagacity may bealso included among the gifts of theSpirit. And this effect is peculiarlyapplicable to the person of Christ,namely, that far beyond what thegodly are able to conceive, he is

endowed with a shrewd discernmentfor governing his people. We oughtto attend, first of all, to themetaphor in the verb smell, whichmeans that Christ will be so shrewdthat he will not need to learn fromwhat he hears, or from what he sees;for by smellingalone he will perceivewhat would otherwise be

unknown.23

The famed Bible commentatorMatthew Henry interprets the verse inexactly the same way.

That he should be accurate, andcritical, and very exact in theadministration of his government,

and the exercise of the powercommitted to him (v. 3): The Spirit


19/36

29


wherewith he shall be clothed shallmake him of quick understanding inthe fear of the LORDof an acutesmell or scent (so the word is), for

the apprehensions of the mind areoften expressed by sensations ofthe body.24

So then, both John Calvin and MatthewHenry interpret the passage as referring toChrists having an innate sense in the fear ofthe Lord, a sense of smell for the things ofthe Lord, that would enable Him in judging

His people. We cannot but believe that, giventhe context of the verse, this rendering is thecorrect one.

Verse two says And the spirit of theLORD shall rest upon him, the spirit ofwisdom and understanding, the spirit ofcounsel and might, the spirit ofknowledge and of the fear of the LORD.

It is clear that verse three then carries onwith this thought, that the Spirit of Godwould enlarge Christs human mentalabilities in the wisdom, understanding,counsel, might, knowledge and fear of theLord. Hence, make him of quickunderstanding is the correct renderingof the phrase.

Again we would point out that the NewKing James has strayed far here from itsstated purpose to be a mere languageupdate of the Authorised Version. (Indeed,the New King James has once again followedthe New American Standard!) It has insteadretranslated hundreds of passages and, weare persuaded, with less spiritual insight. Wemust defer to the wisdom of the Authorised

Version in better rendering the originalmeaning of this verse.

2 Corinthians 10.5

But we would now examine the New KingJames Version in 2 Corinthians 10.5. The

Authorised Version correctly renders thatverse as follows:

Casting down imaginations, andevery high thing that exalteth itselfagainst the knowledge of God, andbringing into captivity every thoughtto the obedience of Christ.

The New King James retranslates thispassage thus:

Casting down arguments and everyhigh thing that exalts itself againstthe knowledge of God, bringing everythought into captivity to theobedience of Christ.

Notice that the translators of the NKJVhave changed the word imaginations intoarguments. The Greek word logismoj(logismos) properly means reasonings, asindicated in the margin of standard editionsof the AV. In a sense, it could mean eitherimaginations or arguments; thus, the astutetranslator will need to rely on the context ofthe passage in order to render the word

correctly.

The context of the passage is easilydetermined by the second branch of theverse: bringing into captivity everythought to the obedience of Christ. Thepassage is speaking about the innermachinations of the carnal mind whichoppose Christ and His Word. Given that this

is the case, we must understand the wordlogismos here as referring to imaginations


20/36

30


rather than outward spoken arguments.Accordingly, the Authorised Version hasbetter rendered the word.

Colossians 3.2

We now examine Colossians 3.2. TheAuthorised Version renders the verse as: Setyour affection on things above, not onthings on the earth.

The New King James renders this verseas: Set your mind on things above, not on

things on the earth. Note that the New KingJames has retranslated the word affectionto mind.

The Greek could literally be mind thosethings which are above, but mind does notreally adequately translate the Greek wordfronew (phroneo) as it is here used. Theaffections, indeed, the whole bent of the

soul and heart, are implied in this word. Wenow happily defer to the great BritishPuritan, John Owen, in his explanation ofthis word, as found in On the Grace andDuty of being Spiritually Minded:

fronhsij is the principal power andact of the mind. It is its light, wisdom,prudence, knowledge, understanding,

and discretion. It is not so withrespect to speculation or ratiocinationmerely, which is dianoia orsunhsij, but this fronhsij is itspower as it is practical, including thehabitual frame and inclination ofthe affections also. It is its faculty toconceive of things with a delight inthem and adherence unto them, from

that suitableness which it finds inthem unto all its affections. Hence we

translate fronein sometimes tothink,that is, to conceive and

judge, Romans xii.3; sometimes to setthe affections, Colossians iii.2to

have such an apprehension of thingsas to cleave unto them with ouraffections; sometimes to mind, tomind earthly things, Phil. iii.19,which includeth that relish andsavour which the mind finds in thethings it is fixed on. Nowhere doth itdesign a notional conception ofthings only, but principally the

engagement of the affectionsunto the things which the mindapprehends.25

Thus, we would judge, with John Owen,that the NKJVs rendering of Colossians 3.2is not adequate; that to the contrary there isvery good reason why the AuthorisedVersion has correctly rendered this passage

Set your affection on things above. TheGreek word indeed means a minding, but itis, as Dr Owen notes, a minding with thehabitual frame and inclination of theaffections also.

Thee, thou, ye, and you versusyou and you

A major problem comes in the New KingJames Version where they have indeedmodernised the language but to thedetriment of clarity. We refer to the NKJVsmodernisation of the words thee, thou,and ye. The New King James simply usesyou for all three of these words, as well asfor you.

In so doing the clarity of the originalGreek and Hebrew is lost because, in fact,


21/36


22/36

32


What if a lost sinner were to open hisBible and gaze upon this one verse alone?Could it not be a matter of eternalimportance which version of this verse he

saw? Would it not be all-important that heknow that not only Nicodemus, but also hehimself, must be born again?

But we would now look at Luke 22.3132,and how the translation of thee andyou critically impacts the meaning ofthat verse.

Luke 22.3132

The Authorised Version says: And the Lordsaid, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hathdesired to have you, that he may siftyou aswheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thyfaith fail not: and when thou art converted,strengthen thy brethren.

The New King James Version (1982edition) has: And the Lord said, Simon,Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, thathe may siftyou as wheat. But I have prayedfor you, that your faith should not fail; andwhen you have returned toMe, strengthenyour brethren.

In the New King James it could appear

that the entire passage is speaking to Peteralone. It could appear that Peter alone wasgoing to be sifted as wheat and fallbackward for a time. It could appear that,after this time of backsliding, he would thenbe used to strengthen his brethren.

However, this is not what the passage issaying. This is where the Authorised Version

is far superior to the NKJV. In its use of theword you as a second person plural, in

exact accordance with the original Greek,the Authorised Version makes it clear thatall the Apostles were going to be sifted aswheat. But then the Lord tells Peter that He

is going to convert or turn Peter back, andwhen Peter is then converted he is to restoreand strengthen his brethren.

This passage teaches us the importanceof the Gospel ministry: that it pleases theLord to use broken instruments of the dust,fallen instruments, to restore others. In thisday in which often the Gospel ministry is

despised, we believe a proper understandingof this verse to be all-important.

But also, it is very important that theEnglish reader of the Scriptures have in hishands a version that differentiates betweenthe singular and plural of the second personpronouns. We have only listed a few of theverses where this is critical; the article What

todays Christian needs to know about theNew King James Version26 also lists thefollowing verses where such a distinction isimportant: 1 Kings 9.56, Matthew 5.39,6.47, 11.2324, 18.911; Mark 14.3738,Luke 9.41, 17.21; John 14.911;1 Corinthians 3.1617, 6.1920; andPhilippians 2.5, with others.

Problems withcapitalisation in the

New King James Version

The New King James Version (as seen in theAmerican 1982 edition27) has taken uponitself to capitalise the pronouns which refer

to Deity, which initially seems good.However, there is a problem in rendering the


23/36

33


Scriptures in this way because there areverses where it is not always clear whetherthe pronoun refers to man or to God. Thus,for the translator to take upon himself to

capitalise pronouns necessarily entails hisinterpreting the passage. This can alsooccur if the translator is too quick tocapitalise every instance of the word spirit.We now give some examples.

Psalm 37.23

The Authorised Version says: The steps of a

goodman are ordered by the LORD: and hedelighteth in his way.

The New King James Version has: Thesteps of agoodman are ordered by theLORD, And He delights in his way.

It is obvious here that the New KingJames Version has interpreted this verse to

make the Lord delight in the good man.However, it could be that the verse meansthat it is the good man who delights in theLord. Indeed, this is what the Psalm tells usin verse 4, where the Psalmist commands hisreader to delight thyself also in the LORD.

Additionally, the verse could well meanboth. It could mean both that the good man

delights in the Lord, and that the Lorddelights in him.

We submit that, because of cases likethis, it is better to follow the practice of notcapitalising the pronouns for Deity, so that,in case the pronoun can be taken in twoways, the reader is free under the guidanceof the Holy Spirit to make the judgment for

himself as to what is intended byconsidering prayerfully the context.

James 4.5

In the Authorised Version we read: Do yethink that the scripture saith in vain, The

spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

The New King James has: Or do youthink that the Scripture says in vain, TheSpirit who dwells in us yearns jealously?

The question here is, does the Greek wordfor spirit (which is not capitalised in Greek)refer to the Holy Spirit, as the New King

James has rendered it? Or could it insteadrefer to the regenerate nature of the born-again man which also lusts for righteousness,in accordance with John 3.6, which tells usthat which is born of the Spirit is spirit? Inother words, the new creature, the new man,is spirit, in the image of Christ, Who is aspiritual man (1 Corinthians 15); and thatnew nature which is spirit is born of the Holy

Spirit, who lusts after righteousness. Whichof the two does James 4.5 speak of?

Or for that matter, and we think moreprobably, is the verse perhaps speaking ofthe sinful machinations of the old man, andhis lustings after the things of the flesh?

Again, we think it better to follow the

Authorised Versions example in being veryjudicious about not capitalising thepronouns which refer to Deity and in beingcautious about capitalising the word spirit.

2 Thessalonians 2.7

The Authorised Version reads: For themystery of iniquity doth already work: only

he who now letteth will let, until he be takenout of the way.


24/36

34


The New King James has: For themystery of lawlessness is already at work;only He who now restrains will do so untilHe is taken out of the way.

The New King James here has renderedthe word for iniquity somewhat moreliterally, which can be good, havingrendered it lawlessness which indeed iswhat the Greek word says. It has alsotranslated the word let, which formerlymeant to hinder, as restrain, which is moreeasily understood by modern readers.

However, the NKJV has capitalised theword for he. It makes it clear that thetranslators hold to the view that the hespoken of is God. Most of the persons whohold this view believe that this is the HolySpirit, Who will at some point be taken outof the world with the church in a pre-tribulation rapture.

However, this is not the onlyunderstanding of the passage; indeed, priorto the nineteenth century most Protestantsviewed the passage in a different way, andthere are many Protestants (such as thisauthor) who yet hold to this older view.They apply this verse to the Caesars ofRome, who through the Providence of God

held back the revealing of the man of sin,namely, the Pope of Rome. Those who holdto this view believe that it is not oneparticular man who is the man of sin, butrather that the man of sin is an officethePontifex Maximus, who has claimed powerto change the laws of Scripture with hispurgatories, penances, new modes ofworship, new feast days, worship of Mary

and the saints with all its attendantidolatries, and so on, thus totally

undermining the doctrine of salvation andbringing many into a strong delusion totheir eternal ruin and perdition. (I am aformer Roman Catholic myself and do not

have a particularly favourable opinion ofthat institution!)

It should also be noted that other viewsare held regarding the Lords SecondComing, many of which arise from aninterpretation of this verse.

Not capitalising the personal pronoun

leaves the passage open for interpretation. Itleaves it open as to whether the restrainer isthe Holy Spirit or some other power. To itscredit, the New King James (at least in the1982 edition) appends a footnote in which itacknowledges that the pronoun could be inlower case. But certainly its rendering of thepassage sets forth one particular view overall others, and thus is highly interpretative.

We again submit that it is best to refrainfrom capitalising the pronouns that seem torefer to Deity, lest we foist an interpretationupon the text which perhaps is not theright one.

Isaiah 53.9

The Authorised Version correctly rendersthis verse as And he made his grave withthe wicked, and with the rich in his death;because he had done no violence, neitherwas any deceit in his mouth.

And he made his grave with the wicked:yes, it was Christ Who made His own grave.Christ says, Therefore doth my Father love

me, because I lay down my life, that I mighttake it again. No man taketh it from me, but


25/36

35


I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay itdown, and I have power to take it again.This commandment have I received of myFather (John 10.1718).

Christ laid down His life. No man took itfrom Him. Indeed, the Greek says no onetook it from Him. He laid it down and Hetook it up again. It was He even Who, withthe Father from all eternity, determined intowhich grave His body would be laid andwhat death He would die. It is He Whoupholds all things by the Word of His power

(Hebrews 1.3), and it is He Who of His ownpersonal sovereignty agreed with the Fatheras to all of the details of His death which Hewould undergo.

Accordingly, we must say indeed that itwas Christ HimselfWho made His gravewith the wicked, as part of His ownhumiliation, that He might pay in full the

debt of shame which we owed God for oursins. This is literally what the originallanguage, the Hebrew, says: he made hisgrave with the wicked.

But the New King James, actuallychanging the word in the original language,says instead And theymade His grave withthe wicked (although the 1987 edition does

append a marginal note that admits that theoriginal language says he and not they).Once again, the New King James seems tohave come somewhat under the nefariousinfluence of the New American Standard,which incorrectly renders the passage Hisgrave was assigned with wicked men, eventhough the Hebrew will not allow of thistranslation. The Hebrew literally reads And

he gave (or appointed) with the wicked hisgrave. The Hebrew verb }tn (natan) in this

passage is in the qal (active), not theniphal (passive). Thus, was given or wasassigned is altogether incorrect; thepassage must be literally understood as he

appointed with the wicked his grave,which is translated more simply as hemade his grave with the wicked in theAuthorised Version.

We have said that the NKJV appears tohave come under the influence again of theNASB because theymade His grave withthe wicked corresponds much more closely

in meaning with the he was assigned agrave with the wicked rendering of theNASB, than it does with the actual heappointed with the wicked his grave of theoriginal Hebrew.

Most importantly, the New King Jameshere has altered the wording of the originallanguage, and in doing so has robbed the

church of an important truth. The sovereignChrist decreed to lay down His life; no one,not even the Father, could take it away fromHim if He were unwilling. This samesovereign Christ ordained with the Fatherall the details of His own death, includingthe specifics of how He would be crucifiedwith the wicked. This, by the way, is how weunderstand the words made his grave with

the wicked. We believe that this means thatHe decreed that He would die the death ofthe wicked, with wicked persons at His side,He being crucified with two thieves, one oneach hand.

Titus 3.10

The Authorised Version correctly reads A

man that is an heretick after the first andsecond admonition reject. The Greek word


26/36

36


for heretic is airetikoj (hairetikos), whichis indeed the very word from which we getheretic. Although in classical Greek airesij(hairesis, heresy) refers to a divisively

partisan spirit, yet the overall use of thatword in the New Testament indeed refersspecifically to one who causes division withfalse or heretical doctrines.

Yet the New King James translates theverse Reject a divisive man after the firstand second admonition. This alterationdoes indeed change the doctrine of the text.

The Authorised Versions rendering, which isthe correct one, limits the power of churchcourts to disbarring only those who aredoctrinally heretical from the Lords Table.However, as the New King James renders it,the church could well claim power toexcommunicate anyone who was simplyhard to get along with.

It is true that most modern lexicons listthe word hairetikos as meaning factious.However, this certainly was not the case inthe past, in better days. We happily defer inthis instance to the wise exegesis of thispassage that John Calvin gives us:

10. Avoid a heretical man. This isproperly added; because there will be

no end of quarrels and disputes, if wewish to conquer obstinate men byargument; for they will never wantwords, and they will derive freshcourage from impudence, so that theywill never grow weary of fighting.Thus, after having given orders toTitus as to the form of doctrine heshould lay down, he now forbids him

to waste much time in debating withheretics28

Matthew Henry begins his discussion ofTitus 3.10 with exactly the sameunderstanding of the word, prefacing hisremarks with these words:

Here is the fifth and last thing in thematter of the epistle: what Titusshould avoid in teaching; how heshould deal with a heretic; with someother directions.29

Matthew Henry goes on to prove thatheretic is the only understanding of the

term that will fit the context. Paul has justtold Timothy in verse 9 to avoid foolishquestions, and genealogies, and contentions,and strivings about the law; for they areunprofitable and vain. In verse 11, Paul saysof such a man that he is subverted, andsinneth, being condemned of himself . Suchominous terms certainly would not beapplied to a man who was merely factious

or divisive. Paul is here specificallyaddressing those of the Ebionistic heresy,the Judaizers. He is saying that they areheretical, and that after a mere twoadmonitions, Titus should have nothing todo with them.

Modern men, with their lexicons, havealtogether overlooked the context of this

passage, and as well have failed to read thesound writers of old like Calvin andMatthew Henry. We cannot regard Calvinand Henry as deficient in their Greek!Again, in order to understand the NewTestament use of a term, the exegete musthimself be one who is soundly grounded inthe doctrines of the Scripture, so as tounderstand how the term is being used in

the context of Scripture.


27/36

37


Thus, we must confidently affirm thatthe modern interpreters are wrong.Hairetikos here in Titus 3.10, as seen by thecontext of the term, plainly refers to a

heretical, and not a merely divisive, man.Thus, Paul only grants to Titus the churchpower to exclude heretical persons, notmerely divisive people who may be hard toget along with.

Having seen a number of cases of theabuse of power by church courts of someAmerican churches in the United States,

I can assure the reader that we certainly donot wish church courts to be granted thekind of unbridled, subjective power indicatedby the NKJV. In many situations in churchgovernment which I have observed, churchmembers who have caused trouble for thechurch authorities by simply asking toomany questions have been excommunicatedfor contumacy or rebellion. While we grant

that fomenting divisions in the church in thefashion that Korah (Numbers 16) did meritschurch discipline, we do not grant thateveryone who simply is hard to get alongwith or who asks the church elders too manydifficult questions deserves to be cast out ofchurch communion. Yet we would judge thatthis is what possibly could be construed bythe translation of the New King James in

this passage.

The New King Jamess translation is notwarranted by the New Testament use of theword hairetikos. Indeed, the NKJV itselftranslates cognate forms of the same wordas this one properly, as a form of heretic orheresy, in other passages (as in 2 Peter 2.1).

Before we leave discussion of this verse,however, we must point out that once again

the New King James translators appear tohave come under the influence of the NewAmerican Standard. The NASB renders theverse Reject a factious man after a first and

second warning. Factious and divisive aresynonymous. They do not mean heretic, asindeed the original word in the Greek in itsNew Testament context does.

NKJV departures from theTextus Receptus, where it

follows the Critical Textinstead

As a final note, we must observe thefollowing disturbing characteristic of theNew King James, namely that in certainpassages it has plainly departed from theTextus Receptus and instead opted to followthe Critical Text, contrary to what it has

claimed. We have confirmed the NKJVsdepartures from the Textus Receptus in thefollowing passages: 2 Corinthians 3.14,2 John 7, Acts 19.9, Acts 19.39,Philippians 2.9, and Revelation 6.11. Wenow give four examples of this departure.

Acts 19.9

AV: disputing daily in the school of oneTyrannus.

NKJV: reasoning daily in the school ofTyrannus

The difference here is again in the Greektext followed. Both the Textus Receptus andthe Greek Patriarchal Text include the Greek

word tinoj (tinos) after the name Tyrannus,meaning literally, a certain Tyrannus. Even


28/36

38


the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text has thisreading. The Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Textomits tinos, and the New King Jamessimilarly omits the word one or certain.

Again, the New King James has departedfrom the Textus Receptus, instead followingthe Critical Text, without a word ofexplanation anywhere.

2 Corinthians 3.14

AV: But their minds were blinded: for untilthis day remaineth the same vail untaken

away in the reading of the old testament;which vailis done away in Christ.

NKJV: But their minds were blinded. Foruntil this day the same veil remains unliftedin the reading of the Old Testament,because the veilis taken away in Christ.

We have highlighted the word that the

New King James has changed from theTextus Receptus, which to because. Thedifference here is caused by the Greek word,which in some editions of the Greek is o( ti(ho ti) and others oti (hoti). The TextusReceptus in all editions reads the former;the Critical Text and the Greek PatriarchalText of the Greek Orthodox Church read thelatter. (The Patriarchal Text is likely the

reading of the majority of extant Greekmanuscripts. The Textus Receptus may befollowing a minority reading of the extantByzantine manuscripts here.)

Although the difference is a subtle one,we must ask ourselves: why has the NewKing James here departed from the TextusReceptus without documenting this in the

marginal notes? Why indeed has it departedfrom the Textus Receptus at all, given its

stated purpose was to follow it? Accordingto this purpose, these alternative readingsshould have been noted in the marginalnotes, with the reading of the Textus

Receptus in the actual text.

Philippians 2.9

AV: Wherefore God also hath highly exaltedhim, and given him a name which is aboveevery name

NKJV: Therefore God also has highly exalted

Him and given Him the name which isabove every name

Again, we have highlighted the word inquestion, a or the. The difference isbecause of the reading of the Greek textemployed. Textus Receptus and the GreekPatriarchal Text have onoma (onoma),name, whereas the Nestle-Aland/UBS

Critical Text has to onoma (to onoma), thename. Again, the New King James hasdeparted from the Textus Receptus with nonotation of the fact whatever.

Given that the Greek Patriarchal Textfollows the Textus Receptus here, it isprobable that a name is, in fact, themajority reading; yet the New King James

has here inexplicably opted to follow theCritical Text instead.

Revelation 6.11

AV: And white robes were given unto everyone of them

NKJV: Then a white robe was given to each

of them [1987 edition of the NKJV saysAnd instead of Then.]


29/36

39


Again, the difference here is in the Greektext employed. All editions of the TextusReceptus read white robes, whereas theGreek Patriarchal Text and the Nestle-

Aland/UBS Critical Text read a white robe.It is possible that the Textus Receptusemploys a minority Byzantine reading, butagain we must ask: why has the New KingJames departed from the Textus Receptuswithout a single notation of that fact?

The listing here given of departures fromthe Textus Receptus underlying the AV by

the New King James is by no meanscomprehensive. There may be many more.Some of the readings may be taken fromother editions of the Received Text, but thequestion arises, why?

In some instances, I found somedeviations from the Textus Receptus uponwhich the Authorised Version is based,

where the NKJV followed Stephanus 1550 orthe Critical Text instead. None of thedeviations mentioned in this article,however, are found in Stephanus. In each ofthese cases, the New King James deviatedfrom anyversion of the Textus Receptus.However, in the cases where the New KingJames varied from the Textus Receptusunderlying the Authorised Version, perhaps

to follow Stephanus, we must ask ourselves:why did they do this, when the NKJV wassupposed to be a mere language update ofthe Authorised Version? Why, then, did thetranslators not consistently follow theTextus Receptus basis of the AuthorisedVersion?

But, as we have seen above, the New King

James not only deviates from the TextusReceptus basis of the Authorised Version: it

deviates outright from anyedition of theTextus Receptus.

There are many othertranslational problems inthe New King James

There are many other translationalproblems in the New King James, but timeforbids our going further into them.Suffice to say that we recommend to thereader the excellent work on thismatter, Three Modern Versions byAlan J. MacGregor.30 Mr MacGregor inthirty pages very carefully scrutinises themany translational problems of the NewKing James Version.

Conclusion

The New King James Version originallypurported to be a modern language updateof the Authorised Version. However, in theend it has not proven to be this at all. InIsaiah 11.3, Zechariah 9.17, Luke 22.3132,Romans 5.15, Isaiah 53.9, Psalm 45.13, andmany other versesas also in itstransliteration of the word hades instead ofusing the word hellthe New King James

to the contrary demonstrates itself to be anew translation and sadly an inferior one atthat. The doctrinal truth and power of theoriginals, we submit, does not come throughthis translation.

Not only that, it also, with its marginalnotes and critical apparatus, has wronglycondemned the Textus Receptus and held

forth the modern versions of the Greek textto be supposedly better, when these texts to


30/36

A brief critical review of

the modern ByzantineMajority Text: why itsreadings should not be

footnoted in an Englishtranslation of the Scriptures

As we briefly noted in our last article, the

editors of both the Hodges-Farstad andPierpont-Robinson Majority Texts primarilyrelied upon the text critical apparatus ofvon Sodens Critical Text of 1913.31 HermanHoskier, a famous British textual critic,reviewed von Sodens Critical Text andpublished his findings in theJournal ofTheological Studies in 1914.32 In his articlein theJournal, Hoskier documented how the

von Soden Critical Text was honeycombedwith errors.

Two of the principal errors Hoskierfound in the von Soden text were: (1) a

failure to account for all the evidence,particularly of important Byzantinemanuscripts with which Hoskier wasfamiliar (and which von Soden claimed tohave collated), and (2) a failure to take anynote at all of the Byzantine lectionaries,that is, the readings of Scripture that wereto be read in the church services of theByzantine or Orthodox Churches. The

lectionary readings are important because,in the first place, they are the readingswhich the church felt were indeed theauthentic ones which should be read totheir flocks in their worship services.Secondly, the lectionaries comprise fullyone-fourth of the manuscript evidence wehave today. Thus, a version of the GreekNew Testament that ignores the lectionary

readings cannot claim to be the reading ofthe majority.

40


the contrary are greatly flawed. Indeed, insome instances, as we have seen, the NKJVfollows the Critical Text instead of theTextus Receptus.

In conclusion, we must say: MENE,MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN (Daniel 5.25).The New King James is weighed in thebalances and found wanting. We mustconclude that the old is better (Luke 5.39).The Authorised Version has been provenfaithful: it faithfully renders the doctrinalteachings of the originals. It is based upon

the Providentially preserved and authenticoriginal language texts.

Jeremiah 6.16 Thus saith the LORD,

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for theold paths, where is the good way, and walktherein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.

1 Thessalonians 5.21 Prove all things;hold fast that which is good.

May the Lord bless that which has beenwritten in conformity to His mind and Spirit.

Appendix


31/36

41


I myself undertook a brief critical reviewof some of the variants in the Majority TextGospels, using the von Soden Critical Text,the Textus Receptus, the Greek Patriarchal

Text (the official Byzantine version of theGreek Orthodox Church) and the UBSCritical Text with its textual apparatus. Mygoal was to find twenty errors in thesevariants, which I believed would constitute asignificantly high number. Starting inMatthew, by the time I reached the tenthchapter of John I had analysed sixty-twovariant readings from the Textus Receptus

and found twenty-two which proved to bein error. By comparing them with theirreadings and footnotes, I was able toconfirm that these twenty-two variants areactually errors in the von Soden text, whicherrors have also found their way into boththe Hodges-Farstad and Pierpont-RobinsonMajority Textsthus, the Majority Text waswrong in twenty-two of these sixty-two

variants, a very high percentage of errorindeed! In each error, the Majority Textagreed with the von Soden text.

In all cases, I found that the von Sodentext, and the Hodges-Farstad and Pierpont-Robinson Majority Texts with von Soden,had either failed to collate completely theByzantine evidence extant, or that they had

failed to note the lectionary evidence, orboth. The following two examples of suchneglect should give the reader a good ideaoverall of the kinds of errors which havenow wended their way from the von SodenCritical Text into both the Hodges-Farstadand Pierpont-Robinson Majority Texts.

Before we consider the errors, we would

have the reader consider indeed that eventhe omission of one word in the Word of

God is significant. In both the passagesbelow the words left out by the MajorityText are such as impact the meaning of theverse significantly.

Matthew 6.18

The standard editions of the AuthorisedVersion and the Textus Receptus read andthy Father, which seeth in secret, shallreward thee openly. The Hodges-Farstadand Pierpont-Robinson Majority Texts, withvon Soden, omit the word openly. They

thus read the text as and thy Father whosees in secret shall reward thee. Both theHodges-Farstad and the von Soden CriticalText indicate that, according to them, theoverwhelming majority of Byzantinemanuscripts omit openly. Indeed, theymake it appear that the Textus Receptusstands alone in its inclusion of the wordagainst all other Byzantine manuscripts.

However, the UBS Critical Text in itsapparatus shows that the Byzantinemanuscript evidence is actually divided:part include and part exclude. Moreover, theUBS Critical Text apparatus shows that thereis significant Byzantine lectionary supportfor the inclusion of the word openly; andindeed, the official lectionary of the Greek

Orthodox Church supports the inclusionof the word. As would be expected given theofficial lectionarys inclusion, the GreekPatriarchal Text, which is the official GreekNew Testament of the Orthodox Churches,also includes the word openly.

Although we by no means commend theGreek Orthodox Church as a church, given

its many idolatries and departures inworship from the Apostolic practice (as well


32/36

42


as departures in doctrine), we nonethelesscontend that the Greek Orthodox Church areindeed the masters of the eastern ByzantineGreek text of the New Testament and of the

Septuagint, these being their texts. TheOrthodox have maintained monasterieswhere manuscript copying was theirspeciality, going back to the ninth centuryAD. Particularly this was so in theirmonasteries on Mount Athos,33 wherethousands of Byzantine manuscripts werecopied. We contend that the Greeksthemselves, particularly their monks, are

peerless in the knowledge of their own text.Moreover, the Orthodox Byzantine text is astatic an

Examination of the NKJV

Documents

Transcript of Examination of the NKJV