 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Review of the New King James Version (NKJV) By Roger A. Scully, Jr. |
There is, as Solomon wrote by inspiration, no end to the books that men will write; and so it seems to be
with biblical translations. Perhaps there is not a more accurate translation than the American Standard
Version (ASV) of 1901, yet this translation often followed awkward sentence structures and was based upon a
questionable text (Westcott and Hort). As a result we find many words, phrases, and sentences totally omitted
from the translation, even passages of great importance such as Acts 8:37, where the confession of the
Ethiopian Nobleman is recorded. Other translations, commonly called “modern translations,” have absolutely
erred in the translation process, the result being unreliable “Bibles” such as the New International Version
(NIV), the New American Standard Version (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV). One example of
their faulty translation, which is common to all three just cited, is their translation of Romans 10:10, where they
translated the Greek preposition eis, unto, as a present tense verb “is,” which, it must be admitted, shows an
absolute disregard for the seriousness of the translation process, and a lack of concern for accuracy. The
update of the NASB translates the preposition to the word “resulting,” hence making the passage say that
confession results in salvation. As a result the “old reliable” King James Version (KJV), translated in 1611 and
updated several times sense, has stood the test of time and has proven itself as the most reliable of them all.
- Now, however, we call attention to another translation, that may be styled as “modern,” which we are
convinced is at least worthy of consideration. As the title suggests we speak of the New King James Version
(NKJV), which was 1st translated, edited, and released in 1982. Yet, before we begin an examination of this
work, let us set forth some principles of preliminary concern, which we must ever keep before us.
In the first, a good accurate translation is not determined by making a comparison to another translation.
We mean: the NIV does not have faults because it is not translated like the KJV. It has faults because it did
not, in many cases, accurately translate the original into an equivocal English diction. You see: the KJV is not
the standard; the original is. So why has the NIV erred? Because the NIV did not properly equivocate the
original; not because it did not follow the translation of the KJV. We say this, yet some to the contrary
notwithstanding; for I have heard many men, most of whom should know better, offer a refutation of the NIV by
simply comparing it to the KJV, which proves very little. Now, it is good to compare, once the original has been
consulted, but a comparison on its own does not make something right or wrong, because a translation is not
the standard.
In the second, a translation should not be rejected on the merits of it being new. Remember, at some
point the KJV was “new.” However, Bible students did not reject it because it was “new,” but began to use it in
place of the others because it was a superior translation.
Finally, in the third, all translations, of which I am aware, contain mistakes and inaccuracies—even the
KJV (which contains many more mistakes and inaccuracies than most people would like to admit). Now, then,
let us begin to examine the NKJV beginning with the preface.
NKJV Preface
The first thing that caught my attention from the preface, under the heading purpose, was this statement:
“…the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation…” which means,
they did not seek something original or something different just to be different. This, I believe, shows the
sincerity of the translation committee of this work.
Next, in the preface, under the heading style, the translators stated, “…It is also universally understood
that our language, like all living languages, has undergone profound change since 1611.” This is something
that we must not ignore, for words that were common then, are not now. Ideas that were common then, are
not now, and vise versa. One instance of this is the ancient English pronouns thee, thou, and ye. While, on
the one hand, it has been stated that these are terms of respect that should be continually used in the Bible,
it must be admitted, on the other hand, that these terms are commonly unknown nor used and often cause
confusion in today’s English diction. Have we not heard men leading prayers in the assembly, who feel
compelled, because of the pressure of brethren, to use, in their prayers, these pronouns, and, as a result,
use them improperly? Indeed, we have. Yet, the argument remains to be offered that these pronouns are
terms of respect when making reference to God. They are? By what standard? We cannot say by the
standard of the Bible for (1) in the original there is no distinction made in a pronoun when referencing another
man or in referencing God, and (2) the pronouns thee, thou, and ye are used in reference to God and man in
the KJV. These have been changed in the NKJV to the simple you, your and yours “as applicable.” The
removal of these pronouns cannot be used as an argument against the NKJV, for the use of them is simply a
matter of preference. A person can use them and still not have proper respect for God, as is often the case.
However, now in the NKJV, reverence is still shown by the capitalization of you, your and yours when
referencing God—this also helps the reader make a clear distinction between divine and human persons
referred to in passages.
The NKJV translators also state that they “followed” the “thought flow of the 1611 Bible.” Why is this
important? Because, as they go on to state, “the reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words,
phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is
remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following with the other.” So, should a
person decide to use one or the other there is still a uniform basis followed, which removes confusion, as is
often the case when the ASV 1901 is used.
All of these things we have thus far examined pale in comparison to this next statement of the preface,
which, gets to the heart of the matter: “Differences among the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament such
as omission or inclusion of a word or a clause, and two paragraphs in the Gospels, should not overshadow
the overwhelming degree of agreement which exists among the ancient records. Bible readers may be
assured that the most important differences in the English New Testaments of today are due, not to
manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation…the NKJV follows the
historic precedent of the Authorized Version (KJV—R.S.) in maintaining a literal approach to translation,
except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue.” It seems that
these men really understand the translation process, unlike those of the other modern translations. This
statement shows the respect these men have for the text and the job in which they were engaged. It shows,
too, that they were concerned about accuracy. This principle has been ignored by most all other translations,
even the ASV.
For years men of repute have been eager to abandon the traditional KJV and adapt more modern
versions due to the thought that the Westcott and Hort text was a more reliable one. This has caused
translators to omit such passages as Mark 16:9-20, and Acts 8:37. These passages are omitted with a
footnote that states: “The most reliable manuscripts omit these paragraphs.” However, as stated in the
preface of the NKJV this has been proven not to be the case: “Since the later nineteenth century the theory
has been held by some scholars that the traditional text of the New Testament, as used in the King James
Version, had been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recent studies have caused significant
changes in this view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the received Text (the Textus Receptus,
that from which the KJV and NKJV have been translated—R.S.) as far more reliable than previously thought.”
The preface goes on, “In light of these developments, the New King James New Testament has been based
on the Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the
1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version.” This again shows the respect of the translators for
accuracy, for they have used a text that can be trusted. This should be, to the honest student of the Bible,
one of the foremost concerns in the translation process.
So what have we learned from the preface of the NKJV? We have learned that the translators were not
interested in an “innovation;” that they were aware of the changing style of the English language which
warrants such an effort as that which they have put forth; that they have followed the “thought of flow” of the
1611 which removes confusion in public settings; and, above all, we have learned that they have a sincere
motive, or at least appear to have by that which they have written in their preface. Now, let us move to an
examination of objections to the NKJV.
Objections
One thing that I quickly noticed as I sought the writings of men who oppose the use of the NKJV is that
they have failed in recognizing the principles that we have before established; chiefly the first rule, which
states: a translation’s worth cannot be determined by a comparison to another translation. Thus, my only
option in finding fault with the translation was to read every passage, looking for questionable renderings,
then looking to the original for a comparison, which took, as you could imagine, quite some time. I also
examined every passage that was brought into question by those who oppose the work. Because this was an
overwhelming task I cannot say, with confidence, that I have carefully examined every passage that may be
questionable, but I have, to my own satisfaction, examined everyone, which significantly differed from that
which I was used to reading in the KJV, ASV and Living Oracles, as well as everyone to which objection has
been made by others. My objectionable findings were few. In fact, there was only one that I feel compelled to
mention—Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 where the word porneia, translated as “fornication” in the
Authorized Version has been translated “sexual immorality” in the NKJV.
The original Greek word, porneia, is a feminine noun, which literally means: “illicit sexual intercourse.”
Now, then, our job, in determining if this is an acceptable translation is to define the terms of the translation
and compare to the original. Remember, we are not asking if there could be a better translation of the term,
but if the rendering is acceptable as equivalent. “Sexual immorality” is obviously a phrase consisting of two
parts—sexual and immorality. Sexual is defined as that which relates to or is associated with sex. Immorality is
defined as behavior that is opposed to that which is right, thus wrong behavior. Thus making the meaning of
“sexual immorality” the wrong behavior as relating to sex. Since the context of the two passages under
consideration reveals that Jesus is speaking of a married couple, the meaning of the term would by deduced
to mean adultery. This translation would have to be concluded as an acceptable one, because it has, in
essence, equivocated the meaning of the original. However, I must admit, I find fornication to be a better
translation, yet, this does not mean that “sexual immorality” is either bad or wrong. It should also be noted that
in the margin of the NKJV there is a footnote stating that “fornication” is an acceptable meaning of the original.
It may be asked, “Since you admit that fornication is a better translation than sexual immorality, why
would you recommend the translation as a whole?” The answer is actually quite simple. While it is true that
this verse could have been translated better, it does not make it a wrong translation. Also, there are many
other excellent translations in this work, which, when considered as a whole, make it one of the best
translations available in the English language. Further, there are many translations in the KJV, which are not
translated as best they could be (see Ac 2:47) yet it is, as a whole, one of the best English translations to
ever exist.
In the final portion of this essay, I wish to notice the translation itself, which will show this work to be one
of the best in circulation today.
The Translation
As we begin this section of the essay I wish to first say that I hold the KJV in the highest regard, and
would recommend it to any student of the Bible. However many words and phrases of the KJV have
completely changed in meaning. This is not to say that they cannot be understood, or that the translation is
now obsolete, but only that there is a modern alternative, which has captured accuracy in translation. I will
here only cite a few cases of this, and make comparison to the NKJV, not to show the translation to be good
or bad, but rather to show that some words are simply not used today, or have changed in meaning, and have
been translated in a manner which is easier to understand in the NKJV.
I start with the word “conversation.” The word is defined in today’s dictionary as an oral exchange. The
word conversation appears 18 times in the KJV New Testament translated from the Greek word anastrophe,
which literally means, “manner of life, or conduct.” In the NKJV we find the same word, anastrophe, translated
literally as “conduct” (cf. 2 Cor 1:12; Gal 1:13; Eph 2:3; 4:22; Phil 1:27, etc.), thus showing this to be easier to
understand, and more accurate in today’s English diction, thus superior in translation.
The next word to which I call attention is the word “list,” which appears twice in the KJV New Testament. It
is defined in today’s dictionary as a series of words or numbers, a roster. The word is translated from the
Greek word boulomai, which literally means to have a purpose or desire, one’s will. The NKJV has translated
the word, in John 3:8 and James 3:4 as “desire,” which, again, is more literal and easier to understand.
I now wish to refer to specific passages. As I have been considering the translation, and looking over the
passages I have marked, it has become evident that to engage in a listing would be absolutely overwhelming.
Thus, it has been decided to only list a few of those which have been marked. They are as follows:
Genesis 15:5. In the KJV rendering it is stated that God told Abraham to “tell the stars.” As I was
examining this passage I was pleasantly interrupted by a visitor whom I asked, “What if I were to ask you to tell
the stars, what would you do?” My guest answered, “Tell them what?” To which I responded by saying,
“Exactly.” You see, the word “tell” is defined in our modern dictionaries as giving a narration. However, the
original word from which it is translated in this passage is the word saphar, which literally means to number,
thus the NKJV has translated the verse as: “count the stars,” which we must admit is an extremely accurate,
superior translation.
Next, attention is here called to Exodus 28:8, where Moses wrote of the “curious girdle.” The word
“curious” is defined, as per Webster, as a desire to investigate, and such is the common usage of the word.
Now, the original word, from which curious has been translated, is the Hebrew word chesheb, meaning:
detailed woven work. The NKJV has rendered the passage “intricately woven,” thus making it preferable.
Thirdly, let us note 1 Samuel 8:13 wherein the warning is given that if Israel takes a king he will take their
daughters “to be confectionaries.” I again, while investigating this passage had a visitor, whom I asked, “What
is a confectionary?” My guest, a serious student of the Bible, responded by saying, “Is it something to do with
the Catholic Church?” Webster defines the word as being archaic in use. The Hebrew word is raggachah,
which means a perfume maker. Do you wonder as to how the NKJV has rendered the passage? Well, it has
rendered the passage, “to be perfumers.” Now, allow me to ask, which is easier to understand? The honest
person would most certainly have to affirm the NKJV.
Now, let us move to the New Testament. We start with the 16th of Matthew, verse 18, where the record
states Jesus said, “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The word “hell” is
translated from the word Hades, which literally means the grave, or death, and such was the common usage
of the word during the days of the Master. Because of the KJV translation of the passage I have heard many
gospel preachers, those who have the highest reputation among us, explain this passage as meaning that the
“Devil and his angels could not defeat the church.” Though that which they say is a truthful extrapolation, the
explanation fails, for Jesus was explaining that His death would not prevent the establishment of the church,
such as the context bears, “from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to
Jerusalem…and be killed.” We must learn to appreciate the NKJV which strives to make a distinction between
hell, Gehenna, and hell, Hades. In this passage the distinction is clearly shown as Hades is transliterated.
The second New Testament passage to which we call attention is one that has caused similar problems
in explanation as that which was just cited. The passage is John 20:17, where the KJV has Jesus telling Marry
“touch me not.” Bro Guy Woods has explained this as meaning that Jesus was telling Marry she was not
seeing a ghost and there was no need for her to touch him; yet the Greek word from which this is translated is
the word haptomai meaning, “to cling to.” The word is used, in the original, with the negating me, thus causing
the meaning to be: do not cling to me. And how has the NKJV translated the passage? “Do not cling to me…”
The third to which I call your attention is a passage about which I had a heated discussion with a well-
meaning brother. The passage is Acts 2:47, which has been translated by the KJV as: “And the Lord added to
the church daily such as should be saved.” Though some have loudly suggested, without proof, that the KJV
has no Calvinistic connection, this is not true. Here a Calvinistic idea is being portrayed, that of
predetermination. “Such as should be saved” speaks of those being saved because they are supposed to be
saved, or have been predetermined to be saved. The brother with whom I had the discussion thought the
meaning of the passage to be that people should be saved everyday, and that if we were not baptizing people
everyday then we were sinning. It took me several hours to convince him that the true meaning of the
passage, as per the original, sozo, was that at the very moment one was being saved he was being added to
the church, thus the literal idea is, “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved;” and
such is the NKJV rendering of the passage.
Next, I call notice to 1 Corinthians 1:21. Herein it is recorded that God chose for the “foolishness of
preaching to save them that believe.” In Greek there are several different words that can be translated as
preach, each placing emphasis on different aspects of the idea. The primary word is keruso, which simply
means to stand and orate, or proclaim. This is the word used in verse 17, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but
to preach.” The word used in verse 21 is the word kerugma, which means to proclaim a particular message,
the emphasis being on that which is proclaimed, instead of simply the act of proclaiming. The NKJV has
translated the passage: “the foolishness of the message preached,” which is as accurate as it can possibly be.
We also need to consider the recorded account where Jesus was approached by the Sadducees and
asked the question concerning the resurrection and the woman who had the seven brothers (Matt 22:23-33).
The KJV records the Sadducees saying, in verse 25, “when he had married a wife deceased, having no
issue.” “Issue” is defined as that which proceeds from a source; hence we can understand how this is
translated as such in this passage. However, today we often use the term as having a conflict with another
person. The NKJV translates the word sperma as “offspring” thus clarifying the meaning of the passage.
Another account is that of 1 Peter 3:15 where the KJV says, “be ready always to give an answer.” The
Greek work is apologia, which literally means a defense, as is translated in the NKJV.
The last account to which attention will here be called is Ephesians 5:18, which, to me, is one of the most
important of the list. The KJV translation reads, “And be not drunk with wine wherein is excess.” Every gospel
preacher is quite aware of the problems which are caused by this rendering. People have attempted to say
that they can drink alcohol, as long as they do not drink it in an excessive amount. And, with the word “excess”
meaning just that, who can argue? Hence, we often find ourselves arguing with the translation. Well, the
actual word is asotia, meaning: dissolute life, or a life lacking restraint. Thus, the true meaning of the passage
is: Do not begin to get drunk with wine, because in this is a state of lack of self-control. The NKJV translation
is most preferable, “Do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation.”
Though more could be said as pertaining to the superiority of the NKJV, I feel that this is much more than
enough. Our goal is not to cause people to abandon the Authorized Version, but to introduce a translation,
which is accurate and perhaps easier to understand. Our biggest concern ought always to be accurateness,
and this is found in the NKJV.
| Street Address: 1019 Clothilde St., Morgan City, LA 70380 Mailing Address: PO Box 1756, Morgan City, LA 70381 Phone: (985) 384-3489 |