The New King James Version Is Dangerous

Brief History of the New King James Bible

In 1975 Dr. Arthur Leonard Farstad, a Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, assembled a group of 119 biblical scholars, theologians, and clergy for the task of producing a modern English version of the King James Version. He served as General Editor. The New Testament was published in 1979, the Psalms a year later, and the complete New King James Version (NKJV) in 1983.

BEWARE! The New King James Bible is a dangerous Bible!

The Deceptive Advertising

The Back Cover of the June 1979 issue of Moody Monthly said, “The New King James Bible isn’t a new translation. It isn’t another version. It is a carefully researched new edition of the King James in which some of the words, punctuations, and grammar have been changed to make it more accurate and easy to read.”

The ad goes on to say, “It restores and protects the originally intended beauty, authority, and meaning of every verse. It makes the King James even better.” (David W. Daniels, The New King James: The Bridge Bible; p.29)

Three years later, in June of 1982 the Moody Monthly ad contradicts the previous ad. In this ad it is called a version – “The World’s Best Seller (referring to the King James Bible) BORN AGAIN August 2nd: the New King James Version. The most significant publishing event since 1611.”

It also says, “The NEW King James Version faithfully preserves the beauty, inspiration and authority of God’s Word.”

Note the word inspiration! As David Daniels says “Say that the New King James faithfully preserves the inspiration of God’s word, and nobody bats an eye. Say that about the King James Bible, and everyone loses their minds.”

Next, we come to the November 1982 Moody Monthly, on page 128 it claimed very clearly: “The New King James Version is a scholarly revision which preserves the lyric beauty, authority, and originally intended meaning of the 1611 King James Version.

These are false claims! The New King James Bible is not merely a revision of the King James Bible it – IS a New Version and a New Translation. I believe the King James Bible is God’s preserved word(s) for English speaking people. Every word in the King James Bible was gone over at least 14 times or more by 47 scholars who believed in the inspiration and preservation of God’s Word(s). Some of the scholars who worked on the NKJV did NOT believe that.

Exposing The Falsehoods

NKJV Old Testament Basis

What is the textual basis of the New King James Old Testament? The New King James Version Preface says, "for the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblica Hebraica (based on the Leningrad Codex) with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate were consulted. In addition to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version also draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves."

Here is one example. We will consider others later.

Psalm 10:5 KJV His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.

Psalm 10:5 NKJV His ways are always prospering; Your judgments are far above, out of his sight; As for all his enemies, he sneers at them.

The translators DID NOT stick with the Bomberg Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible!

NKJV New Testament Basis

The General Editor, Arthur Farstad wrote in the preface of the New King James Version, "Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favour the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. For about a century most have followed a Critical Text (so called because it is edited according to specific principles of textual criticism) which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text. More recently many have abandoned this Critical Text (which is quite similar to the one edited by Westcott and Hort) for one that is more eclectic. Finally, a small but growing number of scholars prefer the Majority Text, which is close to the traditional text except in the Revelation."

He goes on to say – “Because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes.”

The damage is done. Clearly, Dr. Farstad deprecates and calls doubt on the Textus Receptus. New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux, he tells us; the old is no longer good, he implies. Very few scholars still favor that old-fashioned Textus Receptus, which was once universally recognized by the Church as the providentially preserved and pure text of all ages, and which once held universal sway as the Byzantine text for 1,400 years, the last nearly five hundred years as the printed Textus Receptus.

In fact, the translators did NOT stick with the Textus Receptus! The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed 64,000 to 100,ooo words, damaged valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead inserted the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV that are based on the Critical Text, which is a revision of Westcott and Hort’s perverse text.

As I stated earlier, “I believe the King James Bible is God’s preserved word(s) for English speaking people.” That is not the stand of the translators of the New King James Bible. Here is one example. A friend of mine, David Cloud, wrote to the executive editor of the Old Testament, Dr. James Price and asked him where he stood on the Received Text. He told Brother Cloud that he supports the modern Critical text and not the Received Text – “I am not a TR advocate. I happen to believe that God has preserved the autographic text in the whole body of evidence that He has preserved, not merely through the textual decisions of a committee of fallible men based on a handful of late manuscripts. The modern critical texts like NA26/27 [Nestles] and UBS [United Bible Societies] provide a list of the variations that have entered the manuscript traditions, and they provide the evidence that supports the different variants. In the apparatus they have left nothing out, the evidence is there. The apparatus indicates where possible additions, omissions, and alterations have occurred. … I am not at war with the conservative modern versions [such as the New International Version and the New American Standard Version]” (James Price, e-mail to David Cloud, April 30, 1996).

It is obvious that Dr. Price holds the standard eclectic text position that was popularized by Westcott and Hort in the late 1800s and that he is committed to modern textual criticism. By his own testimony, he has no love for or commitment to the Received Text. He flippantly casts aside this historic, revival-producing text in favor of one that is based only on a handful of manuscripts of dubious authority (i.e., Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a few others) that were disused by Bible-believing churches for at least 1,500 years. Further, Dr. Price has accepted the myths that are promoted by textual criticism, such as the idea that the Received Text is supported only by a few late manuscripts. Further, Dr. Price supports the corrupt New International Version, which not only is based on the wrong Greek text but also incorporates the undependable dynamic equivalence/functional equivalence method of translation. Rather than seeking to translate as close to word for word translation, dynamic equivalence attempts to translate “thought for thought.” This method prioritizes readability rather than literal accuracy to the original text. It also allows the translators great latitude in adding their “spin” on the text.

There is a BIG problem with this method of translating! The Lord Jesus Christ IS concerned about WORDS. He says, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD [my emphasis] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” Matthew 4:4 quoting Deuteronomy 8:3. The King James Bible follows formal equivalence in translation and works to translate the text as closely as possible word for word. Nouns are translated as nouns, verbs as verbs, etc. The benefit of staying with the formal equivalent translation of the King James Bible the original Hebrew and Greek is closely adhered to and the opinions and interpretations of the intermediaries are filtered out.

Is Dr. Price the only one who holds the critical text view and dynamic equivalence view? NO!

Dr. Elmer A. Martens helped translate the New American Standard Bible (NAS B), the NKJV and then worked on the New Living Translation (NLT).

Zane Hodges who produced the Hodge-Farstad Majority Text which differs from the TR almost 1900 times, of which many of these are significant, worked on the NKJV and was on the committee for the Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

Dr. Barry J. Beitzel helped translate the Old Testament NKJV and went on to do the same for the New Living Translation (NLT).

Dr. Eugene H. Merrill helped translate the NKJV and was on the committee for both the New Living Translation (NLT) and Christian Standard Bible (CSB).

Dr. Allan P. Ross whose work includes the NKJV, New Living Translation (NLT) and the ESV (English Standard Version).

Dr. Gary V. Smith whose work includes NKJV, New Living Translation (NLT) and Christian Standard Version (CSV).

Dr. Willem A. VanDemeren NKJV, NLT & ESV

Dr Harvey E. Finley was a translator of the New American Standard Version.

Dr. Edward M. Blaiklock was a translator of the NIV.

Dr. Lewis A. Foster was an NIV translator

Dr. Lewis Goldberg was on the NIV translation committee.

Dr. Meredith G. Kline was a translator of the NIV.

There is a good reason that many of the readings of the NKJV don’t match the King James Bible, but read similar to the readings in the NAS, and NIV.

Focusing On Some Of The Problems Of The NKJV

The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed 64,000 to 100,ooo words, damaged valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead inserted the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV that are based on the Critical Text, which is a revision of Westcott and Hort’s perverse text. I KNOW I said this earlier, but it DOES bear repeating.

The NKJV deletes the important distinction between the second person pronouns singular and plural – thee, thou, thy, thine, & thyself vs. ye, you, your, & yourself. The singular pronouns start with T. The plural pronouns start with a Y. The thee’s and you’s distinguish who is present for the context. When all the thee’s are changed to you’s the reader is not able to understand if it is speaking to one or many people, making the context confusing. I should note the KJV is following the structure of the underlying Hebrew and Greek languages. When those languages use a singular a “T” pronoun is used. When those languages use a plural a “Y” pronoun is used!

EXAMPLE – JOHN 3:7

KJV “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

NKJV “Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'”

In the KJV, the English reader can discern that both a singular and a plural Greek pronoun are used in this verse. Jesus was saying, “Marvel not that I said unto thee [singular, referring to Nicodemus], Ye [plural, referring to all of the nation Israel and all people in general] must be born again.”

The NKJV deletes important word endings -est and -eth.

The ending est is second person singular indicating the one spoken to. Example: When Jesus says in Luke 23:3, “Thou (singular) sayest it” He was speaking to Pilate in the Second Person Present tense.

The eth ending is third person singular, indicating the one spoken about. Example: In John 1:15, John the Baptist is speaking about Jesus. “He that cometh after me is preferred before me:”

The NKJV Follows the Septuagint Instead of the Bomberg Hebrew

Psalms 4:4 KJV “Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.”

Psalm 4:4 NKJV “Be angry, and do not sin. Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still. Selah (It follows the Latin Vulgate as well. The ESV also follows the LXX).

1 Chronicles 25:3 KJV “Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD.”

1 Chronicles 25:3 NKJV “Of Jeduthun, the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, Zeri, Jeshaiah, Shimei, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the direction of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp to give thanks and to praise the Lord.”

Other Erroneous Readings That Do Not Follow The Bomberg Hebrew

Deuteronomy 27:26 KJV “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.”

Deuteronomy 27:26 NKJV “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the word of this law. [to do them is removed]. And all the people shall say, Amen!” The words are in the Hebrew. The New King James Version removes the proper sense of the verse.

1 Kings 14:24 KJV “And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.”

1 Kings 14:24 NKJV “And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD did cast out before the children of Israel.” NOTE: The NKJV changes sodomites to perverted persons in 1 Kings 15:12; 22:46 & 2 Kings 23:7. In Deuteronomy 23:17 it changes sodomite to perverted one.

There are many other Old Testament examples. I have pointed out just a few.

Erroneous Readings That Do Not Follow The TR

The Textus Receptus is ignored over 1200 times in the New Testament. I will point out just a few.

1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but unto us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

There are TWO BIG DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS in the NKJV rendition of this verse.

First – The Greek word underlying the word preach means to utter by the living voice, a speaking of the message! Romans 10:17 declares “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Back in verse 14 it asks “how shall they hear without a preacher?” 1 Corinthians 1:18 “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” My point is this: it is by the PREACHING of the message of the Cross that people get saved.

Second – We are either saved or unsaved. There is NO in between. A person is either saved or condemned (John 3:16-18 & 36). The word saved in the King James Bible is exactly the proper word. It is a translation for the Greek word that is a present passive participle which refers to an action or event that is already completed! It is something that is DONE, not something that continues to go on. The New King James Bible changes the meaning of salvation to fit the false religions that teach salvation is a process!

The Problem With The Footnotes

The editors of the NKJV claim they are honoring the Received Text with their New King James Bible, but they have given credibility to the corrupted UBS text by placing its doubt-producing readings in the footnotes of their version. When you see a footnote marked NU that stands for Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society corrupt Greek Text. The M stands for the Greek Majority Text by Hodge-Farstad. The notes make you question the King James Bible!

45 ENTIRE VERSES ARE QUESTIONED IN THE FOOTNOTES OF THE NKJV – Based on NKJB 1984 edition.

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:4; 23:14; 24:6
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 19:9-20
Luke 17:36; 22:43; 22:44; 23:17
John 5:4; 7:53--8:11
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7, 8

PORTIONS OF 95 OTHER VERSES ARE QUESTIONED IN THE FOOTNOTES OF THE NKJV (I can provide a list upon request).

The Devil wants to get you to do the same thing he got Eve to do – QUESTION WHAT GOD SAID “…Yea, hath God said?” Genesis 3:1. He will do anything to get English speaking people away from the King James Bible, which is God’s preserved word in English. The changes and footnotes in the New King James Bible are intended to do just that! It is a Bridge Bible!

My personal friend Dr. Kirk DiVietro testified to me that the Thomas Nelson representative plainly stated that their goal with the NKJV was to create a bridge to the modern versions, to break down the resistance of those who still revere the KJV.

That is why I have entitled this booklet –

The New King James Version Is Dangerous!

“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Galatians 5:9

Resources

Malcolm H. Watts; The New King James Version: A Critique.
David W. Daniels; The Path from Faith to Doubt – New King James: The Bridge Bible
David Cloud; What About The New King James Version?
Gary F. Zeolla; NKJV Translators
New King James Bible; 1983 & 1984

TheBibleStands