The "New King James Bible" of 1979 is promoted as an "updated" King James Version (1611 A.D.). Its revisions are said to be no more than those which occurred m 1613 A.D., when the 1611 A.D. work underwent a few minor grammatical and spelling changes. Thus the "New King James Bible" (henceforth designated "N. K.J. B.") is to all extents and purposes the old King James Version (A.V.), with its archaic (obsolete English) words changed into modern English along with the absence of all Elizabethan pronouns and verb endings.

Because the A.V. has been uniquely blessed of God for well over 350 years, and because the last 100 years has seen the rise of many "perversions," it is wise for God's people to be hesitant in their acceptance of any new translation. Nevertheless, our acceptance or rejection of anything ought not to lie with inbred reactionary or progressive motives, but with careful and prayerful study of the facts in the light of Scripture itself.

This article is the result of such a study. Its point of view is from the heart of one who loves the Word of God, esteems it to be far above all the counsels of men, and values it more than any other worldly possession. Its confidence lies in an Almighty God, Who is abundantly able to preserve His written Word beyond the passing of heaven and earth.

The writer freely confesses he neither owns nor uses a copy of the N.K.J.B. For the purposes of settling the issue in his heart and mind, borrowed copies have been used, and these have not been fully read through merely perused and compared with the Bible long accepted as the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God, namely the A.V.

The conclusion reached is that the N.K.J.V. is more than mere "realignment to a transitory language" (i.e. English), but that it is in many places quite different to the A.V., not a few times significantly so. This leads the reader to three distinct possibilities:

1. The N.K.J.V. is the Word of God --- the corollary being that for 368 years we never quite had the Word of God.

2. The Word of God was preserved only m the Massoretic Hebrew text and the Greek Textus Receptus, the A.V. and the N.K.J.B. being versions of these in English --- meaning that only those competent in Hebrew and Greek can be certain of having the Word of God.

3. The A.V. is the Word of God providentially preserved in the English language --- and the N.K.J.B. only "contains" the Word of God, but is NOT the Word of God.

In his promotional remarks for the N.K.J.B. found on the jacket of the New Testament edition, a prominent fundamentalist, Dr. Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, Virginia, U.S.A. has this to say:

"This new edition preserves all of the truth and authority of the original, but makes it much easier to read and understand. It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars."

It can only be assumed that this great man, although participating in the North American Overview Committee concerned with the production of the N.K.J.B., has never actually read the very book he is promoting, for his statement is false! The N.K.J.B. does not protect every thought, idea and word of the A.V., but in many places changes these things far beyond its stated aim of simply updating it.

The N.K.J.B. is not the Word of God. From a purely human standpoint, it obviously stands head and shoulders above the rest of the works of men which claim to be Bibles, in that it is based upon the Textus Receptus (N.T.) and is translated by men who have expressed their belief in the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, it has many shortfalls, and these are outlined as follows:

The Introduction to the New Testament edition of the N.K.J.B. appears to extol the A.V. with heart-warming sentiment. With phrases such as, "still deeply revered," "majesty of the form," "beauty of language," "stately and reverent cadence," one could be excused for believing the Committees involved were ardent lovers of the A.V.

Riveted between such statements are the "tell-tale" signs that such love for the A.V. does not extend to a belief in its pre-eminence. In the same Introduction, we also read things like, "The publishers have felt obliged to follow the method of the original translators to produce a revised English edition which will unlock the spiritual treasures found uniquely in the King James Version," and, "All participating scholars have signed a document of subscription to the plenary and verbal inspiration of the ORIGINAL autographs of the Bible."

These are the words of those who feel the A.V. needs correcting not updating! You can believe what you like about the ORIGINAL manuscripts because they don't exist, and never will.

This is the bottom line of the whole issue at hand. Did God preserve His Word in the original languages, or, for all English speaking peoples, in the A.V.? It makes a difference! How often do we hear or read things like: "That's what the Bible says . . . but, in the Greek it really means....", or, "a better translation would be...."?

We need to face up to some very relevant questions here.

a. Is God's Word for all men or just for the scholars?

b. Do we need to know Hebrew & Greek to fully understand the Bible? If so, how come they are difficult languages to master? Is God out to make life difficult?

c. If we need to rely upon the best Hebrew and Greek scholars, does this not set up two classes of Christians?

d. Does the average "3 year of Bible College" Baptist preacher have the right to correct the Bible on the basis of the Greek text or on what he may have read?

e. If some verses in the Bible are questionable, can we really be sure of any?

f. If we correct any (non-doctrinal) verse on any basis, are we then blatantly inconsistent for impugning the modernists when they correct doctrinal verses on the same basis?

g. If we correct, criticize, or question one verse of the Bible, what are we m effect saying to baby Christians who just got saved through the same Book?

h. Can we not expect the same result when we read from another "Bible" that says differently, or in some cases the exact opposite?

Only those who believe the Mr. Average has never enjoyed the pure Word of God could say they feel obliged to "unlock the treasures" of the A.V.

Although the N.K.J.B. is based upon the same texts as is the A.V., it is equally apparent its translators showed some deference to the Critical Text, upon which all other perversions are based.

(One of the foundational arguments for the A.V. being the preserved Word of God is its textual basis. The modern perversions such as the R.V., R.S.V., A.S.V., N.A.S.V., N.I.V., T.E.V. etc., are all based upon the corrupt Westcott & Hort Critical Text derived from the Vaticanus (B) and Siniaticus (Aleph) manuscripts.)

Three facts are offered as proof:

a. In the Introduction to the New Testament of the N.K.J.B., when discussing the two textual families, the following statement is made. "Although there are not massive differences between the two textual foundations of the New Testament, the net effect of the Westcott-Hort type of text is to delete many words, phrases, and verses that are found in the Authorized Version. "

Not massive differences!! The very first correction of the A.V. based upon the corrupt text (R.V. 1881) contained 36,000 changes!

b. An edition of the N.K.J.B. (whole Bible, 1982) contained a vast amount of footnotes, many of which serve to correct the text of the N.K.J.B.! Most disturbing is the constant referral to the Critical Text (Nestle Uland--abbreviated NU) in the footnotes to the New Testament. In the 4 Gospels alone, the footnotes cite 150 variant readings and 190 omissions from the NU text, along with 60 variant readings and 40 omissions from other texts. One can only wonder at what such footnotes will do to a Christian's confidence in the Word of God.

c. A footnote in the N.K.J.B. rendering of I John 5:7 casts some doubt on the authority of the verse. This is a standard trinitarian verse which is naturally missing from all corrupt Greek texts and modernistic perversions passed off as Bibles.

No one denies the A.V. does contain some archaic words, albeit no more than a dozen. These words need to be explained, and that's part of God's purpose in teaching and preaching His Word. In most cases, the context alone is sufficient to give the reader the meaning if not, a good dictionary is all that is required.

But why "throw out the dishes with the dishwater?" The N.K.J.B. makes the same error here as do the other translations. Everyone seems to want to use the "archaic words" problem as an excuse for wholesale correction (viz. T.E.V.). Surely an edition of the A. V. with a marginal note is the best answer.

Since one of the stated aims of the N.K.J.B. is to overcome this "problem," we would expect it to be consistent m doing so. Not so!

a. In Daniel chapter 3, the N.K.J.B. uses the everyday word "strap" to replace the archaic "governor" of the A.V.

b. In the parable of Luke 19: 11-27, the word "mines" replaces "pounds" in the N.K.J.B.

c. A number of unfamiliar words are found through out the N.K.J.B. For example:

i. "Hades" for "Hell" in Luke 16:23; Rev. 20:13,14 etc.
ii. "Antitype" for "figure" in I Pet. 1:21.

Remember the words of the well known fundamentalist who has assured us that "every word is protected. " Check the following:

"Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him." (A.V.)

"Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him." (N.K.J.B.)

Worshiping and kneeling are two very different words. Worshiping is directed toward God and is an attitude of the heart. Kneeling is an attitude of the body, and can be directed toward anyone. (You don't have to kneel to worship!) Even the Greek says "worship" is the correct word.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil" (A.V.)

"Abstain from every form of evil" (N.K.J.B.)

The N.K.J.B. is weaker on separation here, because the word "appearance" includes things which look wrong as well as are wrong -- whereas the word "form" tends to mean only those things which are wrong.

In this case, many examples could be given. Some are set out below:

The N.K.J.B. alters the familiar, "Study to show thyself approved unto God" to, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God."

Since when has "study" and "diligence" meant the same? Imagine advising our College students to go home and be diligent!

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God" (A.V.)

"For we are not, as so many, peddling the Word of God" (N.K.J.B.)

Corrupt means to make impure; peddle means to sell. No dictionary says otherwise. English hasn't changed that much!!

"Confess your faults one to another" (A.V.)

"Confess your trespasses to one another" (N.K.J.B.)

Here the N.K.J.B. comes close to the ecumenical R.S.V. and its Roman Catholic reading, "Confess your sins." All Christians have "faults" which are not necessarily sins or trespasses.

Despite being told in the Introduction to the New Testament edition of the N.K.J.B. that, "A special feature of the New King James Bible is its conformity to the thought-flow of the 1611 version. The reader discovers that the sequence and identity 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 public reading of either edition while following with the other." The translators then proceed to change the syntax to give reverse meanings to well known verses.

"...who hold the truth the unrighteousness" (A.V.)

"...who changed the truth of God into a lie" (A.V.)

"...who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (N.K.J.B.)

"...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie" (N.K.J.B.)

In both these examples, the choice of verbs has changed the meaning of the A.V. Suppressing the truth and holding the truth are two different actions, as are changing and exchanging.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (A.V.)

"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." (N.K.J.B.)

The reversal of words here is significant. The A.V. is clear that the Lord Jesus Christ is equal with God -- a position which did not involve robbery. The rendering in the N.K.J.B. is weak, and could easily suggest that Jesus did not hold onto His equality with God.

The reading of the N.K.J.B. follows that of many modern perversions.

"...supposing that gain is godliness" (A.V.)
"...who suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (N.K.J.B.)

This is a clear reversal of meaning.

Included in the various translating committees of the N.K.J.B. were several Arminian theologians, or at least scholars coming from Arminian denominations such as Nazarene, Methodist, Free Will Baptist, and Assembly of God.

Several verses seem to have an Arminian flavor. For example:

"For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." (A.V.)
"For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (N.K.J.B.)

The term, "being sanctified" would be favorable to the Holiness movement, whereas in fact the believer IS sanctified.

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling" (A.V.)

"Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling" (N.K.J.B.)

Stumbling and falling are two dissimilar words. The revision would be more favorable to those who believe a Christian can fall from grace (i.e. Arminians).

"Christ is become of no effect unto you." (A.V.)
"You have become estranged from Christ" (N.K.J.B.)

The rendering of the N.K.J.B. suggests those who seek justification through the law were at one time not strangers to Christ (i.e. they lost their salvation). The A.V. makes it clear such people were never saved!

"...be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (A.V.)
"...be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (N.K.J.B.)

Without going into the interpretation of this verse, the prepositions "unto" and "at" indicate different time sequences.

Other verses which may be compared are It Cor. 2:10; I Cor. 16:2 (where the N.K.J.B. downgrades God's blessings and storehouse tithing), and I Cor. 1:22. The omission of italics in I Cor. 14 makes the tongue-speaker's lot a little easier.

If the N.K.J.B. is simply an updated A.V. then an honest comparison of the two ought to give rise to no changed meanings, no reversed meanings, and no additions or omissions.

Because the above has not shown this to be the case, the only conclusion is that we have two different Bibles. Granted, the differences may not be as great and devastating as between the A.V. and the R.S.V. for example, but isn't the most dangerous lie the one closest to the truth? Isn't the most deadly poison that which is clothed in purity?

Truly, the N.K.J.B. contains the Word of God (e.g. John 1:1), but it is NOT the Word of God (e.g. II Tim. 2:15). My personal opinion, based upon the facts outlined above, is that the N.K.J.B. is the "thin end of the wedge" designed to pry from the hands of Bible believing Baptists the Book God has blessed and been pleased to use for so long.