In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
Kent,
Ward is doing a debate on the King James in October against Daniel Haifley. Perhaps Ward’s opponent (and the cause of truth) could benefit from your research on this. I’m not sure of the specific topic of the debate, but I think we can be certain that Ward will go heavy on his schtick that the fact that KJB folks won’t move to the NKJV is proof that they are Ruckmanites in disguise (that it’s not really about the text). Proving that the underlying text (whatever it is) behind the NKJV is different totally explodes his entire premise, so I would think that could come in handy for this debate.
Thanks for all your work,
Mat D.
Thanks. I heard about that debate, because Mark’s channel pops up when I go to youtube. I don’t know the man, but I’m open to helping anyone and getting help when needed. Thanks.
Thank you for doing that useful work, Bro Brandenburg.
I thought it might be appropriate to point out that the TR editors said that they collated many ancient manuscripts:
For example, the 1518 printing of the Textus Receptus at Venice, from the press of Aldus, affirmed that it was collated from “MANY of the MOST ANCIENT COPIES”:
“Many of the most ancient copies …”
Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graece cuncta eleganter descripsi. (Aldus 1518)
“[C]odices themselves being almost adored by the very appearance of antiquity … there is no letter at all otherwise than many, and even better books, as witnesses would confirm.” (Stephanus 1549)
[C]odices ipsa vetustatis specie pene adorandos … ita hunc nostrum recensuimus, ut nullam omnino literam secus esse pateremur quam plures, iique meliores libri, tanquam testes, comprobarent. (Stephanus 1549)
We have the famous quotation from the preface to the 1624 printing of the Received Text:
Therefore you have a text now accepted by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted … so that if there were even the smallest errors in our books, or in those whom we followed, they would be removed with judgment and care.
[T]extum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus … ut si quae vel minutissimae in nostro, aut in iis, quos secuti sumus libris, superessent mendae, cum judicio ac cura tollerentur. (Elzevir 1624)
So the editors of the Received Text claimed that they compared its text with “many ancient copies,” going over the text extremely carefully so that “even the smallest errors” were removed, with “no letter at all” not verified in “many” witnesses.
That does not of itself necessarily specify that the reading “shall be” in some TR editions is to be preferred to the reading “holy” in other TR editions in Rev 16:5, but it is worth being aware of.
Those are very good quotes, Thomas. Very helpful. It’s good to have people reading and giving good material like this on our side.
It is interesting that Ward is debating that person. As discussed here:
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-dean-burgon-society-and-king-james.html
Dayspring Bible College, where the debate is being held, is a radically anti-repentance, false gospel, KJV school. This is the Dayspring statement:
Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts 20:21, II Corinthians 7:8-10. One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is the misuse of the word repent. To insist upon repentance that in any sense includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man might have and accepting God’s way of salvation. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase, “repent of sin to be saved.”
I wonder why Ward will debate a false teacher like this but he won’t debate me.
Thomas,
I heard of the debate and knew it was someone on the board of this King James Version Council, or something like that. I’ve never watched or heard anything with that and didn’t know what it believed. The kind of things you’re writing about though doesn’t surprise me and it also doesn’t surprise me that Ward is more concerned about his “false friends,” etc. than he is the gospel. I’ve seen that already. He doesn’t say a thing about those kind of issues. However, he teaches perfect preservation people like they are evil.
Yes, it is very inconsistent, but it is like Logos Bible Software / FaithLife, his employer, not publishing things like John Burgon’s works on the TR but having huge Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Seventh Day Adventist base packages.
Mr. Haifley’s statement of faith on his website says zero about repentance, but it does say this super weird statement:
We believe that Jesus died on a Cross and shed His blood so that everyone would have a chance to be saved. He was buried, but came out of the grave – alive three days later. He did this to pay for our sins. If we believe this was for us, and accept Him as the only way to heaven, we should ask God to save us and GIVE US AN ETERNAL SOUL based upon what Jesus did.
What in the world is that? It isn’t what the Bible teaches on the gospel, that’s for sure.
I just posted this on Mark Ward’s announcement of the debate:
Dear Dr. Ward,
Good day! I heard on Dr. Brandenburg’s What is Truth? blog that you are going to do a KJV debate with a Mr. Haifley at Dayspring Bible College. I do not have a working email for you, so I am posting this here. I wrote this some time ago:
https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-dean-burgon-society-and-king-james.html
where I warned about how Dayspring teaches a blatant, Zane Hodges-type anti-repentance false gospel. I am obviously not in on why you are choosing to debate this individual, nor am I in any way a spiritual leader or a pastor in your life, but when the location hosting your debate affirms as its statement of faith:
Repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man may have and to accept God’s way of salvation. Repentance does not in any sense include a demand for a change of conduct before or after salvation. Matthew 21:32, Acts 20:21, II Corinthians 7:8-10. One of the counterfeits Satan is using today is the misuse of the word repent. To insist upon repentance that in any sense includes a demand for a change of conduct either toward God or man is to add an element of works or human merit to faith. Penance is payment for sin. Penitence is sorrow for sin. Works add something of self in turning from sin. But repent (metanoeo) means a change of mind. Repentance in salvation means a change of mind from any idea of religion that man might have and accepting God’s way of salvation. Nowhere does Scripture use the phrase, “repent of sin to be saved.”
You could well be debating an unregenerate man, and should expect lots of unregenerate people in the audience. I, for one, will certainly not promote a debate between you and someone who I believe is a false teacher teaching a false gospel, and I do not want to give Mr. Haifley any prominence at all. I would debate him on the gospel, perhaps, but would have nothing to do with him as a KJV proponent. I would much rather attend a church that uses the NASV–or even an NIV or even an NRSV, as grossed out by them as I am–but preaches repentance than one that waves a KJV around and denies repentance (if those were the only two options–thankfully, they are not).
I would politely but strongly encourage you to either:
1.) Reconsider debating this person because of his false gospel, or
2.) If you do a debate, in the debate specifically point out that he teaches a false gospel and call on him and everyone present there to reject his false gospel and embrace the Christ who is both Lord and Savior.
Respectfully,
Thomas Ross
By the way, it looks like Ward deleted my comment. Maybe he will stand against his false gospel. I’m not holding my breath.
Tenrin,
I didn’t print your comment, but it was helpful in many ways, some not, but mainly a help, and I made changes based upon it. I’m happy to have someone else do this work. My main standard is finding if the NKJV versus KJV point is true, which at this rate, it is very much true, that point I’m making.
Kent,
Thanks for pursuing this. It is worthwhile work, even though sometimes it seems like trying to nail Jello to the wall.
Kent or Thomas,
Where did Mark make his debate announcement, on his YouTube channel? I had not heard about it until now (been a bit preoccupied with a history project I’ve started). Thanks for letting us know.
He announced it on his youtube channel. Thanks!
Kent,
What this list says to me is that you believe the KJV translators made THE right translation choice and that no other translation based on the same text would be acceptable. I went through this list of yours and nearly all, if not all, of the differences could simply be translation differences. Seriously, strepho and epistrepho, could easily be translated the same way in English. Same with proskalleo and kalleo. I think an argument could be made for every one of these so-called differences in text.
What your list shows is that the only real difference between the KJV and the NKJV is that the NKJV is easier for the modern reader to understand and not get messed up with archaic sentence structure, archaic words, or false friends.
It is so much the same, that even you got confused and made a mistake:
13:36—NKJV, CT, “declare,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “explain,” phrazo
It is the KJV that has “declare” here. Explain is the better translation, and it works for either of those two Greek words.
Hi Andy,
Actually I didn’t make a mistake that was based on the reasoning you gave. I simply tried to reformat it later after doing my original work and I didn’t check enough to see I formatted it wrong, because I was in too much of a hurry. I don’t have editors and three or four helpers, like Mark, except for people taking shots, like yourself. I don’t think you care if it is from the same text or not, even though they said it was the same text. I have no skin in the game. I hope its the same text. I just don’t think it is based on my own looking. I can give numerous examples if I was more interested in taking the time. You guys aren’t going to look them up.
I think it’s interesting making a critique of this, because I am very sure that you haven’t looked to the extent that I did, even though I’m doing it in very little spare time (I’m in church planting right now, which means I’m also pastoring, and a few other things, including discipling four different couples/families every week, and evangelizing a lot here). The reason I say that I don’t think you have is that you really need to compare. First, there must be a textual variant. Second, where the variant is, do they translate the variant like the KJV or like the ESV or a like translation? I also tried to look at the majority text, because I knew you guys would be raking me over the coals. I still have quite a low bar though, because the question is, did they rely in any place on a different text than the KJV did. What I found is that it was quite natural for them not to follow the same text, because they have a bias against it.
Anyway that’s the real explanation, Andy, not your conspiracy theory. Thanks for helping me with that formatting error (and I mean that), which is what it was, not a Freudian slip as you claimed it was, something you couldn’t judge. But, I get accustomed to that from you guys.