Books and eBooks by the Director
Verse
Evaluations:
KJV vs. NKJV - Part One
The following is continued from Correspondence on KJV vs. NKJV - Part One and Part 2. On those pages, Gregg and I discussed in general the relationship of the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). The Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV for "Literal Version") and the Modern King James Version (MKJV) were also referred to.
Here, specific verses are evaluated. Gregg’s comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. They are taken from various e-mails and a chart he sent me. My replies to his comments are in red. The subtitles are taken from Gregg's chart. They indicate the degree of seriousness in which Gregg believes the NKJV mistranslates a verse.
The verses are in four groups, from the most serious to the least serious "errors" according to Gregg. This first part of this exchange will look at the first two categories and part two the last two. Under each verse reference is first the rendering of the KJV, then that of the NKJV.
Egregious Errors
First off, I had to look up the word "egregious" to see what it means. According to the dictionary on MS Bookshelf 95, it means, "Conspicuously bad or offensive" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved). OK, so we are taken about errors that should be very obvious, and obviously bad.
Genesis 2:7
soul (vs.) living being
>(KJV) "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
(NKJV) "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
There is no Hebrew support for [the NKJV's] translation. Every source I consulted uses "soul" instead of "living being."<
I would agree that nephesh should probably be translated as "soul" in this verse. It is done so in both the LITV and MKJV. But in the NKJV’s defense, the word does have a range of possible translations.
In the KJV it is variously translated as:
soul 475, life 117, person 29, mind 15, heart 15, creature 9, body 8, himself 8, yourselves 6, dead 5, will 4, desire 4, man 3, themselves 3, any 3, appetite 2, misc 47; 753 (from the Online Bible).
Moreover, the Online Bible gives "living being" as one of its possible definitions. The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and Greek Lexicon (BDBG) even lists "living being" as the second definition after "soul" (p.659). And note, BDBG is THE standard Hebrew lexicon.
Interestingly, A Concise Lexicon to the Biblical Languages, by J.P. Green (the editor of the LITV and MKJV) has the following in its entry for nephesh, "soul, self, life, as living being, of man, Gn 2:7 ..." (p.159). So there are "sources" and Hebrew support for "living being."
When a word has more than one possible meaning, as it often does, it is the job of the translator to decide which of these possible translations to use. As one of my Greek teachers at seminary would emphasize, "Context, context, context" is always the final arbitrator of which meaning to use.
In this case, you, and maybe even myself, may disagree with the NKJV's translators' decision. But their choice is not an "egregious error" as "living beings" is a possible meaning of nephesh.
1Kings 14:24, 15:12,
etc.
sodomites (vs.) perverted persons
>(KJV) 14:24 "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."
15:12 "And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and
removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
(NKJV) 14:24 "And there were also perverted
persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations
of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the children of
Israel.
15:12 "And he banished the perverted persons from the land,
and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."
A terrible translation on the part of the NKJV translators. A perverted person could mean just about anything!<
The footnote in the NKJV for 1 Kings 15:12 reads, "Heb. qedeshim, those practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals." BDBG gives only one meaning for qedesh, "temple-prostitute (man)" (p.873). The Online Bible also only has one definition, "male temple prostitute." Green’s Concise Lexicon has "temple-prostitute (male)" (p. 205).
So, as you indicate in your chart, this is a case where, "A more literal and correct alternate is provided in the margin notes of the NKJV." Now, if it was up to me, I would put the "more literal and correct alternate" in the text itself, and use footnotes for explanatory purposes when the literal rendering is not clear. The NKJV does follow this pattern in some cases; but in others, like here, it does the reverse. But at least the NKJV does include an accurate meaning of the word somewhere.
Moreover, note that the KJV’s "sodomites" is not a completely accurate translation. A sodomite is, "One who engages in sodomy" and "sodomy" can mean 1. Anal copulation of one male with another. 2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 3. Copulation with an animal" (American Heritage Dictionary).
So the word "sodomy" does not fully capture the meaning of qedesh. It can include the idea of homosexuality, but not of temple prostitution. If I was translating the Bible, I would probably render the word as, "male temple prostitute."
Ecclesiastes 12:11
masters of assemblies (vs.) scholars
>(KJV) 'The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."
(NKJV) "The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd."
Clearly there is no debate here, the KJV renders the most literal and correct translation! I don’t see how the could use scholars in place of the KJV choice!!<
I would agree that the KJV has the better rendering, mainly because there are two Hebrew words being rendered here, rather than just one as the NKJV would indicate.
But note, the second Hebrew word in the phrase can mean, "members of learned assemblies" (BDBG, p.63). So the NKJV rendering captures the connotation that the "masters" are learned. Also, the NKJV does footnote the reading "masters of assemblies." So again, the NKJV does the reverse of what I think it should do. The explanatory word "scholars" should be in a footnote and the literal phrase in the text itself.
Hebrews 2:16
"to take on" (vs.) to "give aid"
>Once again, another egregious error on the part of the NKJV translators. This translation is far worst than any of the versions I consulted. I also could not find one Greek definition that would support "give aid":
(KJV) "For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham."
(NKJV) "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham."
(Young) "for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,"
An egregious error which has no support in any Greek dictionary.<
You may not have found any, but I found five Greek lexicons and other Greek reference works that give definitions for epilambanomai that are similar to the NKJV rendering.
The first is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Walter Bauer, translated by William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. This was the lexicon we were told to use at Denver Seminary. Definition "2c" for epilambanomai is, "be concerned with, take an interest in; help is also possible" (p.295).
The second lexicon is one that was highly recommended by one of my Greek professors, Greek-English Lexicon by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida. One possible definition for this word in Louw and Nida is, "to be concerned about, with the implication of possible help" (Vol. 2, p.355).
The third reference work is Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, by Fritz Rienecker. It has the following to say about this word in this verse, "epilambanetai, present, middle, indicative. To take hold of, to seize, to take to one’s self. The word may have in this context the sense of ‘to help,’ ‘to assist,’ ‘to draw someone to one’s self to help’" (p.670).
The fourth reference work is Word Pictures in the New Testament by noted Greek scholar A.T. Robertson. He states about this word in this verse, "{Doth he take hold} (epilambanetai). Present middle indicative and means to lay hold of, to help, like boêthêsai in verse #18" (from the Online Bible).
Verse 18 that Robertson refers to reads, "For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able TO AID those who are tempted" (NKJV; emphasis added). The KJV has "to succour" which means, "To give assistance to in time of want, difficulty, or distress" (American Heritage Dictionary).
The fifth reference work is Word Studies in the Greek New Testament by Kenneth S. Wuest.
Wuest writes about this verse:
The words "he took" are epilambanetai in the Greek text. The verb means "to take, lay hold of, take possession of." By a metaphor drawn from laying hold of another to rescue him from peril, the word came to mean "to lay hold of for the purpose of helping or succoring." It is used in this latter sense here.The words in the Authorized Version "him the nature of," are in italics indicating that they are not in the Greek text but are supplied by the translators in an effort to translate the passage. They are superfluous and give the reader the wrong interpretation of the passage, in view of the meaning of epilambano here. The idea here is that the Lord Jesus, in His work on Calvary’s Cross, did not provide for the salvation of fallen angels but for the salvation of fallen human beings….
Translation. For, as is well know, He does not take hold of angels for the purpose of helping them, but of the seed of Abraham He takes hold, with a view to succoring them (Vol.II, pp.64-65).
So the KJV translators were forced to add a phrase which has not basis in the Greek text in order for their translation to make sense. But by doing so, the KJV gives "the reader the wrong interpretation of the passage." Meanwhile, with the NKJV rendering no such additions are needed to the text.
Now, in each of the lexicons and reference works above, "to take hold of" is indicated as being the primary definition while "to help" is an expanded or metaphoric definition of the word. Wuest tries to combine both of these meanings in his translation. But by doing so he ends up with a rather awkward translation (which is par for the course for "expanded" or "amplified" type of versions).
The NKJV footnotes "take hold of" as being the "literal" translation while giving the "expanded" meaning in its text. If it was up to me, once again, I would reverse the way NKJV handles this verse. I would put "take hold of" in the text and "give aid to" or "help" in a footnote.
But, as the above five sources indicate, "to help" is a possible connotation of the word. So the NKJV does have warrant to use "give aid" in its text. It most definitely is not an "egregious error" for it to do so.
1 Peter 3:20
God (vs.) Divine
>(KJV) "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
(NKJV) "who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while [the] ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."
(Young) "who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah—an ark being preparing--in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;"
This is a egregious error on the part of the NKJV translators. I could not fine one source to support the NKJV translation of this verse.<
Actually, what this is, is an example of a "change" that has occurred between editions of the NKJV. The NKJV was originally published in 1982. A couple of times new editions have come out since then. The newer editions have made a few minor changes from the original one. I would assume since you just bought your NKJV is a new edition.
I first noticed this in Gen 37:5. In my compact, reference edition of the NKJV (copyright 1983) it says that "Joseph dreamed a dream." This is how the passage is rendered in the KJV, LITV, and MKJV. It is a literal rendering of the Hebrew.
But in the NKJV portion in The KJV/ NKJV Parallel Reference Bible (copyright 1991) it says simply "Joseph had a dream." It is also rendered this way in the NKJV on my PC Study Bible. This is how the verse is rendered in the NIV.
Why the change was made I am not sure. Maybe Thomas Nelson Publishers were trying to improve the sales of the NKJV by making it sound a little more like the better-selling NIV.
In any case, in 1 Peter 3:20 in my compact NKJV the phrase in question is rendered as it is in the KJV, "the longsuffering of God." Why this change was made I am not sure. Even in the NIV "God" is used, "God waited patiently" (still not real accurate; but it is the NIV!).
Now before you "jump" on these changes in editions as "proof" there is a problem with the NKJV, remember that the KJV went through several editions in its early years. The KJV you are using is NOT the 1611 KJV.
But all of that said, in the two examples above I would agree that the NKJV went from a "better" to a worse translation. I will only say that the above two verses are the only ones to date that I have noticed a difference in editions. But now that I know my PC Study Bible has a newer edition, and my compact NKJV an older one, I will be on the lookout for any other changes.
In any case, to give a slight defense to the NKJV rendering, one of the definitions for theos under "3f" in Bauer is, "Almost as a substitute for the adjective divine" (p.357).
1John 3:8,9
commit (vs.) ?
>The NKJV omits their translation for this word. Most other translations use "practice."
(KJV) "8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."
(NKJV) "8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."<
The Greek text for the beginning of verse eight is, ho poioon teen harmartian. A literal rendering of this phrase would be, "The (one) doing the sin." The NKJV combines the participle "doing" and the noun "sin" into "sins" (i.e. "He who sins"). I would agree that combining these two words into one would not be appropriate. However, in verse nine the NKJV does translate the verb and noun separately (i.e. "does not sin").
Serious Errors
Acts 17:29
Godhead (vs.) Divine Nature
>(KJV) "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
(NKJV) "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising."
(Young) "Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art and device of man"
(NIV) "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."
The NASB [New American Standard Bible] supports Divine Nature. No other translation does. Godhead is the most correct. It makes no sense to use the word "Nature." How can God’s nature be copied in gold, silver or stone?
Strong’s definition is:
2304 theios {thi'-os} from 2316; TDNT - 3:122,322; adj
AV ["Authorized Version" i.e. the KJV] - divine 2, Godhead 1; 31) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father<
I really don’t see much of a difference here. "Nature" in this context would not be referring to nature in the sense of plants and animals but in the sense of "essence" or "being." Paul is saying that the "essence" of God cannot be displayed using precious metals.
Or to put it another way, "How can God’s nature be copied in gold, silver or stone?" That is the point Paul is trying to make to the Athenians.
In any case, there is lexical support for "divine" and even "divine nature."You quote Strong's as saying the KJV has "divine" twice for this word. The verses are 2Peter 1:3,4.
Rienecker states about this word in Acts 17:29, "theios divine" (p.309). Robertson has, "To theion is strictly "the divine" nature like theiotês (Rom 1:20)" (from the Online Bible).
Definition "1b" in Baur is, "subst. 'to theion' divine being, divinity" (p.353). And "being" in this context would be similar to the NKJV's "Nature."
Romans 4:25
raised again for our justification (vs.)
raised because of our justification
>(KJV) "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."
(NKJV) "who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification."
This one really jumps out at you. Without referring to the Greek I knew that Jesus’ resurrection was not dependent on our justification but our justification was dependent on his resurrection!!! The NKJV follows the primary meaning but the primary meaning is not necessarily the best selection for every verse! The NKJV really makes no sense!<
Translating prepositions can be rather difficult. A translator must decide in what sense the preposition is being used. For help in translating these difficult (though important) little words, I generally consult A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. This is the book I used in studying intermediate Greek at seminary.
For the preposition dia Dana and Mantey indicate the meaning "because of" is "very common" but make not such remark for the meaning "For the sake of, for" (p.102).
Note, Jesus shed His blood and died for our justification (Matt 26:28; Mark 10:45; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13). All was "finished" that was necessary for our salvation "through the blood of the cross" (John 19:30; Col 1:14,20). His resurrection came afterwards. Nowhere in Scripture, as far as I can remember, is Jesus’ resurrection linked to our justification. So it could be said that the KJV rendering is not accurate.
I taught a Bible study through the Book of Romans a few years back. While preparing my lessons, I struggled over the meaning of this verse. I finally concluded that Paul’s point is that God raised Jesus so that we could know He had accepted Jesus’ propitiation for our sins (cp. Acts 17:31).
If Jesus had stayed dead then we would have had no way of knowing that His death was "unique." But the resurrection was "because of" God’s acceptance of the sacrifice.
A.T. Robertson states about this verse, "The second dia is quite clearly prospective with a view to our justification. Paul does not mean to separate the resurrection from the death of Christ in the work of atonement, but simply to show that the resurrection is at one with the death on the Cross in proof of Christ's claims" (from the Online Bible).
John Gill comments on this verse, "Christ's resurrection did not procure the justification of his people, that was done by his obedience and death; but was for the testification of it, that it might fully appear that sin was atoned for, and an everlasting righteousness was brought in; and for the application of it, or that Christ might live and see his righteousness imputed, and applied to all those for whom he had wrought it out" (from the Online Bible).
Marvin Vincent states on this passage, "But if the whole matter of the justification depends on what He has suffered for our offences, we shall as certainly be justified or have our account made even, if He does not rise, as if He does. Doubtless the rising has an immense significance, when the justification is conceived to be the renewal of our moral nature in righteousness; for it is only by the rising that His incarnate life and glory are fully discovered, and the righteousness of God declared in His person its true moral power. But in the other view of justification there is plainly enough nothing depending, as far as that is concerned, on His resurrection" (Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, p.57).
So various commentators agree with me that our justification depends not on Christ's resurrection, but on His death. His resurrection is the "proof" that our sins have been forgiven. In this light, "because of" does make sense in this verse.
1Corinthians 6:9
effeminate (vs.) homosexual
>(KJV) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
(NKJV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,"
A bad choice on the part of the NKJV translators. Strong, NASB, and Young use effeminate.<
First, I was not quite sure what "effeminate" meant. So I looked it up, "ef·fem·i·nate (î-fèm¹e-nît) adjective 1. Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men. 2. Characterized by weakness and excessive refinement" (American Heritage Dictionary). So the KJV rendering does not imply homosexuality as the NKJV does.
But what does the Greek word mean? The difficulty for the translator here is that there are two words being used, one right after the other, with very similar definitions. The first is the word under question, malakos; the second is arsenokoites.
This second word is rendered "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV and "sodomites" in the NKJV. Since I cannot look up a phrase in a dictionary, I am not really sure what the KJV means. The phrase could be taken in many ways. But the NKJV is clear that we are talking about sexual sins.
According to Baur, when used in reference to people as it is here, malakos means, "soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually" (p.488).
Meanwhile, Baur defines arsenokoites as, "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite" (p.109). So there is not doubt the words are referring to homosexual, sexual sins, just as the NKJV indicates but as the KJV does not.
Rienecker’s definitions of these two words is similar, "malakos soft, effeminate, a technical term for the passive partner in homosexual relations.… arsenokoites a male who has sexual relations with a male, homosexual" (p.402).
But what is the difference between these two words? Louw and Nida explain, "arsenokoites: a male partner in homosexual intercourse - ‘homosexual.’ … It is possible that arsenokoites in certain contexts refers to the active partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with malakos, the passive partner…. As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse" (Vol. 2, pp.772,3).
So in no uncertain terms, Paul in this passage is declaring that any person engaging in homosexual sex, be they the "active" or the "passive" partner, "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Note also, that in none of the above definitions is this homosexuality tied in with "temple prostitution" as was the case with 1Kings 14:24; 15:12 above. Here it is simply homosexuality of any form.
Moreover, the textual footnote in the NKJV for the first word "homosexual" reads, "catamites, those submitting themselves to homosexuals." The footnote for the second word "sodomites" is, "male homosexual."
So the NKJV in its text and especially with its footnotes expresses the meaning of the Greek words very clearly and accurately. But the KJV is neither clear nor accurate in its translation. For more on this verse, see my article "Homosexuals" in 1Corinthians 6:9.
2Corinthians 2:17
corrupt (vs.) peddle
>(KJV) "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
(NKJV) "For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ."
According the definitions provided by Strong and Vine, the use of corrupt is closer to the original than peddle. For an illustration: "I can preach the word for gain (peddle) and not corrupt it."
The most literal rendering is "adulterating the word" or "fraudulent hucksters of the word." Corrupt is the most correct.<
First, it would help to define the words used in the two translations. "Corrupt" means:
1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.The definition of "peddle" is:
1. a. To travel about selling (wares): peddling goods from door to door.
b. To engage in the illicit sale of (narcotics).
2. Informal. To seek to disseminate; give out: peddling lies.verb, intransitive
1. To travel about selling wares.
2. To occupy oneself with trifles (American Heritage Dictionary).
"Corrupt" in this context probably refers to definition number three. So Paul would be talking about people who add "errors" or make "alterations" to the Word of God. "Peddle" on the other hand, refers to people who travel about selling something, plus there there is a possible "negative" connotation to the word.
But which translation is closer to the meaning of the Greek word? Rienecker states about this word, "kapeleuo to peddle, to pawn off a product for gain. The word is used in the LXX [Septuagint] in Isa 1:22 for those who mix wine with water in order to cheat the buyers (Plummer)…. The word refers to those who peddle or merchandise the Word of God for profit" (p.458).
So Rienecker uses the word "peddle" twice in his definition. And the idea of "selling" is definitely involved, but so is the idea of "altering" what is sold.
Bauer defines kapeleuo as, "trade in, peddle, huckster.... Because of the tricks of small tradesman ... the word comes to mean almost adulterate" (p. 403). So "peddle" appears to be primary meaning of the word. But an extended meaning could be "adulterate."
Interestingly, the NKJV footnote gives an alternate translation of, "adulterating for gain." The meaning of "adulterate" is, "To make impure by adding extraneous, improper, or inferior ingredients" (American Heritage Dictionary). This dishonest action is exactly what Rienecker was describing in regards to Isa 1:22.
So by combining the text reading and the footnote, the NKJV expresses the meaning of the Greek word rather well, both its primary and then its secondary meanings. Paul is talking about people who travel about selling the Word to make money while making the Word impure by adding improper elements to it. Meanwhile, the KJV's "corrupt" only expresses the secondary meaning of kapeleuo. The primary idea of "selling" is not in the KJV.
Or to put it another way, "I can corrupt the word and not sell (peddle) it." So the NKJV is more accurate, especially when the footnote reading is included.
Summary
Altogether, you pointed out what you consider to be 10 verses with "egregious" and "serious errors" in the NKJV. In some of these verses, I agree with you that the KJV reading might be "better" than the NKJV's. But in some of the verses I would not consider the NKJV to be in "egregious" and "serious error" but simply different than the KJV.
Other times, I believe the NKJV actually has a better rendering than the NKJV. And in five of the ten verses you cite, what you would consider to be the better reading is included in the footnotes of the NKJV. And in each of these instances I agree that the footnote reading is probably to be preferred.
So by and large, the only really "egregious" problem with the NKJV is that, at times, it places in a footnote what I, and you, think should be in the text, and vice-a-versa. Bottom line, users of the NKJV should be sure to read the footnotes.
Lastly, even if the NKJV were truly in error in these 10 verses, with 32,102 verses in the Bible, this would constitute only 0.03% of the verses in the Bible. With further study, you might find a few more verses you consider to be in "error" in the NKJV; but still, the overall percentage would be still be rather low.
In any case, your two groups of less serious "errors" will be looked at in Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part Two.
Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light
The above e-mail exchange was posted on this Web site November 1997.
Bible
Versions Controversy: KJV vs. NKJV
Bible Versions Controversy
Verse
Evaluations and Word Studies
Text
Search Alphabetical List of Pages
Subject Index
General Information on Articles
Contact Information
Darkness
to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian