Darkness to Light Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director

The NKJV: A Perversion?

The following e-mail is commenting on the items listed at Bible Versions Controversy. The e-mailers’ comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.

> If you would get a good Noah Webster 1828, you wouldn't have to read a perversion.<

Webster's Bible is on my Online Bible CD ROM. And from what little I have looked at it, it does look like a worthwhile version. In fact, Webster's original intent was for it to replace the 1769 KJV. It is unfortunate it did not succeed. However, as far as I know, Webster's is not available in hardcopy format. So it would not due to serve as my primary Bible.

> Your NKJV falsely translates the Greek word malakos in 1Corinthians 6:9. The literal translation is "soft" as defined in Strong's concordance.<

I discuss the meaning of this and the related Greek word in-depth in the following article on my site: Homosexuals in 1Corinthians 6:9.

As for depending on Strong's concordance for lexical studies, let's just say my professors at seminary would have scoffed if I referred to it when doing doing Inductive Bible Studies. In other words, it is not exactly a reliable or scholarly resource.

> This may not seem important, but I can show how it is very important. Psychology and common sense both teach that the best way to cure a problem is to search out the steps taken to a certain point. I am not a psychologist so please excuse the vagueness of my writing. Simply put- one thing leads to another. The very next term is "abusers of themselves with mankind," or as in nkjv "sodomite". I believe that the men in our country who chose to act like women or be soft are not only one step away from homosexuality, but paved the road for America's acceptance of the gay lifestyle which is abomination. This may seem radical to you but I believe it is important to God.<

Interesting theory; but shows more a stereotypical attitude towards homosexuality than anything else.

> Besides how could both translations be God's word and disagree. If I said we are saved by apples and you said we were saved by oranges, one of us would be wrong. To say the KJV is wrong is to say people went for hundreds of years without the Word of God. God forbid!<

To say the KJV is wrong is to say the KJV translators were not perfect. And the the KJV never was the only English translation available. See The Revised Version of 1611 for more on these points. Furthermore, it is the Greek (and Hebrew text) in which God has preserved His Word; not in any translation.

>I don't own a NKJV but got my info from a co-worker's NKJV. He and I have been comparing scriptures and he is buying a KJV so he can trash his old perversion.


Referring to the NKJV as a "perversion" is the very attitude I try to avoid on my Web site. As for the reliability of the NKJV vs. the KJV, I discuss my attitude in this regards in detail on my site. See, for instance, the two part discussion comparing verses from the two versions beginning at: Verse Evaluations: KJV vs. NKJV - Part One.

Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

The above E-mail Exchange was posted on this Web site August 19, 1998.

Bible Versions Controversy: KJV vs. NKJV
Bible Versions Controversy

Text Search     Alphabetical List of Pages      Subject Index
General Information on Articles     Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page

Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla