This is part of what the introduction to the NKJV states, "However, its now archaic and sometimes obsolete vocabulary and phraseology led Thomas Nelson Publishers in 1975 to consult with informed representatives of the Bible-reading public on the need for a revision of the King James Version. ... The consensus of these leaders was that a careful revision of the King James Bible should be made, one that would retain as much as possible of the text and language of that historic version. The result would be the New King James Version—a translation of the Biblical texts that represents the fifth major revision of the Authorized Version."
These "informed representatives" who were summoned by Thomas Nelson Publishers must have been ignorant of the truth:
1. The King James Bible does not actually contain "obsolete" words.
2. The use of the word "archaic" is by far more emotive than factual, and is a relative word depending on which sources of language authority are consulted.
3. The Nelson revision was not merely to "update the language", but to alter its textual basis.
4. The Nelson revision was not to merely "update the phraseology", but to make a new and altered translation.
5. There have been more than four "major" revisions of the King James Bible, that is, editions which contain important editorial work which have been monumental in bringing about the proper presentation of the King James as it is today.
6. The nature of the historical "revisions" of the King James Bible (which are editions which exhibit purification work as the result of editing, to fix past typographical errors and/or standardise the spelling) is entirely different to the wholesale "revision", that is, a new and modern version, which resulted from Thomas Nelson.
7. The New King James Version was instigated by a business, and operated in such a way as to appeal to their intended target audience: they of course obtained a consensus of agreement, as there is a spirit of the world which does have a particular anti-Biblical agenda, which spirit is obviously rife even among people who profess the name of Christ.
|