NKJV 1982 vs 1984/85

For the odd person in the same boat as us :

A group of us are memorising whole books of the Bible using the NKJV translation.

Unfortunately, we were finding minor variations of wording between our different copies of the Bible. (Two printed copies, one iPhone copy, one Android copy, and BlueLetterBible.org.)

Imagine how difficult it is to get word-perfect recital when different copies of the text are worded slightly differently! The meaning didn't change, but it was impeding our memorisation efforts.

We examined the copyright notices and other info but found no indication of different editions/revisions - yet the wording clearly did differ.

Scouring the web found no info, except one passing comment in one article claiming (without reference) that the NKJV has been tweaked multiple times as a commercial decision to make it more like the NIV. Plausible, but without any further evidence offered and no other websites even mentioning that there are different revisions at all, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt as to motives for the changes.

I searched high and low on the Thomas Nelson website, to no avail.

I rang Thomas Nelson, and they said that my particular query would be best emailed to a particular department.

I emailed, shortly before new year, hoping they would answer quickly (because our memorisation was largely on-hold until this was resolved) but knowing that new year and other factors could cause delays.

So I was pleased this morning to note they have replied, and their reply was very helpful.

I don't know if I should reproduce exactly what they sent me, but the short of it is this :

• The NKJV has two editions/versions. The original 1982 version, and a revision made in 1984 and typeset in 1985.
• Thomas Nelson claims the 1984 amendments improved the "accuracy, clarity, and consistency" of the translation. Again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Thomas Nelson is owed the benefit of any doubt here as to motives.
• My childhood Bible, given to me in 1988, was, by the sound of things, probably old shelf stock of the original (i.e. 1982) version.
• All confusion could have been avoided if for example the revision had a copyright 1984 notice, but unfortunately both original and revised versions carry a copyright 1982 notice and there are no apparent distinguishing features other than looking at particular verses where wording was altered.
• Thomas Nelson said that no list of changes between the original and revised NKJV editions is available. (I'm sure it exists somewhere, but nearly 30 years on, that "somewhere" might be very hard to find.)
• Thomas Nelson said that all electronic copies of the NKJV, and all paper copies using the 1985 typesetting (i.e. all but the oldest copies), are all the 1984 revision.

Many thanks to Thomas Nelson for answering my questions and providing clarity on the matter. This means :

• We can use iPhone, Android and online versions of the NKJV with confidence that the text across these platforms will be identical now and in the future.
• We can compare printed copies to the electronic copies to determine whether the printed copy is the original or the revised/amended text, and for copies that are the original, avoid them for memorisation purposes.

It also explains why the spoken copy of the NKJV I have seemed to have misreadings throughout - the reader was probably using the revised (i.e. 1984) NKJV when I had memorised using the original (i.e. 1982).

How to check your NKJV revision in a single verse

Matthew 2:3a : in the 1984 revision (i.e. all electronic NKJVs, and most printed ones), it says "When Herod the king heard this", whereas in the original 1982 version (i.e. just the oldest printed copies), it says "When Herod the king heard these things".

Again, these are trivial differences with no effect on the meaning - which is perhaps why Thomas Nelson didn't see fit to advertise it as a new revision or update the copyright notice - but it makes a difference when memorising.

(Note also that at least in the Matthew 2:3a exhibit, both "this" and "these things" are italicised, meaning they are implied by the Greek, not directly present in it, so there is no question of variation in literality here.)

So to the rare person out there stumbling on this particular problem, there's the answer, and hopefully I've saved you the hassle of going through this research process yourself.

Thanks again to Thomas Nelson for promptly answering my detailed questions.

Socialists Hate Speech

Socialists love propoganda, but they hate speech.

Two cases crossed my desk in the last 24 hours, and another is ever present.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff dared state in a private meeting that Mohammed, having married a 9 year old girl, "had a thing for little girls."

She was tried without jury and by a lone judge, who found her guilty of "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion", and faces 60 days in prison.

Yup - y'know, those overcrowded taxpayer-funded holding centres need another inmate on account of her expressing accurate but "unacceptable" views.

Case #2 - I'm behind the times - but Miss California (Carrie Prejean) was directly asked on a public TV show what she thought of homosexual "marriage".

Taken by surprise by the unexpected question on a highly controversial topic, she answered with great grace and dignity :

we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman.

Remember that in Marxist ideology, anything that advances "the cause" is moral; anything that hinders it is "immoral".

Accordingly, Miss California was targetted on public TV and in other media by high-profile media personalities and subjected to venomous hateful insults and accusations.

But remember - she's the one guilty of "hate speech".

Y'know, Perez Hilton calling her a "dumb bitch" and a "cunt" is not hate speech.

News anchor Giuliana Rancic called her "an ignorant disgrace" and said "she makes me sick to my stomach".

All for politely answering a loaded question by saying "you can believe whatever you want, but since you've asked my belief, I happen to believe xyz".

Clearly, to the Socialist clergy, "hate speech" is what they do - they hate speech.

They love propoganda.

But they hate speech.

Toe the "politically correct" line (i.e. the line that they made the politically correct line over decades - not any line that was politically correct say 100 years ago).

Or else you're a hateful bitch. Or bastard, doubtless, as the case may be.

Methinks, Hitlon, thou speakest of thyself.

Case #3 is of course the ever-present sea of pornography all around us.

We should embrace and celebrate it, apparently, because it represents "free speech".

Hmmm.

Last I knew, "speech" consisted of propositional communication.

I make a claim. You analyse it, and present flaws and/or counterclaims, ideally with evidence (although with Socialists, "what we believe is right" is sufficient evidence in most cases).

Much like what I'm doing here. Propositional communication.

My proposition is simple : Socialists hate speech. They hate it. They love propoganda - anything that enshrines their cause - but they hate speech.

And pornography is actually yet another example.

Supposedly we who oppose pornography in any significant way are blocking "freedom of speech".

That's as stupid as saying that if I get someone's permission to cut them into cubes with a chainsaw in full public view in Times Square, New York (taking said person from the land of the living to the land of the very dead) that to oppose me is to oppose "free speech".

"What a stupid example" I hear, because, after all, any claim and any story that doesn't toe the politically correct line is by definition "stupid" at best, and "hateful" if by any ridiculous stretch of the imagination one can deem it so.

But no, it is the stupid Socialists who are stupid. And the non-Socialists who fall in line who are even stupider - hence this article - let's awake from our stupour and unstupidify ourselves.

But enough stupid wordplay.

The point is, an act or display that is non-propositional, is not speech.

And so Socialists, championing pornography in the guise of "free speech", prove once again that they hate speech.

Or else I could justify any act of cruelty, violence, or even terrorism, in the name of "free speech".

Speech is propositional.

Socialism is propogandistic.

So they're not exactly best friends.

Sure, Socialism uses speech extensively. Because speech has power.

But try speaking against the Approved Beliefs. Not Halal.

Y'see, speech has power, but you must not use speech against Socialism. By Marxist definition, that would be immoral.

And in the meantime, we'll use "hate speech" laws to shut you up if you dare try.

Speech indeed is powerful.

Which is why little micro-speech sites like this shake the world. Y'know, "the pen is mightier than the sword", and all that jazz.

And which is precisely why those who hate speech, codify their hatred of speech in "hate speech" laws.

But Truth has a habit of remaining true, no matter how many people assert otherwise.

Which means by definition, Truth won't go away, no matter how many hate speech laws we create, and no matter how many Elisabeths and Carries we throw in prison or under the bus.

Your mission - nay, your responsibility, whether or not you choose to accept it, has always been the same : find Truth, live it, love it, and tell it.

If I don't see you in prison (or under the bus), it'll be because you spoke up and God had mercy, or else because you stayed silent and I went there without you.

But the nature of war is this : the battle will always come to you.

Always.

So you either step up and engage where the fighting's hot now.

Or it comes to you, and interferes with your "quiet life" some time from now.

Or if in God's mercy, it never gets that far, shame on those who slumbered whilst the battle raged.

Speak now.

Speak wisely.

Speak boldly.

Speak strategically.

Speak with love, gentleness, kindness, compassion, firmness, precision, bluntness, and even anger, mockery, scorn, ridicule and jest as befits the occasion.

Speak. Your enemies will not be silent.

Speak, 'til the tide is turned, and then some, 'til the tide is far retreated, and then some more, until civilisation is established where once there was sea.

Or speak until you are silenced, and not just with legal threats, confiscation, imprisonment, harrassment, threats, and physical harm, but until your tongue and your pen are silenced.

And then write with your foot.

And speak on and on whilst you have breath.

For speech is powerful. And those who hate speech want to silence it.

Love speech.

And use it.

Communists are hypocrites

Hypocrites! On the one hand Socialists claim that it is immoral that anyone should get a better start in life on account of their parents - e.g. through advanced private education, advanced private healthcare, or a sizeable inheritance.

(Hence for example their rabid devotion to death duties aka inheritance taxes, and eliminating competition against public schools as our dearly beloved comrade Bob Brown is eager to do.)

And then the uber-Socialists, known as Communists, give Kim Jong-Il's son a better start in life on account of his father.

(He's been appointed Supreme Commander over North Korea in place of his deceased father.)

If Communists weren't hypocrites, any one of the millions of other North Koreans would have had equal chance to "ascend the throne".

But don't expect Communists to be consistent, nor Communist theory to work in practice.

What's good for you, comrade, isn't good for me, 'coz I have to do your thinking for you. Don't ask questions - it all makes sense to us, and we are your mind. Just keep working, and trust that we have your best in mind.

Yeah right.