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.

Watch out for Canadian terrorists

Seen any Canadian terrorists recently? Better watch out for those Canadians - they can be dangerous.

Probably get it from the bears.

This article is just one of many I want to focus on : Canadian charged in murder of 5 US soldiers in Iraq.

First six words?

"An Iraqi national living in Canada"...

Oh. Ok, so maybe it isn't Canadians generally. I didn't think the ones I'd met seemed that dangerous.

Must be Iraqis then.

But hey - I met some Iraqis too. Not sure they were really a risk.

Oh - the article says more :

"The case offers a glimpse into the murky world of Iraqi resistance fighters who allegedly trolled Arab countries for young, impressionable Muslims willing to give their lives for a promise of Islamic martyrdom."

Ah - I see. Not just any old Iraqis. Muslim ones.

So why does the headline suggest Canadians are a danger? Isn't "Muslim" a more accurate predictor of terrorist tendencies?

Why do so many "newspapers" insist on referring to terrorists as "Asians" or any other designation that disguises the fact that most of them are motivated by their adherence to their understanding of Islam?

What value is a political correctness that dulls us to the dangers around us?

Imagine learning to drive a car by only looking out sideways for dangers. You wouldn't get far. And we try to drive nations like that?

Sure, I know heaps of friendly muslims, as do you.

But let's not pretend that randomness turns hat-toting Canadians into gun-and-bomb-toting terrorists.

In years of yore, they thought that flies and mice arose spontaneously.

We now call that superstition.

Mice and flies arise from specific circumstances.

So too does Islamic terrorism.

Call it what it is, identify how it spreads, and do something about it.

Just stop pretending Canadians or Asians are the problem. Something in Islam is.

Yes, maybe not something in the Islam that Abdul next door practices, but something in the wider range of beliefs called Islam is doing a very good job of encouraging people to blow themselves up to kill non-muslims. Call a spade a spade. These are Muslim terrorists. And they even boast about it, and even tell us that their religious beliefs drive them to these actions.

And don't call it "extremism" either. Forsaking wealth and living every day to quietly serve those dying in pain - that's extremism. That's the kind of extremism Mother Theresa - yep, her again - resorted to. Extremism - even religious extremism - is simply something a long way from the norm, whether good or bad. It's often good. It's often bad. So don't say "Muslim extremists". In fact, from their perspective, you represent extreme evil - hey, that's why they wanna blow you up.

In fact, I could mount a pretty good case that destroying a baby's future life rich with choices, in the name of choice, is atheistic extremism. But you wouldn't want to change your view on that now, would you...

So drop "extremist". Investigate. Enquire. Open mouth to ask. Shut mouth. Listen intently. Don't assume. Ask next question. Whoohoo - now we're getting somewhere.

The Muslims are not all terrorists at heart. Phew! I'm glad about that. Very glad. But the terrorists of greatest risk to us today are Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.

UPDATE : Just another of many examples : German man arrested over alleged al-Qaida plot

Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

More bloodlust from the religion of piece

Despite Australian naivety, the religion of piece has some systemic issues. Y'know, the "tread our line or we'll tear you to pieces" kind of thing. Very moderate. Very pluralistic. Very humanitarian.

This time, a 17-year old fella is bashed to death in school during school hours, by his muslim school teacher and a few muslim schoolmates. For displaying two crosses he was wearing on his person.

The fact that Abdullah living next door in suburban Sydney denounces violence doesn't mean Abdu's a muslim and these Egyptian dudes are just schizophrenic freaks - any more than it means those Egyptian dudes are muslims and those "moderate" muslims around you are freaks. Newsflash : they're all muslims.

It's just some take their holy book more seriously. Which ones, you ask? Now that's a good question...

Uni students do a 180 on abortion

There's a new movie out called "180". Worth a watch.

A wide range of uni students are interviewed one-on-one or one-on-two, and go from pro-abortion to pro-life and pro-adoption.

What changed their minds?

Find out : 180movie.com